Smti Gitali Bordoloi Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/29

¶2

GAHC010108372025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:8232

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2867/2025

¶6

SMTI GITALI BORDOLOI DAS

¶7

ASSTT. PROFESSOR (HINDI)(AD-HOC), SANKARDEV MAHAVIDYALAYA, LAKHIMPUR, W/O SHRI SUSANTA KUMAR BORDOLOI, R/O VILLAGE BANGALMORA, P.O. ISLAMGAON, P.S. BIHPURIA, DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN 787054

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(HIGHER), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶11

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

¶12

3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE LAKHIMPUR-787001

¶13

4:THE PRINCIPAL OF SANKARDEVA MAHAVIDYALAYA PATHALI PAHAR LAKHIMPUR PIN-784163

¶14

5:GOVERNING BODY

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY SANKARDEVA MAHAVIDYALAYA PATHALI PAHAR LAKHIMPUR PIN-78416

¶16

Page No.# 2/29

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI, MS. D BORA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU,

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 10-06-2026

¶22

Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das,

¶23

learned standing counsel, Higher Education, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. None appears for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶24

The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 19-08-2024, issued by the Director, Higher Education, Assam, highlighting, therein, that the petitioner having been granted full weightage for teaching experience, i.e. 03 (three) out of 03 (three) marks as per the guidelines, in vogue, the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 21-11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, stood complied with.

¶25

The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:-

¶26

3.1. The petitioner has projected in the writ petition that she had all the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Lecturer, (now Assistant Professor) in the subject of Hindi. It is further projected that the Governing Body of Sankardeva Mahavidyalaya, in its

¶27

meeting held on 25-08-2005, recognising the need for engaging a qualified person to teach the subject Hindi in the College, had required an engagement of a qualified person

¶28

Page No.# 3/29

¶29

in this connection. Accordingly, the petitioner was required by the Principal of the Sankardeva Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as “the College”), to submit an application for engagement as Assistant Professor in Hindi against a non-sanctioned post. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for such engagement by also disclosing the qualifications possessed by her. The authorities of the College on being satisfied that the petitioner was suitable for such appointment, proceeded vide order dated 25-08-2005, to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor of Hindi on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner having continued in her services after her appointment was so effected vide the order dated 25-08-2005, against a non-sanctioned post on ad-hoc basis, the name of the petitioner came to be forwarded by the College authorities, to the Director of Higher Education, Assam and, therein, had shown her to be an existing employee in the College.

¶30

3.2. At this stage, a vacancy had arisen in the Department of Hindi, when an incumbent working against a sanctioned post of Assistant Professor, in the department, had died in harness on 19-06-2014. The petitioner by projecting that she had fulfilled all the requisite qualification mandated for appointment against a sanctioned post of Assistant Professor, approached the Director, Higher Education, Assam, through the Principal of the College vide a representation dated 17-04-2017, praying for regularization of her services. As the said representation submitted by the petitioner was being processed, the Director, Higher Education, Assam, vide a communication dated 26-07-2019, proceeded to direct for filling up the sanctioned vacant post of Assistant Professor arising in the Department of Hindi in the College by way of direct recruitment. Accordingly, the Principal of the College published an advertisement on 06-08-2019 in the vernacular daily “Asomiya Pratidin”,

¶31

Page No.# 4/29

¶32

inviting applications along with other posts, for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi. The petitioner, herein, being eligible, applied against the said advertisement for recruitment against the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi. It is further projected by the petitioner in the writ petition that a call letter was issued to the petitioner on 27-09-2019, requiring her to appear in the interview, which was scheduled on 21-10-2019.

¶33

3.3. It is further projected that the petitioner after receipt of the call letter for appearing in the interview had submitted a representation before the Chairman of the Governing Body, through proper channel, on 09-10-2019 praying for consideration of her case for recruitment against the advertised post of Assistant Professor in Hindi by also reckoning the 15 (fifteen) years of continuous service rendered by her as an Assistant Professor in Hindi on ad-hoc basis.

