Dr. Prativa Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 6:PRINCIPAL SELECTION COMMITTEE OF GORESWAR COLLEGE GORESWAR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (VICE CHANCELLOR BODOLAND UNIVERSITY) GORESWAR COLLEGE GORESWAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 7:THE GOVERNING BODY OF GORESWAR COLLEGE GORESWAR REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DIST. TAMULPUR ASSAM PIN- 781366. 8:DR. PRATIVA PATOWARY D/O- LATE SARD CHANDRA PATOWARY HOUSE NO. 8-H SHANTI VALLEY APARTMENT BLOCK-A P.O. GATANAGAR P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781011. 9:THE DIRECTOR INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL BODOLAND UNIVERSITY DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 10:UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY 35 FEROZE SHAH ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-11000

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR. H R DAS

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, BODOLAND UNIVERSITY,MRS R DEKA (R-7),MR. A CHAMUAH (SC, UGC),MR S MUKTAR (R-8),SC, BTC

¶17

Page No.# 3/19

¶18

Linked Case : WP(C)/3543/2023

¶19

DR. PRATIVA PATOWARY DAUGHTER OF LATE SARAT CH. PATOWARY HOUSE NO. 8-H SANTI VALLEY APARTMENT BLOCK-A P.O.- GOTANAGAR P.S.- JALUKBARI DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781011. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC) REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 3:THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION BTC BODOFA NWGWR KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783370. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BTC KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 783370. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAKSA DISTRICT

¶20

Page No.# 4/19

¶21

MUSHALPUR PIN- 781277. 6:THE GOVERNING BODY OF GORESWAR COLLEGE GORESWAR DISTRICT- BAKSA PIN- 781366 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 7:DR. PRAMOD MEDHI THE PRINCIPAL GORESWAR COLLEGE GORESWAR DIST.- BAKSA PIN- 781366. -----------Advocate for : MR S MUKTAR Advocate for : SC HIGHER EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶23

Date : 03-09-2025

¶24

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

¶25

Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order, since the issues involved are similar. The matters were taken up for hearing on 22.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and thereafter on 12.08.2025. I have heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.598/2024 and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. P.P. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023. I have also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for the BTC respondents, Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for the said Department, Mr. V.K. Barooah, learned counsel for the Bodoland University, Mr. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, UGC and representing

¶26

Page No.# 5/19

¶27

the UGC respondents and Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body, Goreswar College, Goreswar.

¶28

[2.] Controversy in the instant case revolves around the filling up of the post of Principal, Goreswar College, Goreswar on regular basis. An advertisement was floated in the local daily dated 01.01.2023 inviting applications from eligible candidates having the qualification for the said post with supporting testimonials from HSLC onwards. The controversy involved can be narrowed down for consideration on two conditions provided in the said advertisement. The first being condition No.5, which provides that one must have a minimum of 10(ten) research publication in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a minimum of 110 research score as per Appendix-II at Table No.2 in order to be eligible to be considered for the post in question. The second is condition No.10, which provides that preference shall be given to the candidates belonging to Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR).

¶29

[3.] Pursuant to the said advertisement, interested candidates including the petitioners in both the cases, submitted their applications. Interview was held on 06.04.2023 and out of the three candidates, who were called for interview, one was absent and both the petitioners in the two cases appeared for the interview. The petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023 scored a total of 427.4 marks with an average of 61.05 while the petitioner in WP(C) No.598/2024 scored 400.58 marks with an average of 57.23 marks. The Selection Committee therefore vide Resolution No.1, selected the petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023 for appointment against the post concerned based on the performance in the interview held on 06.04.2023 and further resolved that the resolution of the Selection Committee be forwarded to the Governing Body for its approval and

¶30

Page No.# 6/19

¶31

necessary action for appointment.

¶32

[4.] Thereafter, a special meeting of the Governing Body, Goreswar College was convened on 16.04.2023, wherein the Governing Body resolved to appoint the petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023, who was selected and placed in the first position by the Expert Committee of Bodoland University for the post of regular Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar. By the said resolution, it was also mentioned that the petitioner in WP(C) No.598/2024 who has secured the second position, is a permanent resident of BTR area. Accordingly, the Principal in-Charge/President of Governing Body was authorized to submit the proposal to the Director of Education, BTC for necessary action. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Education, BTC vide order dated 10.05.2023 appointed the petitioner in WP(C) No.598/2024, who was placed in the second position as regular Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar w.e.f the date of his joining the said post. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023 submitted a representation before the Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar, Assam as well as the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, Assam on 15.05.2023 praying for reconsideration of the approval given by the Director of Education, BTC in view of the fact that she was selected in the first position by the Selection Committee. Since the same was not considered, the said petitioner filed WP(C) No. 3543/2023.

