Allowed

Jintu Medhi v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Jun 2026WP(C)/2794/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a speaking order cancelling the selection for a reserved Junior Assistant post in a provincialised college despite the petitioner scoring the highest marks. The court held the cancellation order non-speaking and discriminatory, set it aside, and directed appointment of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24.04.2025 set aside; Director directed to appoint petitioner as Junior Assistant (Grade-III) against OBC/MOBC post within 15 days.

Jintu Medhi Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010108972025

2026:GAU-AS:8640

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2794/2025

¶6

JINTU MEDHI

¶7

S/O SRI GOPAL MEDHI R/O KHANAJAN BORJARI NO 1 MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782411

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶10

REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781006

¶11

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVT OF ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19

¶12

3:THE GOVERNING BODY OF BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE REP BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE BHAWANIPUR DIST BARPETA ASSAMPIN 781352

¶13

4:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ENGAGEMENT OF JUNIOR ASSISTANT

¶14

BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE BHAWANIPUR DIST BARPETA ASSAMPIN 781352 REP BY HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY OF SELECTION COMMITTEE CUM PRINCIPAL OF BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE

¶15

5:THE PRINCIPAL

¶16

BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE BHAWANIPUR DIST BARPETA ASSAMPIN 78135

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR SAURADEEP DEY

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MRS. S KHATANIAR (R-3,5)

¶19

Page No.# 2/17

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 12.06.2026

¶23

Heard Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D

¶24

Gogoi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Khataniar, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5.

¶25

2. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has presented a challenge to a speaking order dated 24.04.2025, issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, interfering with the selection made, in respect of a post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), in Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Bhawanipur, DistBarpeta, Assam, in pursuance to an advertisement, issued for the purpose, on 15.03.2023.

¶26

3. As projected in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner, herein, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 15.03.2023, issued by the authorities of the Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Bhawanipur, Dist-Barpeta, Assam, had submitted his representation for recruitment against one of the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), as advertised for OBC/MOBC category candidates. The application

¶27

submitted by the Petitioner having been found to be conforming to the

¶28

Page No.# 3/17

¶29

eligibility criterias, as mandated for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), the Petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process.

¶30

4. On conclusion of the selection process, it was found that the Petitioner had secured 60.993% marks, which was the highest marks secured by a candidate appearing for the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates. However, subsequently, the Petitioner came to learn that the Selection Committee had recommended one Sri. Himangshu Das, against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates.

¶31

5. Being aggrieved by the recommendations made in respect of the said Sri. Himangshu Das, the Petitioner had approached this Court by way of institution of a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 4197/2024. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.04.2025, upon examining the issues, arising in the said matter and also considering the marks secured by the Petitioner and said Sri. Himangshu Das, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 7, in the said proceedings, proceeded to interfere with the appointment, effected in respect of said Sri. Himangshu Das. Thereafter, the matter was remanded back to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, for arriving at a decision, as to the

¶32

Page No.# 4/17

¶33

suitable candidate, who would now be required to be so appointed against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, advertised, vide the advertisement dated 15.03.2023.

¶34

6. In pursuance to passing of the said order dated 04.04.2025, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 4197/2024, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, proceeded to pass a speaking order dated 24.04.2025, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for appointment against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III) reserved for the OBC/MOBC category candidates, advertised, vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023, on the ground that the selection procedure, as conducted in the recruitment to the said post, was erroneous.

¶35

7. Accordingly, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, while interfering with the appointment effected, in respect of the said Sri. Himangshu Das, proceeded to cancel the entire selection process, qua the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates.

¶36

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition.

¶37

8. Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that in the

¶38

Page No.# 5/17

¶39

advertisement dated 15.03.2023, it was categorically stipulated that the selection procedure, laid down, vide the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2022, would be followed. He submits that the selection process for all the posts, advertised, vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023, including the posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), was so carried out by following the procedure, as laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2022.