¶34

3.4. The petitioner, at this stage, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019. In the said writ petition, it is projected that the petitioner had assailed the advertisement dated 06-08-2019 and had also prayed for regularization of her services. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16-102019, had required the petitioner to appear in the interview, which was scheduled on 2110-2019. The petitioner, thereafter, instituted an interlocutory application being I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the 15 (fifteen) years long service experience gathered by her as an Assistant Professor in Hindi in the College, while considering her case for regularization. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21-10-2019, upon appreciating the issues arising in the said interlocutory application proceeded vide order dated 21-10-2019, to dispose of the same

¶35

Page No.# 5/29

¶36

by directing the respondent authorities to take into consideration the long 15 (fifteen) years’ experience gathered by the petitioner, herein, at the time of selection for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in the aforesaid College. The Coordinate Bench further vide an order dated 21-10-2019, passed in the connected writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, by noticing that the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor as advertised, was already initiated, directed that appointment to the said post shall not be made without the leave of this Court. It is to be noted that the petitioner during the consideration of the issues arising in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019, had apprised this Court that on the same day at 09:30 a.m., she had already appeared before the Interview Committee. It is to be noted, herein, that the Selection Committee on 2110-2019, had already considered the candidates appearing before it for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi as advertised vide advertisement dated 06-08-2019 and has selected one Pooja Baruah for appointment against the said post.

¶37

3.5. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019 was, thereafter, taken up for final consideration. The Coordinate Bench noticed that the directions passed by this Court in the interlocutory application being I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019, was not complied with by the College authorities as it was projected that the copy of the order dated 21-10-2019 was placed before the Governing Body of the College, only after the selection process was concluded by the Selection Committee. Having considered the said position, the Coordinate Bench vide judgment and order dated 21-11-2023, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by remanding the matter to the Selection Committee, with a further direction to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 21-10-2019 passed in

¶38

Page No.# 6/29

¶39

I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019 and by taking note of the 15 (fifteen) years of experience gathered

¶40

by the petitioner, to give adequate weightage in the selection process and thereafter, to bring the process to its logical conclusion.

¶41

3.6. The Principal of the College, thereafter, vide a communication dated 05-12-2023, had approached the Director, Higher Education, Assam, seeking guidance with regard to the manner in which the matter is to be now proceeded. It is projected that in terms of the direction issued by the Director, Higher Education, Assam, the Governing Body of the College in its meeting convened on 30-04-2024, had adopted a resolution to comply with the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019 A meeting of the Selection Committee was resolved to be reconvened. Accordingly, the Selection Committee, on being reconvened, met on 13-05-2024. The Selection Committee noticing the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 21-11-2023, in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, proceeded to review its earlier recommendation made in the matter and by complying with the directions passed by this Court, decided to award weightage to the petitioner as regards her teaching experience and awarded 15 (fifteen) marks in place of 03 (three) to the petitioner. It was clarified in the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting that the 03 (three) marks granted earlier was so granted as per the UGC & DHE’s guidelines. The recommendations made by the Selection Committee on being placed before the Governing Body, the Governing Body in its meeting held on the same day i.e. on 13-052024, accepted the same and decided to forward the matter to the Director, Higher Education for information and necessary action. The recommendation made by the Selection Committee and the approval, thereof, by the Governing Body of the College

¶42

Page No.# 7/29

¶43

along with all requisite documents were forwarded by the Principal of the College to the Director, Higher Education vide communication dated 18-05-2024. It is in the above background, that the Director had passed the speaking order dated 19-08-2024.

¶44

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

¶45

Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, at the outset has submitted that the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 21-10-2019 in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019, requiring the respondent authorities to take into consideration the long 15 (fifteen) years’ experience gathered by the petitioner as an Assistant Professor in Hindi in the said College, while considering her case for selection, was not immediately complied with by the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities had taken a plea to the effect that the said directions were received by the College authorities only after the Selection Committee had concluded the selection process. He submits that, thereafter, when the W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, was taken up for final consideration by this Court, this Court had required the respondent authorities to produce the relevant records of the selection process. He submits that the records of the selection process were perused by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and upon such perusal and noticing the directions passed vide order dated 21-10-2019 in I.A. (C) No. 3348/2019, proceeded to hold that the reasoning advanced by the College authorities for non-compliance of the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 2110-2019, in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019, to be not acceptable. Mr. Chetri further submits that the Coordinate Bench accordingly remanded back the matter to the Selection Committee with specific direction to consider the 15 years’ experience of the petitioner and give due

¶46

Page No.# 8/29

¶47

and adequate weightage, thereof, in the selection process.

¶48

4.1. Mr. Chetri submits that in terms of the direction passed by this Court vide the said order dated 21-11-2023, the Governing Body on consideration of the same and also upon receiving necessary clarifications in the matter from the Director, Higher Education had directed for reconvening of the Selection Committee meeting. He submits that the Selection Committee, thereafter, on being reconvened met on 13-05-2024 and by way of a review of its earlier recommendation, proceeded to select the petitioner by giving her weightage for 15 years’ teaching experience she had gathered in the College and awarding 15 (fifteen) marks for the purpose.