¶33

[5.] The said petitioner by relying upon the marks allotted by the Selection Committee as well as the Resolution of the Governing Body of the Goreswar College, namely, Resolution No. 3 has claimed that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 could not have been appointed since she was found to secure the first position scoring more marks than the latter. Further, the Clause-

¶34

Page No.# 7/19

¶35

10 of the Advertisement could not have been put into operation, given the fact that she had secured more marks than the latter. Against the said writ petition, the respondent Governing Body, Goreswar College as well as the private respondent No. 7, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Likewise, the respondent No. 4, who is the Director of Education, BTC has also filed a counter-affidavit. In all the affidavits filed, stand taken is that the private respondent No. 7 or the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 being a local resident of BTC has been given the preference in terms of Clause – 10 of the Advertisement and therefore, there was no irregularity in giving him appointment.

¶36

[6.] It may be stated herein that the private respondent No. 7 in whose favour the appointment order was issued also filed a writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 by making the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 as respondent No. 8. In his writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the eligibility of the respondent No. 8/petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 to participate in the interview for the post of Principal of Goreswar College in view of the prescription made in the Advertisement and importantly, in view of what has been stipulated in the Clause – 5 of the Advertisement dated 01.01.2023. In other words, the said petitioner contends that the respondent No. 8 could not fulfill the basic requirement of minimum of 10 (ten) research publications in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and she could not fulfill minimum of 110 (hundred and ten) research score as per Appendix-II at Table No. 2 (insofar as non-fulfillment of the minimum research score as per Appendix-II at Table - 2, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not press the same), and therefore, the acceptance of the candidature of the respondent No. 8 for the post of Principal in question is ex-facie arbitrary and in violation of the eligibility

¶37

Page No.# 8/19

¶38

criteria stipulated in the UGC Regulations, 2018 published in the Gazette Notification dated 18.07.2018.

¶39

[7.] As per the said petitioner, he had submitted 20 (twenty) number of research papers along with other research works fulfilling the requirement of Regulation 4.1 V.A.(iii) of the UGC Guidelines, 2018. The said petitioner also contends that in view of such shortcomings, which the petitioner detected after applying for information through RTI, submitted his representation before the Vice-Chancellor, Bodoland University as well as the Director of Education, BTC on 01.02.2024 with a request to inquire into the anomalies in regard to the selection process of the post of Principal, Goreswar College, Goreswar. Since, there was no response from the authority concerned, the petitioner initiated his writ petition by filing the same on 06.02.2024.

¶40

[8.] In response to the writ petition, the private respondent No. 8, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023 filed her counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner contending inter-alia that she was placed in the first position in the Selection Process and that she has secured 10 (ten) of her research papers published in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals which she had clearly mentioned in Part- B at Page- 3 & 4 of her application form dated 13.01.2023 and that the 10 (ten) research papers with cover page of the journals have been submitted along with the application form mentioned at Serial No. 20 of the contents from Page No. 37 to 155. In other words, she having clearly fulfilling the criteria stipulated in the Advertisement as per the UGC Regulations and also having scored more marks than the writ petitioner, she ought to have been appointed in the post of Principal of Goreswar College. To support her statements, the respondent No. 8 annexed the contents of the

¶41

Page No.# 9/19

¶42

application form (Part A & Part B) to the affidavit. The University Grants Commission (UGC) who was subsequently impleaded as party respondent No. 10 to the writ petition also filed their counter-affidavit, giving comments on the list of publications submitted by the two writ petitioners with a specific statement that UGC refrains from making any comments on the research articles which are claimed to be published in peer-reviewed journal because no such record of such journals are on its database.