¶40

9. Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has further submitted that vide the said advertisement dated 15.03.2023, 4 (four) posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), were so advertised. Out of the 4 (four) posts advertised, 2 (Two) posts, were so advertised as Open category posts, 1 (One) post was advertised for SC category candidates and 1 (One) post was advertised for OBC/MOBC category candidates. He submits that following the same procedure, separate selections were held for 2 (Two) posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), advertised as Open category posts, 1 (One) post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), advertised for SC category and 1 (One) post, advertised for OBC/MOBC category candidates. He submits that the Director, after having interfered with the selection process so made, in respect of the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, as advertised, vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023, had not interfered with the appointments, effected through similar selection process,

¶41

Page No.# 6/17

¶42

for the other 3 (three) posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), as advertised, vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023. He submits that in the event, selection procedure for making selection against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, was erroneous, similar selection procedure, having been also followed for making selection against the 3 (three) other posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), advertised, vide the advertisement dated 15.03.2023, the said selections were also required to be cancelled by holding the procedure followed, to be erroneous. Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that while the selection, held for recruitment against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC candidates, came to be cancelled, the selection held for other posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), advertised, vide the same advertisement, was not cancelled. Accordingly, he submits that the contentions raised by the Director, in the speaking order dated 24.04.2025, is clearly perverse and the same would mandate an interference.

¶43

10. Mr. S Borthakur, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that on interfering with the said speaking order dated 24.04.2025, this Court would proceed to direct the Respondent authorities to appoint the Petitioner against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), advertised vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023, for OBC/MOBC category candidates, in terms

¶44

Page No.# 7/17

¶45

of the merit position obtained by him in the connected selection process.

¶46

11. Mr. S Das, Learned Counsel, submits that the selection procedure, as mandated to be followed for recruitment against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III) in a provincialised College, was laid down by the Respondent authorities, vide the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017. He submits that on the date when the advertisement in question, was so issued, it was the provisions of the said Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017, that was required to be followed by the College authorities for effecting recruitment against vacant Grade-III posts in the College. Mr. S Das, Learned Counsel submits that the Respondent College had committed an error in proceeding to conduct the selection in question, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.03.2023, by relying on the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017, although the same was not applicable. Mr. S Das, Learned Counsel, however, does not dispute the contentions raised by the Learned Senior Counsel that the Petitioner, that it was the Petitioner who had secured the highest marks in the selection, held against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.03.2023. It is submitted that while the appointment, made in respect for one Sri. Himangshu Das, was set-aside on the ground that he had secured lower marks than the Petitioner in the selection process, the entire selection

¶47

Page No.# 8/17

¶48

was required to be set-aside, on noticing that the selection was not so conducted, in accordance with the guidelines holding the field, i.e. the guidelines laid down, vide the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017. Accordingly, he submits that the claim made by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court.

¶49

12. Ms. S Khataniar, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, 4 & 5, submits that the selection in question to the posts, advertised, vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023, was carried out by the College authorities, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2022. She submits that by applying the same very guidelines one Sri. Nabajyoti Uzir and Sri. Partha Pratim Barman, were also selected for appointment against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), advertised under the Open category. She submits that no anomaly was pointed out by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, with regard to the selection made against the posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), in the Open category and the candidates appointed against the said posts, are continuing in their services, till the very date.

¶50

13. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶51

Page No.# 9/17

¶52

14. The authorities of the Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Bhawanipur,

¶53

Dist-Barpeta, Assam, vide an advertisement dated 15.03.2023, amongst

¶54

others, had advertised 4 (four) posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III). The break-up of the 4 (four) posts, so advertised, was as follows :

¶55

(i) UR against the Roster Point No. 7.

¶56

(ii) SC against the Roster Point No. 8.

¶57

(iii) UR against the Roster Point No. 9.

¶58

(iv) OBC/MOBC against the Roster Point No. 10.

¶59

15. The advertisement further stipulated that the educational

¶60

qualifications, requisite to be so processed by the intending candidates, as well

¶61

as the selection procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee, will be

¶62

that so prescribed by the Government, vide its Office Memorandums dated

¶63

24.01.2022 and 28.07.2022.

¶64

16. The Petitioner having satisfied the eligibility criterias, set-out for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), in a provincialised

¶65

College and he belonging to the OBC community, proceeded to submit his application for consideration of his case for recruitment against post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), as advertised vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023,

¶66

reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates.

¶67

Page No.# 10/17

¶68

17. On conclusion of the selection process, from the comparative

¶69

merit of the candidates participating against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, it is seen that the Petitioner had secured 60.993% marks, which was the highest marks secured by a candidate in the said category. However, the Respondent College, without assigning any reason, proceeded to recommend the name of one Sri. Himangshu Das, against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, although Sri. Himangshu Das had secured much lower marks than that of the Petitioner, herein, in the connected selection process.