¶49

4.2. Mr. Chetri submits that the said decision of the Selection Committee as per the procedure mandated was to be placed before the Governing Body of the College. He submits that the same on being placed before the Governing Body of the College, the said recommendation was accepted. Accordingly, Mr. Chetri submits that the directions passed by this Court vide the order dated 21-11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019 stood complied with. The review of the selection process being so made by the Selection Committee in terms of the directions passed by this Court, the Director, Higher Education, Assam could not have sat over the same and was required to grant approval to the selection of the petitioner and thereafter, appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Professor in Hindi against the post so advertised vide the advertisement dated 06-08-2019.

¶50

4.3. Mr. Chetri further submits that the directions passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21-11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, has since been attained finality, in absence of a challenge being presented to the same. He submits

¶51

Page No.# 9/29

¶52

that the decision of the Selection Committee to review its earlier decision and now to recommend the petitioner in the manner indicated, hereinabove, for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi also not being challenged by any aggrieved person, the same also has to be held to have attained its finality. Accordingly, he submits that the Director, Higher Education could not have proceeded to pass the speaking order dated 19-08-2024, without first factoring in, the said developments taking place after passing of directions by this Court in the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019 by the Principal of the College. He submits that the Director had for the purpose of depriving the petitioner of her due appointment, in terms of the recommendation now made in her favour by the Selection Committee, had while passing the order dated 19-08-2024, deliberately not considered the said developments. Accordingly, he submits that the order dated 19-08-2024, would mandate interference from this Court.

¶53

4.4. Mr. Chetri by referring to the order dated 21-11-2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7667/2019, submits that the Court while passing the direction had passed the said directions, after being apprised about the existence of the guidelines notified vide the notification dated 08-11-2018. Accordingly, he submits that this Court having also appreciated the notification dated 08-11-2018 and thereafter, directed the Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioner in the manner as directed, the respondents cannot be permitted to raise a contention that the Selection Committee by making the consideration as made by it in its meeting held on 13-05-2024, had violated the guidelines as notified vide the notification dated 08-11-2018.

¶54

4.5. Mr. Chetri in view of the deliberation taking place in the matter, has made a further

¶55

Page No.# 10/29

¶56

submission to the effect that in the event, this Court proceeds to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21-

¶57

11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, the view taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court being binding on this Bench, this Court would be required to refer the matter to a larger Bench for consideration. He submits that it would not be proper for this Court to proceed to consider the issue raised in the present writ petition by taking a view contrary to that taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019.

¶58

Mr. Chetri in support of his submission has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

¶59

(i) Shridhar Vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur & Ors. reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 157 .

¶60

(ii) Tajvir Singh Sodhi Vs. State of J&K & Ors. reported in (2023) AIR(SC) 2014 .

¶61

(iii) Srinivas K. Gouda Vs. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. reported in 2021 Supreme (SC) 604 .

¶62

(iv) Sandhya Educational Society & Anr. Vs. UoI & Ors. reported in 2013 Supreme (SC) 309 .

¶63

He has also relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Jyotismita Goswami Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2016 (5) GLT 194 .

¶64

In the above premises, Mr. Chetri has submitted that the decision of the Selection Committee of the College as arrived at in its meeting held on 13-05-2024 and approved

¶65

by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 13-05-2024, not being set aside, subsequently by any authority and/ or by this Court, would be required to be directed to be implemented. Accordingly, he prays that a direction be issued to the

¶66

Page No.# 11/29

¶67

Director, Higher Education, Assam to implement the decision of the Selection Committee as approved by the Governing Body of the College and to appoint the petitioner against the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi expeditiously.

¶68

Per contra, Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel, Higher Education, Assam, at the out set submits that with regard to the selection against the post of Assistant Professors and Librarians, the Government of Assam in the Higher Education Department has been laying down the guidelines required to be so followed by the College authorities as well as by the Selection Committee. He submits that the Government in the Higher Education Department vide Office Memorandum dated 08-11-2018, in supersession of its earlier guidelines had set out the guidelines for selection against the post of Assistant Professors/ Librarians in provincialized Colleges of the State. He submits that the said guidelines have been so framed by following the prescriptions made in the “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010” (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC Regulations of 2010”). Mr. Das submits that in the said OM dated 08-11-2018, the distribution of marks with regard to various aspects related to the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors/ Librarians has been laid down.