¶43

[9.] The Director of Education, BTC on behalf of itself as well as on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed counter-affidavit stating that preference can be given to candidates belonging to BTC as per Clause- 10 of the Advertisement and as regards the publication of research papers by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 8 being peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals, the BTC constituted a Committee vide BTC Notification under Memo No. BTC/Edn-133/2022-23/Pt-II/635 dated 04.04.2024 for re-verification of the research papers published in the journals submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 for the post in question. A meeting was conducted on 01.06.2024 and accordingly, the minutes was recorded stating that the respondent No. 8 had submitted 10(ten) research papers and out of these, only 1 (one) paper has been published in UGC-care-listed journal and valid for consideration. Another 4 (four) papers are neither published in the indexed nor in peer-reviewed journals and hence, liable to be rejected. The peer-reviewed status of validity of the remaining 5 (five) papers could not be confirmed due to lack of pertinent information. As for the writ petitioner, he had submitted 20 (twenty) papers and out of which, 18 (eighteen) papers were valid for counting, 5 (five) papers were published in Scopus-indexed journals and 13 (thirteen) in the peer-reviewed journals and the remaining 2 (two) papers are not published

¶44

Page No.# 10/19

¶45

in peer-reviewed journals and therefore, may be rejected. It may be stated herein that the findings of the said committee is subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and that no steps in terms of the findings of the committee has been taken, since the Court is in seisin with the matter. The respondent BTC to support their contentions annexed the meeting minutes to the counter-affidavit.

¶46

[10.] The respondent Nos. 5 & 9, which is the Bodoland University have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition contending that the post of the Principal was advertised in accordance with the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 and the Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the relevant rules. They have also maintained that the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities, 2018 prescribes the minimum eligibility criteria for the appointment of college Principals in Regulation 4.1 and that the research publications as well as qualifications of the applicants must conform to the standards prescribed therein. The Screening Committee constituted for the purpose inspected the research papers of all the applicants and duly verified their authenticity prior to the awarding of research scores in accordance to the norms prescribed by the UGC Regulations of 2018. It is, however, stated that though the Screening Committee meticulously inspects each and every research publications to ensure that they conform to the norms and standard prescribed, but it is not possible for the Screening Committee to precisely determine the quality of each and every research publications of a large number of candidates. In the instant case, the Screening Committee evaluated all applications received, in accordance with the provisions of UGC Regulations, 2018 and that there is no irregularity and biasness in such evaluation.

¶47

Page No.# 11/19

¶48

[11.] The University has further contended that the 4 (four) disputed research publications of respondent No.8, have been published in the journals that are peer-reviewed/refereed journals and research course to these publications were allotted in accordance with the criteria prescribed in AppendixII Table- 2 of UGC Regulations, 2018 after due verification. In support thereof, a chart indicating the manner in which the same are accepted as peer-reviewed etc., has also been demonstrated in the affidavit-in-opposition.

¶49

[12.] To respond to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the private respondent No.8 filed an affidavit-in-reply on 25.07.2025, questioning the validity of the Committee constituted on 04.04.2024 in view of the fact that the members of the Committee were said to be involved and instrumental in the illegal appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of Principal in Goreswar College. That the Chairman of the Re-verification Committee who is also the Secretary, Education, BTC had influenced the Director of Education, BTC to appoint the writ petitioner and therefore the reverification is not acceptable.

¶50

[13.] Over and above, the aforesaid pleadings of the parties concerned, the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective petitioners as well as the departmental counsels have made their respective submissions.

¶51

[14.] Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the appointment of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598/2024 as Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar cannot be sustained, in view of the fact that the petitioner whom he represents was declared to have secured the first position by the constituted Selection Committee as he scored 427.4 marks over 400.58 marks scored by the latter. Referring to the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition of

¶52

Page No.# 12/19

¶53

the respondents, the learned Senior Counsel submits that invocation of Clause10 of the Advertisement dated 01.01.2023 can be done only when all things are equal. Since the petitioner, whom he represents has clearly scored more than the private respondent, Clause-10 cannot be attracted. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has referred to the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 2776/2024 (Dr. Madhab Sutradhar Vs. State of Assam & 6 Ors.), the case of G. Jayalal Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2013 7 SCC 150 and the case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R.Srinivasulu & Ors. reported in 2003 5 SCC 341.

