Dr. Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

CONSTITUTED BY THE RANGIA COLLEGE FOR INTERVIEW HELD ON 20.11.2019 FOR SELECTION OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS IN RANGIA COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL RANGIA COLLEGE RANGIA 781103

¶16

5:MD. MOFIDUL HASSAN

¶17

Page No.# 2/6

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS RANGIA COLLEGE RANGIA DISTRICT KAMRUP R ASSAM 78110

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MAHANTA, MR D MAHANTA,MR. M K CHOUDHURY

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. M P SARMA,MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR. A BORO,MS N NEWME,MS S SARMA HAZARIKA,MR. U K NAIR,MR. J PATOWARY (r-5),N GAUTAM,MR. K N CHOUDHURY (r-5)

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 10.03.2025

¶25

Heard Mr. D. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. M.P. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 3 & 4 and Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶26

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Dr. Nirmala Devi had challenged the recommendation and appointment of the respondent No.5 and for quashing the appointment order dated 06.08.2020 for the post of Assistant Professor in Rangia College in respect of an unreserved post in the subject ‘Economics’, pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.08.2019 and consolidated marks of statement in respect of respondent No.5 and the petitioner prepared by the Selection Committee so constituted by the Rangia College against the interview held on 20.11.2019 for the post or to issue direction to the respondent authority to correct the marks of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 after examining the documents on record and to appoint the petitioner on merit.

¶27

Page No.# 3/6

¶28

3. The grievance of the petitioner, being sought to be addressed herein this petition, is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by Rangia College on 20.08.2019, the petitioner herein applied for the post of Assistant Professor in ‘Economics’ and appeared before the selection committee on 20.11.2019. But, unfortunately, she came out to be unsuccessful. She then filed one RTI application seeking the particulars of interview held on 20.11.2019. Thereafter, the Principal, though initially refused information but as per direction of this Court, dated 08.12.2020, had furnished consolidated statement of marks of the selection. Then after perusal of the same, she found that 5.5 marks have been wrongly awarded to the respondent No.5 and thereafter, recommended his name for being appointed in the said post. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that 2.99 marks was not given to the petitioner, which she is entitled to and had the marks been calculated correctly then the petitioner would have stood first. The petitioner then filed one representation before the respondent No.2, for cancellation of the appointment of respondent No.5 on 12.03.2021 and thereafter, filed an appeal before him on 17.08.2021, but the same failed to evoke any response. Therefore, she approached this Court praying for aforesaid relief(s).

¶29

4. The respondent No. 3 and 4 filed their affidavit-in-opposition. Their contention is that the respondent No. 5 is M.Sc. in ‘Economics’ and the conversion formula applicable to the Master in Arts, Law and Fine Arts are not applicable to Master in Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine, Commerce, Management etc. and that in between the petitioner and respondent No.5 another candidate namely, Bandita Deka is there who had secured 69.76 marks and that Gauhati University Notification dated 21.05.2018, was not applied in the selection process which the petitioner had relied upon.

¶30

Page No.# 4/6

¶31

5. The respondent No. 5 also filed his affidavit-in-opposition denying the contention of the petitioner and his stand is that he is M.Sc. in ‘Economics’ and the conversion formula applicable to the Master in Arts, Law and Fine Arts are not applicable to Master in Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine, Commerce, Management etc. and that he has rightly been awarded 22 marks in Master Degree and that he has been released from Rangia college in the meantime and he joined Pandu College as Assistant Professor in the department of Economics.

¶32

6. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for petitioner, referring to Annexure-7 at page No. 35 of the writ petition submits that the respondent authority, specially the selection committee had given marks to her in B.A. Examination, after conversion 11.50 instead of 14.15 and further awarded 14.66 marks in M.A. Examination, instead of 15 marks, after conversion, which is contrary to Office Memorandum No. AHE-407/2017/44 dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure-8) and letter of the Director of Higher Education, dated 16.11.2018 bearing Memo No. DHE/CE/UGC/Circular/136/2017/81-A (Annexure-9). Mr. Mahanta, further submits that had the marks been properly awarded to the petitioner she would have got 69.11 marks. Mr. Mahanta, further submits that the respondent No.5 was given 71.35 marks and had it been properly awarded he would have got only 66.35 marks, and that while awarding marks in Master Degree, the respondent No.5 was given 22 marks but as per conversion formula the same ought to have been 16.5. Therefore, Mr. Mahanta has contended to refer the matter to the respondent No. 2 to examine the matter of awarding of marks and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

7. Per contra, Mr. Upamanyu, the learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the respondent No.2 may be directed to examine the matter and to arrive at a decision.

¶35

8. On the other hand, Mr. Patowary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 had already left the college and even if his selection is cancelled then also the petitioner will not be entitled to appointment as another candidate is there who had secured higher marks than the petitioner. Mr. Patowary also submits that the respondent No.5, being M.Sc. in Economics, was rightly given 22 marks in Master Degree and that there is no necessity of doing the exercise again.

¶36

9. Mr. M.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and 4 submits that because of this proceeding the post which is lying vacant on account of release of the respondent No.5 is suffering a lot and that there is no merit in this petition and therefore, contended to dismiss the same.

¶37

10. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.

¶38

11. It appears that the dispute relates to awarding of marks in B.A. and M.A. Examination of the petitioner and awarding of marks in Master Degree in respect of the respondent No.5, by the Selection Committee. Except this, the basic facts here in this case are not in dispute. Further, it appears that the petitioner had filed one representation before the respondent No.2, for cancellation of the appointment of respondent No.5 on 12.03.2021 and thereafter, filed an appeal before him on 17.08.2021. But the same are yet to be disposed of by the respondent No.2.

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

12. Under the given facts and circumstances, specially in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.5, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by directing the Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati, (respondent No.3), to examine the matter in the light of the Office Memorandum No. AHE-407/2017/44 dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure-8) and letter of the Director of Higher Education, dated 16.11.2018, bearing Memo No. DHE/CE/UGC/Circular/136/ 2017/ 81-A (Annexure-9) and to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 12.03.2021 and also the appeal filed on 17.08.2021, by a reasoned order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein.

¶41

13. Since the vacancy in the said college is yet to be filled up and consequent upon the college authorities are suffering a lot, the respondent No.2 is directed to carry out the aforementioned exercise within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 3, with in a period of one week from today.

¶42

14. The parties have to bear their own costs.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Nirmala Devi v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Nirmala Devi v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Judy H. Lalmuanpuii Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi)

Sh. Rosangliana Vs Smt. Lalhriattiri and 6 Ors.

Sh. Rosangliana Vs Smt. Lalhriattiri and 6 Ors.

Sri Bhabakrishna Barman Vs the State of Assam

Dairy Prasad Upadhayay Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

PRINCIPAl and Anr. Vs Dr. Nirmala Devi and 3 Ors.