¶69

8.1. Mr. Das has further submits that in terms of the OM for teaching/ library management experience, in the concerned subject/ domain, it has been stipulated that one mark for each completed year of service, after acquiring UGC norms in provincialized/ Government/ Affiliated Degree Colleges/ Libraries of the Government Institute, shall be

¶70

Page No.# 12/29

¶71

awarded, subject to a maximum of 03 (three) marks. Accordingly, he submits that there is a cap of 03 (three) marks with regard to award of marks under the heading “Teaching Experience” to a candidate appearing in the selection process. He submits that out of 100 marks earmarked for the conduct of the selection involved, 70 marks was apportioned for “Academic Record”, while 25 marks was apportioned for “Research Contribution Experience”. The balance 05 marks was so apportioned for being awarded by the Selection Committee after the interaction with the candidate concerned. He submits that the marking pattern as set out in the said OM dated 08-11-2018, is binding on the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee, insofar as, the provincialized Colleges in the State are concerned, do not have the discretion to devise a methodology for conduct of the selection in question. The selection is required to be strictly undertaken by the Selection Committee in terms of the provision of the said OM dated 08-11-2018. Mr. Das by referring to the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019 as well as the judgment and order dated 21-11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, has submitted that the Coordinate Benches of this Court had only required the respondent authorities/ selection committee of the College to take into consideration the 15 (fifteen) years’ experience of the petitioner and to give adequate weightage in the selection process for the same. He submits that considering the nature of directions passed by the Coordinate Bench as noticed, hereinabove, the Selection Committee while extending the consideration, as directed to be extended to the petitioner by this Court, cannot ignore the mandatory prescription made in the OM dated 08-11-2018. He submits that the said consideration was required to be extended by the Selection Committee to

¶72

Page No.# 13/29

¶73

the petitioner by confining itself within the parameters set out in the said OM dated 0811-2018.

¶74

8.2. Mr. Das has further submitted that on a perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 13-05-2024, would reveal that the Selection Committee has misconstrued the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019. He submits that on account of such directions passed by this Court being misconstrued, the Selection Committee had proceeded to award 15 marks to the petitioner against teaching experience and thereby, recommending her for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi as advertised vide the advertisement dated 06-08-2019. Mr. Das submits that there was no direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019 for awarding 15 marks to the petitioner for the teaching experience and/ or to consider the case of the petitioner by ignoring the mandatory prescriptions made in the OM dated 08-11-2018 in this connection. Accordingly, he submits that the Selection Committee had exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter. He submits that the decision of the Selection Committee being found to be in violation of the OM dated 08-11-2018, the approval granted, thereto, by the Governing Body of the College would not validate the same. Mr. Das has further submitted that the petitioner in the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019 nor in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the stipulation as contained in the OM dated 08-11-2018, including the cap mandated, therein, of 03 (three) marks for teaching experience. In the above premises, it is submitted that the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate interference from this Court.

¶75

Page No.# 14/29

¶76

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶77

The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the Director, Higher Education to expeditiously consider the recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the College in its meeting held on 13-05-2024, selecting the petitioner for recruitment against the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in the College in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06-08-2019. The petitioner in support of the decision arrived at in her favour by the Selection Committee has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21-10-2019 in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019 and the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21-11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019. Before this Court proceeds to examine the basis of the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that the provision of the OM dated 08-11-2018, would mandate to be

¶78

examined. The provisions of the OM dated 08-11-2018 being relevant, is extracted, herein-below:-

¶79

“GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶80

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

¶81

DISPUR: GUWAHATI-6

¶82

No. AHE.407/2017/44 Dated Dispur, the 8 November, 2018

¶83

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶84

Subject: Guidelines for Selection of Assistant Professors/Librarians in Provincialised Colleges of Assam.

¶85

In cancellation of Government O.M. No. AHE 262/2012/13 dated 25-06-2012 and No. ΑΗΕ. 407/2017/23 dated 05-01-2018 or any other previous O.M. in this regard, the Government of Assam in Higher Education Department is pleased to notify

¶86

Page No.# 15/29

¶87

the following guidelines for selection of Assistant Professors/Librarians in Provincialised Colleges of Assam.

¶88

SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR/LIBRARIAN”

¶89

“ DISTRIBUTION OF MARKS :

¶90

1) Academic Record (70 marks)

¶91

i) HSLC or equivalent examination (10% of the total 10 marks
percentage of marks)
ii) HSSLC or equivalent examination (13% of the total 13 marks
percentage of marks
iii) Degree 22 marks
a) 22% of the total percentage of marks in Hons/Major
subjects for Hons./Major students.
b) 22% of the total percentage of marks in General course
students without Hons./ Major
iv) Master Degree (25% of the total percentage of marks) 25 marks
2) Research Contribution and Experience (25 marks)
i) Ph.D from the concerned subject from UGC recognized 9 marks
university (Marks will be awarded only if a candidate has
Ph.D Degree in addition to eligibility requirement of
NET/SLET/SET. Off campus Ph.D. is not recognized as
per Govt. of Assam OM No. AHE.293/2008/147,dated
09/07/2012)