¶54

[15.] The learned Senior Counsel in response to the challenge made by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 insofar as the requirement of having a minimum of 10 (ten) research publications of peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals is concerned submits that the petitioners he represents has got her 10 (ten) research papers published in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals which she has clearly mentioned in her application form dated 13.01.2023 and she has also submitted the cover page of the journals in support thereof. He submits that the cover page of the journals clearly show whether the journal is peerreviewed or UGC-listed and its impact factor. The total research score of the deponent comes to 434.5. The learned Senior Counsel submits that at any rate, it is not open for the private respondent to make a challenge to the assessment made by the Selection Committee by filing the writ petition belatedly, since recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner he represents as far back as on 06.04.2013. He submits that the writ petition filed by the private respondent No. 7 is only to counterblast the legitimate claim made by the petitioner and not for any other reason. He submits that the recommendation

¶55

Page No.# 13/19

¶56

made by the constituted Selection Committee having held the petitioner to have secured first position supported by appropriate marks, the appointment of respondent No. 7 should be set aside and the petitioner he represents be appointed to the post in question.

¶57

[16.] Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand submits that the petitioner, he represents submitted an application for information with regard to the research papers submitted by the respondent No. 8 [petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023] through RTI and it is revealed that she could not fulfill the basic requirements of minimum of 10 (ten) research publications in peerreviewed or UGC-listed journals and she could not fulfill minimum of 110 (hundred and ten) research score as per Appendix- II at Table No. 2 and therefore, the acceptance of candidature of respondent No. 8 for the selection of Principal of the College in question is ex-facie arbitrarily and in violation of the eligibility criteria stipulated in the UGC Regulation of 2018. He further submits that the petitioner had also submitted representations dated 01.02.2024 before the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar and to Vice-Chancellor, Bodoland University, Kokrajhar praying for an inquiry into the entire process of interview but since no steps have been taken, the petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court.

¶58

[17.] The learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the following decisions:-

¶59

(I) Dr. Thoudam Rajen Singh & Anr. Vs. Manipur Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in 2015 SCC Online Mani 128,

¶60

(ii) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S Vs. Dr. Rajasree MS & Ors., reported in

¶61

Page No.# 14/19

¶62

2022 SCC Online SC 1473,

¶63

(iii) Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 2019 (Shehnaz Begum Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) and

¶64

(iv) Banashree Bharaddash @ Banashree Bhardwaj Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2015 5 GLR 56.

¶65

[18.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598/2024 has been rightly appointed as the Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar instead of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023 despite having secured lesser marks and having found to have secured second position in the selection conducted by the Selection Committee concerned. Secondly, whether the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023 could have been considered and allowed to participate in the interview process of the post in question.

¶66

[19.] As already stated earlier, dispute has been raised in respect of the contention provided under the Clause – 5 and Clause – 10 of the Advertisement dated 01.01.2023. Clause – 5 of the Advertisement provides that the applicant for the post in question should have a minimum of 10 (ten) research publications in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a minimum of 110 (hundred and ten) research score as per Appendix – II at Table No. – 2. Clause – 10 of the Advertisement provides that preference shall be given to the candidates belonging to BTR. The selection for the post of Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar was made in terms of the relevant provisions of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010. The constituted Selection

¶67

Page No.# 15/19

¶68

Committee conducted the interview of the eligible candidates for the post in question on 06.04.2023 and allotted 427.4 marks to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 while allotted 400.58 marks to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024. Accordingly, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023 was selected for appointment against the post in question and the result of the Selection Committee was sent to the Governing Body of the College for approval and necessary action. The Governing Body of the College held its meeting on 16.04.2023 and authorized the Principal In-Charge/President of the Governing Body to submit the proposal to the Director for necessary action. It was observed that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 had secured the first position while the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 secured the second position and is a permanent resident of BTR area. Thereafter, vide impugned Order dated 10.05.2023, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 who secured the second position was appointed as the Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar apparently on the ground that he belongs to the BTR area and therefore preference was given in terms of Clause – 10 of the Advertisement.

¶69

[20.] The stand taken is common as can be seen in the affidavit filed by the Governing Body, Goreswar College, the Affidavit of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 and in the affidavit of the Director of Education, BTC. However, the preference for candidates belonging to BTR can be invoked when the parties concerned are at par in other aspects stipulated by the Advertisement. The Apex Court in case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu & Ors. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 341 held that preference in the context of such competitive scheme of selection could only be made when all other things are qualitatively and quantitatively equal. This finding was also adopted by the Apex Court in a subsequent decision in G. Jayalal (supra). It

¶70

Page No.# 16/19

¶71

therefore appears that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 could not have been given the preference as per Clause – 10 of the Advertisement dated 01.01.2023 despite having scored lower marks than the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023.