¶70

18. The Petitioner being aggrieved had instituted a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 4197/2024, before this Court. A Coordinate Bench of this Court,

¶71

vide order dated 04.04.2025, proceeded to dispose of the said Writ Petition, by holding that an illegality was committed against the Petitioner, herein, as he had secured higher marks than said Sri. Himangshu Das (who was arrayed as Respondent No. 7 in the said Writ Petition), in the selection process.

¶72

19. Having drawn the said conclusion, the matter was disposed of with the following directions :

¶73

“ 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the selection of the respondent No.7 over the petitioner seems to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

¶74

Page No.# 11/17

¶75

Accordingly, the selection of the respondent No. 7 by the Selection Committee is hereby set aside. The Director is directed to take a decision as to whether the petitioner or the respondent No. 7 should be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant of the college, on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.03.2023. The matter is not being remanded to the selection committee for reconsideration, on account of the reasons stated above, wherein it appears that the selection committee has not been fair in selecting the respondent No. 7. The entire exercise should be concluded within a reasonable period and not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶76

11. Consequently, the appointment order dated 05.10.2023 appointing the respondent No.7 as Junior Assistant is hereby set aside.”

¶77

20. Accordingly, a perusal of the said directions passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court would go to reveal that the appointment of the Respondent No. 7 as Junior Assistant (Grade-III), in the College, was interfered with. The Petitioner had, thereafter, furnished a copy of the said order dated 04.04.2025, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, to the Director of Higher Education, Assam. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, thereafter, proceeded, vide a speaking order dated 24.04.2025, to cancel the entire selection process for the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved

¶78

for OBC/MOBC category candidates. The speaking order, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:

¶79

“ SPEAKING ORDER

¶80

Perused Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's Order dated

¶81

Page No.# 12/17

¶82

04.04.2025 passed in WP(C)/4197/2024 (Jintu Medhi -vs- The State of Assam and 6 Ors) whereby Court was pleased to set aside the appointment of Sri Himangshu Das, Junior Assistant of Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Barpeta and directed-

¶83

"10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the selection of the respondent No.7 over the petitioner seems to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, the selection of the respondent No. 7 by the Selection Committee is hereby set aside. The Director is directed to take a decision to whether the petitioner or the respondent No. 7 should be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant of the college, on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.03.2023. The matter is not being remanded to the selection committee for reconsideration, on account of the reasons stated above, wherein it appears that the selection committee has not been fair in selecting the respondent No. 7. The entire exercise should be concluded within a reasonable period and not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶84

"11. Consequently, the appointment order dated 05.10.2023 appointing the respondent No. 7 as Junior Assistant is hereby set aside."

¶85

On the basis of the recommendation of Governing Body of Bhawanipur Anchalik College and after necessary approval received from Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department vide letter Ecf No.303026/7 dated 29-052023, Sri Himangshu Das was appointed to the post of Junior Assistant in the Roster Point No.10 (Reserved for OBC/MOBC) in Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Barpeta.

¶86

Whereas after the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2025 of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, this Directorate has verified the record and found that the Selection Committee decision was arbitrary and not as per procedure laid down in relevant Guidelines/O.M. Since the selection procedure for the post of Junior Assistant in the Roster Point No.10 (Reseryed for OBC/MOBC) was erroneous, this Directorate has deemed it fit to cancel the entire selection process of the said post. Hence, Sri Jintu Medhi, though he obtained highest marks can not be appointed to the said post as the entire selection process is erroneous.

¶87

Page No.# 13/17

¶88

In view of the above, the appointment order issued in respect of Sri Himangshu Das vide letter No.DHE/CE/ACN/555/2023/41 dated 07-10-2023 stands cancelled and Sri Himangshu Das shall not be entitled to continue in the said post.

¶89

Further the College authority is directed to initiate fresh selection process to fill up the post in accordance with the existing rules and guidelines for appointment of Grade-III of Provincialised Colleges in Assam.”