¶92

Page No.# 16/29

¶93

ii) M. Phil in the concerned subject from UGC recognized 3 marks
university. (Marks will be awarded only if a candidate has
M.Phil. Degree in addition to eligibility requirement of
NET/SLET SET. OIT campus M.Phil is not recognised as
per Govt. of Assam OM No. ALIE.293/2008/147,dated
09/07/2012)
iii) Research paper/ article in the concerned 2 marks
subject/domain published in journal/Research
book/Proceeding volume with ISSN/ISBN/Impact factor
(1marks for each publication in ISSN/ISBN documents
published in UGC recognized journal subject to maximum
of 2 marks)
iv) Research paper article in the concern subject domain 4 marks
publish in impact factor journal existing in the data base
of Scopus, Web of Science/Web of knowledge (2 Marks
for each publication subject to maximum of 4 marks)
v) 1 Marks for each chapter/article in the concern subject 2 Marks.
published in research/text book with ISBN subject to
maximum of 2 marks (In case of text book, the relevant
textbook must be approved by a competent academic
authority such as University)
vi) Presentation of research papers in the concerned 2 Marks
subject domain in international/national/regional level
seminar workshop.
a) 1 marks for each presentation (oral poster) in
international seminar/workshop.
b) 0.5 marks for each presentation (oral/poster) in
national/regional seminar/workshop) (volume of abstract
along with the certificate must be produced to
substantiate the claim. As per UGC regulation, if a paper
presented in conference/seminar is published in the
Proceedings, the marks would accrue for the publication
and not under presentation).
vii) Teaching/Library Management Experience in 3 Marks
the concern subject/domain (1 marks for each
completed year of service after acquiring UGC
norms in provincialised/Govt/Affiliated Degree
college/Libraries of Govt. Institutes subject to

¶94

Page No.# 17/29

¶95

Maximum of 03 marks .

¶96

(emphasis added)

¶97

A perusal of the said OM, more particularly, the distribution of marks as mandated, therein, would go to reveal that for the purpose of selection against the post of Assistant Professors/ Librarians in provincialized Colleges of the State, the Selection Committee is to

¶98

make the selection in question by apportioning 100 marks in the following manner:-

¶99

(a) Academic Records – 70 marks

¶100

(b) Research Contribution and Experience - 25 marks

¶101

(c) Further, 05 marks is assigned to be awarded by the Selection Committee after interaction with the candidate concerned.

¶102

The further sub-classification made under heading “Research Contribution and Experience”, in Clause-2(vii), it has been provided that for Teaching/ Library Management Experience in the concerned subject/ domain the Selection Committee is to assign 01 (one) mark each for completed year of service rendered by the candidate, after acquiring UGC norms in a provincialized/ Government/ affiliated degree colleges/ libraries of Government institutes. The said prescription is made with the further stipulation that for the Teaching Experience maximum of 03 (three) marks can be awarded. The said prescription, accordingly, puts a cap on the marks that can be granted by a Selection Committee for the teaching experience component of the “Research Contribution and Experience” segment.

¶103

Having noticed the provision of the OM dated 08-11-2018, this Court would now consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the

¶104

Page No.# 18/29

¶105

basis of the decision of the Selection Committee which is sought to be implemented by way of institution of the present writ petition. The petitioner has contended that the decision of the Selection Committee to be based on the directions passed by this Court vide order dated 21-10-2019 in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019 and judgment and order dated 2111-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019. This Court at the outset would consider the order dated 21-10-2019, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019. The relevant portion of the order is extracted here-in-below for ready reference:-

¶106

“2. The present application has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the applicant’s/ writ petitioner’s 15 years long service experience gathered by her as an Assistant Professor (Hindi) in Sankardev Mahavidyalaya, Lakhimpur while considering her regularisation. The applicant/writ petitioner claims that she has been working as an Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the said Mahavidyalaya since 25.08.2005 till date. In this regard, the applicant had submitted an application to the Governing Body of the said Mahavidyalaya for regularisation of her service on the strength of the long service rendered by her. However, the authorities have proceeded to fill up the said post by advertising the same. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant also appeared in the said selection process which was held on 21.10.2019 (today) at 9.30 A.M. However, it is not certain as to whether the authorities have taken into consideration the experience of long 15 years of service rendered by her in the said post of Assistant Professor in Hindi.

¶107

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department submits that the recommendation of the Selection Committee will be first considered by the Governing Body of the College and thereafter, it will be sent to the Director of Higher Education for necessary approval. Since, the petitioner has already rendered 15 years of service as an Assistant Professor in the said Hindi Department, it would be desirable that her experience can be duly taken into consideration by the concerned authority.