¶72

[21.] It may be seen that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 has questioned the eligibility of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 to be considered for appointment to the post in question on the ground that she did not fulfill the criteria as provided in Clause – 5 of the Advertisement dated 01.01.2023, which is in terms of the UGC Regulations of 2018. It may be seen that although, the said petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 but no objection was made in this regard except for stating that he was given the preference and appointed as the Principal of the College in terms of Clause – 10 of the Advertisement. It may be further to be seen that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 and he received the notice issued to him by registered post with A/D on 26.06.2023 and returned the A/D card. As already stated, no objection in respect of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 for not having fulfilled the criteria stipulated in Clause – 5 of the Advertisement has been raised and it was only on 06.02.2024 that he raised the issue by filing WP(C) No. 598 of 2024. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 being arrayed as respondent No. 8 by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 in her counteraffidavit contended that she had duly filled up Part – A and Part – B of the application form containing total 9 (nine) pages along with all the required documents. She also contended that she fulfills condition No. 5 of the Advertisement. She secured 10 (ten) of her research papers published in peerreviewed or UGC-listed journals.

¶73

Page No.# 17/19

¶74

[22.] The respondent Bodoland University in their counter-affidavit has stated that out of 10 (ten) research publications submitted by the respondent No. 8 [petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023], the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 has disputed 4 (four) research publications for non-fulfillment of the minimum criteria prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2018 on the ground that there were not published in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals. Therefore, the University confined its response only to the 4 (four) research publications of respondent No. 8. The Paragraph- 16 of the counter-affidavit may be extracted hereunder for perusal:-

¶75

“16. Having made the submissions as above, the deponent begs to submit that the following disputed 4 (four) research publications of respondent no. 8 have been published in journals that are peer-reviewed/refereed journals and research scores to these publications were allotted in accordance with the criteria prescribed in Appendix II Table 2 of the UGC Regulations 2018 after due verification:

¶76

Sl.	Research Title	Journal of Publication	Comments on Journal	Availability of format
i.	Ensuring Quality in Higher Education in Rural Areas. Special Issue April,2018	Edu World ISSN 2319- 7129	A multidisciplinary international peer- reviewed/refere edjournal.	In print medium
ii.	Environment Study at the Undergraduate Level with Special Reference to Baksa District of Assam. Special Issue January- December,2021/2022	Education Today ISSN 2229- 5755	A multidisciplinary international peer- reviewed/refere edjournal.	In print medium
iii.	A Study on the	Education	A	In print

¶77

Page No.# 18/19

¶78

	Satisfaction Undergraduate Towards Education. Special Issue December,2021/	of Students Online January- 2022	Today ISSN 2229- 5755	multidisciplinary international peer- reviewed/refere edjournal.	medium
iv.	A Study on Habits of Students. Issue January-D 2022,Vol XI No.	Reading College ecember, 1	Thoughts on Education ISSN 2320- 4710	A peer- reviewed journal. An international journal of education & humanities.	In print medium

¶79

Copies of the cover pages of the aforesaid journals are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A- series, Annexure B-series and Annexure C-series.”

¶80

[23.] Therefore, having regard to the manner in which the post of Principal has been processed to be filled up in accordance with Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 and the requirement in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the dispute raised by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 cannot be accepted and it also appears to be an afterthought. The respondent authorities concerned could not have appointed the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 despite having found him to be in the second position and securing lesser marks than the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 on the ground that preference should be given as per Clause – 10 of the Advertisement. The said preference as already stated earlier, can only be applied in a case where all other things are qualitatively and quantitatively equal.

¶81

Page No.# 19/19

¶82

[24.] In the result, the Order dated 10.05.2023, the appointment of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 as the Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar is hereby set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee by appointing the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 as the Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar.

¶83

[25.] The WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 is accordingly allowed and WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.

¶84

JUDGE

¶85

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Prativa Patowary v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Prativa Patowary v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moushomi Purkayastha Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Imran Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Sri Deepjyoti Das Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Smti Manjulata Goyari Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti Kamala Devi Vs Mr Pritam Saikia and Ors.

Akhtar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Othrs