¶90

21. A perusal of the said order would go to reveal that the Director of Higher Education, Assam, had noticed the order dated 04.04.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 4197 of 2024 and cancelled the appointment, effected in respect of Sri. Himangshu Das. Thereafter, the Director proceeded to verify the records and arrived at a conclusion that the Selection Committee’s decision, as regards the post of Junior Assistant (GradeIII), against the Roster Point No. 10, was not arrived, as per procedure, laid down in relevant guidelines and Office Memorandums.

¶91

22. Having drawn the said conclusions, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, held that since the selection procedure for the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III) against Roster Point No. 10 (reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates), was erroneous, the entire selection process for the said post was cancelled. Accordingly, it was held that although the Petitioner, herein, had obtained the highest marks, he cannot be appointed to the said post, as the selection process was erroneous. No further reason has

¶92

Page No.# 14/17

¶93

been disclosed in the said speaking order dated 24.04.2025, as to why, the selection procedure was held to be erroneous.

¶94

23. The absence of reasons, justifying the cancellation of the selection, against the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, in the order dated 24.04.2025, is sought to be filled up by the Respondent, Director of Higher Education, Assam, in the affidavit filed by her, in the present proceedings. In the present proceedings, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, by way of filing an affidavit, has projected that the selection, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.03.2023, being so carried out, in terms of an Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2022, the selection process was held to be erroneous. It is projected that the selection in question, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.03.2023, was to be so carried out, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017. However, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, in the affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition by her, has not proceeded further to explain, as to why, the said yardstick was not so applied, in respect of the other 3 (three) posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), as advertised vide advertisement dated 15.03.2023 and the selection for which

¶95

was also held, in terms of the guidelines laid down in the Office Memorandum

¶96

dated 28.07.2022.

¶97

Page No.# 15/17

¶98

24. In the event the procedure that was followed for recruitment

¶99

against the said post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, vide the advertisement dated 15.03.2023, was, dehors, the procedure mandated in this connection, the same very procedure being followed, in respect of the other posts, advertised, vide the same advertisement, the selection held against such other posts, also would have mandated to be interfered with. However, the said interference is not found to have been made and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, as well as, the Petitioner, by bringing on record further pleadings, have contended that the candidates, so recruited at least against 2 (two) posts of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), which were advertised in the Open category, vide the same advertisement dated 15.03.2023, are still continuing in the said College and no objection to their such continuance has been taken by the Director of Higher Education, Assam.

¶100

25. In view of the above conclusions, this Court finds that there being no justification set-out by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, in the said speaking order dated 24.04.2025, for cancellation of the entire selection process and only a vague projection being made that the selection process was erroneous, this Court finds the same to be a non-speaking order and the reason assigned to be not proper.

¶101

Page No.# 16/17

¶102

26. Accordingly, the order dated 24.04.2025, stands set-aside.

¶103

27. This Court also notices that the reasons, as advanced by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, for cancellation of the selection process, in the affidavit filed, would be of no consequence, inasmuch, it is a settled position of law that an order must stand or fall on the basis of the reasons assigned in the said order and the same cannot be supplemented, by reasons submitted subsequently in the affidavit.

¶104

28. Further, this Court has also noticed that even if the reasons assigned in the affidavit is to be taken on its face value, the same would also not mandate acceptance, inasmuch as, an apparent discrimination is made out, therefrom, against the Petitioner, inasmuch as, while the Petitioner’s selection was cancelled, the other selections made for the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), advertised against the Open category, vide the advertisement dated 15.03.2023, by applying the same very selection procedure, as applied, in respect of the post of Junior Assistant (Grade-III), reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, was not interfered with.

¶105

29. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned, hereinabove, the speaking

¶106

order dated 24.04.2025, stands set-aside.

¶107

30. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, is directed to issue

¶108

Page No.# 17/17

¶109

orders appointing the Petitioner, as a Junior Assistant (Grade-III), against the

¶110

post reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, vide the advertisement dated 15.03.2023, by reckoning that the Petitioner was the candidate securing the highest marks in the connected selection process for the said post. The appointment order of Petitioner be issued within a period of 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order.

¶111

31. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶112

JUDGE

¶113

Comparing Assistant

Jintu Medhi v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jintu Medhi v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipanker Boruah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Firdusi Rahman Chowdhury Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Jeanraipou Kabui Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Pankaj Bezbaruah Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Shri Siba Prasad Saikia Vs the State of Assam

Siba Prasad Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.