¶108

Learned counsel for the applicant prays that since the interview has already been held on 21.10.2019 (today) at 9.30 A.M. and the recommendation has to be considered by the Governing Body as well as by the Director of Secondary Education Department as per the rules, the authorities may be directed to look into the said claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration of her 15 years of service as an Assistant Teacher (Hindi) and further that, since the

¶109

Page No.# 19/29

¶110

petitioner has already submitted a representation on 09.10.2019 before the Chairman of the Governing Body, the Governing Body may consider the said aspect if the Selection Committee had not done so.

¶111

Accordingly, after hearing the parties, the present application is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to take into consideration (emphasis added) the said long 15 years of experience in service gathered by the applicant/writ petitioner at the time of selection for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in the aforesaid Mahavidyalaya.”

¶112

This Court has perused the said order dated 21-10-2019 and finds that the petitioner had apprised this Court that the selection for the post in question was already held at 09:30 a.m. on the date when the said interlocutory application was taken up for hearing by this Court, i.e. on 21-10-2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner is found to have raised an apprehension that it was not certain as to whether the authorities have taken into consideration the experience of long 15 years of service rendered by the petitioner in the College. Thereafter, noticing the submissions made by the learned standing counsel, Higher Education, Assam the Coordinate Bench of this Court proceeded to pass a direction requiring the respondent authorities to take into consideration the said long 15 years of experience in service gathered by the applicant/ writ petitioner at the time of selection for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in the aforesaid Mahavidyalaya. From the order dated 21-10-2019, this Court does not find that the Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing the said order was apprised about the existence of the OM dated 08-11-2018, governing the procedure for selection against the post of Assistant Professors in the provincialized Colleges of the State. Further the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said order is also not found to have directed for consideration of the teaching experience gathered by the petitioner, dehors the provisions

¶113

Page No.# 20/29

¶114

of the guidelines as notified vide order dated 08-11-2018.

¶115

Having examined the said order dated 21-10-2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019, this Court would now examine the order dated 2111-2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted, here-in-below, for ready reference:-

¶116

“2. The writ petitioner Smti Gitali Bordoloi Das instituted this writ petition, amongst others, with a prayer that either the advertisement dated 06.08.2019 of the Principal Sankardev Mahavidyalaya be set aside or direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as regular Assistant Professor either by regularizing/ sanctioning her post or by adjusting the petitioner in any vacant post.

¶117

No credible submission has been made justifying either to set aside the advertisement dated 06.08.2019 or for a direction to regularize the service of the petitioner. But, in course of the arguments what has been brought forth before the Court is that the petitioner had been working in the Sankardev Mahavidyalaya as an Assistant Professor in Hindi and had rendered 15 years of service. While participating in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.08.2019, there was a deprivation by the selecting authority to give due weightage of the marks to the 15 years of experience and in the circumstance, IA(Civil) 3348/2019 in WP(C) No. 7667/2019 was instituted by the petitioner, which was given a final consideration by the order dated 21.10.2019, the relevant paragraph 4 of which is extracted as below:-

¶118

“4. Learned counsel for the applicant prays that since the interview has already been held on 21.10.2019 (today) at 9.30 A.M. and the recommendation has to be considered by the Governing Body as well as by the Director of Secondary Education Department as per the rules, the authorities may be directed to look into the said claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration of her 15 years of service as an Assistant Teacher (Hindi) and further that, since the petitioner has already submitted a representation on 09.10.2019 before the Chairman of the Governing Body, the Governing Body may consider the said aspect if the Selection Committee had not done so.”

¶119

A reading of the afore-extracted provision in the order dated 21.10.2019 makes it discernible that although the interview may have been held, but as the petitioner had submitted a representation claiming due consideration to her

¶120

Page No.# 21/29

¶121

experience of 15 years, therefore, the said claim should be entertained by the respondent authorities in the college selection committee, meaning thereby that upon taking into consideration, to give appropriate weightage for the 15 years of service experience.

¶122

In view of the aforesaid situation, we required the respondents in the Sankardev Mahavidyalaya to produce the records in origin of the selection that had been held in order to examine as to whether due weightage for the 15 years experience had been given.

¶123

Mr. JC Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents in the Sankardev Mahavidyalaya has produced a communication from the Principal in-charge dated 06.01.2020 to the Director of Higher Education, Assam wherein it is stated as extracted:-

¶124

“However, it is for your kind information that Miss Gitali Bordoli Das was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the department of Hindi on 25.08.2005 against a Non-Sanctioned post and since then she has been discharging her duty as Assistant Professor and after the death of Lakhima Devi she has been maintaining the classes of the department alone. Miss Bordoloi Das also applied for the said post with teaching experience certificate of this college from the date of her appointment and appeared in the interview board. But the interview board selected Miss Puja Baruah for appointment in the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi on merit basis. But just after the selection of Miss Puja Baruah by the G.B of the college; we received an order of honourable Guwahati High Court’s order dated 21.10.2019 passed in IA(C) No. 3348/2019 and order dated 21.10.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 7667/2019 (Smti Gitali Bordoloi Das – Vs- the State of Assam and Ors) that has already been submitted in your office. This is all about the post.”

¶125

It appears from the communication dated 06.01.2020 that due consideration of weightage for the 15 years of experience of the petitioner in spite of the order dated 21.10.2019 in IA(Civil) 7667/2019 could not be given inasmuch as, the order of the Court was received by the authorities after the interview was over. The said reasoning of the communication dated 06.01.2020 in our view would not be sustainable inasmuch as, the court in its order dated 21.10.2019 in paragraphs 4 and 5 had already taken note of the fair submission of the petitioner that the interview had already been held on 21.10.2019. In spite of taking note of the said factual circumstance, there is a direction from the Court to take note and give due consideration to the 15 years of experience of the petitioner in the selection process.

¶126

As he Court had taken note of the factual circumstance and in spite of it had

¶127

Page No.# 22/29

¶128

issued a direction, we are of the view that receiving the order of the Court after the date of the interview cannot be a reason for the college authorities not to follow the direction of the Court or not to give due consideration to the 15 years of experience of the petitioner.

¶129

Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the selection committee of Sankardev Mahavidyalaya to comply with the direction contained in the order dated 21.10.2019 in IA (Civil) 7667/2019 and upon taking note of the 15 years of experience of the petitioner to give adequate weightage in the selection process and thereafter bring the process to its logical end. As it is a matter pursuant to an advertisement of the year 2019, we direct that the requirement be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

¶130

A perusal of the said order would bring to the forefront that the Coordinate Bench had at the outset rejected the challenge presented by the petitioner in the said writ petition to the advertisement dated 06-08-2019. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court noticing the order dated 21-10-2019 passed in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019, had further considered the submissions made by the College authorities, that the said order dated 2110-2019 having been received after the completion of the selection process, the consideration as mandated, therein, could not be given to the petitioner. Having noticed the said contention the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21-11-2023, held that the reasoning as advanced by the College authorities to be not a fair one. It was further held that inspite of taking note of the factual circumstances, there still was a direction from this Court to give due consideration to the 15 years of experience of the petitioner in the selection process. Accordingly, it was held that the receipt of the certified copy of the order after the date of interview could not have been a reason for the College authorities not to follow the direction of the Court or not to give due consideration to the 15 years’ of experience of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter back to the Selection Committee, to

¶131

Page No.# 23/29

¶132

comply with the directions passed vide order dated 21-10-2019 in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019 and upon taking due note of the 15 years of experience of the petitioner to give adequate weightage in the selection process and thereafter, to bring the selection process to its logical conclusion. On a perusal of the order dated 21-11-2023, this Court finds that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had only directed the Selection Committee to take into account the 15 years’ experience of the petitioner and to give adequate weightage, thereof, in the selection process. This Court had not interfered with the provisions pertaining to grant of marks for Teaching Experience as contained in the OM dated 08-112018. This Court had not further directed that the Selection Committee was not duty bound to follow the prescription made in the OM dated 08-11-2018 and it was permissible for it to devise its own methodology for rendering justice to the petitioner. In short, this Court finds that the only direction issued to the Selection Committee was to take note of 15 years of experience of the petitioner and to give adequate weightage as was directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21-10-2019 in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019.

¶133

In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the directions passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 21-10-2019 in I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019 and order dated 21-11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019 was only to the extent of directing consideration of the teaching experience gathered by the petitioner in the College and had not directed that such consideration is to be extended to the petitioner in violation of the guidelines governing the selection. This Court finds that the Coordinate Benches of this Court were aware of the fact that it was not permissible for them to pass any

¶134

Page No.# 24/29

¶135

direction which would be in violation of the mandatory guidelines as implemented vide OM dated 08-11-2018 and it is for the said reason that the Coordinate Benches of this Court had not made any further direction pertaining to the OM dated 08-11-2018, more so, when it was not under challenge.

¶136

Having understood the purport of the directions passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the proceeding of I.A.(C) No. 3348/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, this Court would now consider the decision of the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 13-05-2024. As noticed, hereinabove, the Governing Body in pursuance to the passing of the judgment and order dated 21-11-2023 in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, had taken a decision in its meeting held on 30-04-2024, to re-convene a meeting of the Selection Committee for consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions passed by this Court. Accordingly, the Selection Committee on being convened had met on 13-052024. The minutes of the Selection Committee being relevant to the issue arising in the present writ petition, the same is extracted, here-in-below for ready reference:-

¶137

“PROCEEDING OF SELECTION COMMITTEE (REVIEWED & COMPLIANCE) MEETING HELD ON 13th May, 2024 FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATE FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HINDI (UR) SANKARDEVA MAHAVIDYALAYA, PATHALIPAHAR, LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶138

The Selection Committee meeting for selection of candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Hindi (UR), Sankardeva Mahavidyalaya, Pathalipahar was held in the office of the Principal under the Chairmanship of Mr. Birendra Nath Bhagawati, President, Governing Body, Sankardeva Mahavidyalaya on 13 May, 2024 from 11.00 am.

¶139

The selection committee for review and compliance of selection of Assistant Professor in Hindi held today on 13th May, 2024 In the principal's chamben Sankardeva Mahavidyalaya, pathalipahar, lakhlupur, Assam in respect of DHE's

¶140

Page No.# 25/29

¶141

(directive) vido letter No. DHE/CE/CC/03/2004/1, dtd.: 28.03.2024.

¶142

In accordance the committee reviewed and made compliance in respect of hon'ble Guwahati high Court order 21.11.2023 passed in W.P. (C)No. 7667/2019 and. Cont. Cas(C) No.167/2024 (Smt. Gitall Bordolol Das-VS-State of Assam & 4 Ors) decided to award weightage to Mrs. Gitall Bordoloi Das in experience marks 15 in place of 3 (earlier given 3 marks as per UGC & DHE's guidelines).”

¶143

As noticed, hereinabove, this Court in the earlier round of litigation instituted by the petitioner having only required the Selection Committee to consider the 15 years of teaching experience gathered by the petitioner in the College at the time of her selection, the Selection Committee was required to evaluate the teaching experience possessed by the petitioner and then mathematically apply the marks as provided for teaching experience in the OM dated 08-11-2018. A perusal of the minutes of the Selection Committee, as extracted, hereinabove, would reveal that by projecting the order(s) of this Court as well as the institution of a contempt case by the petitioner, the Selection Committee had arrived at a decision to award weightage to the petitioner as regards her experience and 15 marks came to be awarded, in place of 03 marks awarded for the same earlier. The Selection Committee has also highlighted that earlier the petitioner was given 03 marks as per UGC & DHE guidelines.

¶144

A perusal of the decision arrived at by the Selection Committee, would go to reveal that it had awarded 15 marks to the petitioner only in terms of the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019. As already noticed, hereinabove, there was no such direction passed by this Court. Accordingly, the Selection Committee, which is created under the provision of the OM dated 08-11-2018, could not have acted in excess thereof.

¶145

Page No.# 26/29

¶146

The Selection Committee is found to have exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding 15 marks to the petitioner for teaching experience. There being a cap for teaching experience set out in the OM dated 08-11-2018, the Selection Committee could not have exceeded the same on its own volition, without there being an express direction in this connection from this Court. This Court in the judgment and order dated 21-11-2023, having not in any manner dealt with the prescriptions made in the OM dated 08-11-2018, the marking pattern as set out, therein, including award of marks for teaching experience continued to hold the field and it was not permissible for the Selection Committee to breach the same. This Court finds that the Selection Committee in the matter went beyond what was directed by this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Selection Committee by misdirecting itself in law by confusing a direction of this Court for consideration of the experience gathered by the petitioner, to be a mandate for award of 15 marks proceeded to review its earlier decision and selected the petitioner, herein. The selection of the petitioner, accordingly, is the result of a mathematical distortion made in the matter by the Selection Committee which would also have the effect of violating the rights of other candidates who were in the fray.

¶147

Accordingly, this Court finds the decision of the Selection Committee to be not in connosance with the guidelines under which selection was to be conducted, the decision arrived at by the Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 13-05-2024, would mandate interference from this Court. Accordingly, the said decision of the Selection Committee stands set aside. Consequently, the decision of the Governing Body arrived at in its meeting held on 13-05-2024 accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee

¶148

Page No.# 27/29

¶149

also stands set aside.

¶150

Having interfered with the Selection Committee’s minutes dated 13-05-2024, the basis of the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition stands removed. Accordingly, no further direction would be permissible to be issued for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi as advertised vide advertisement dated 06-08-2019.

¶151

The materials brought on record reveals that the Selection Committee in the first instance had selected one Pooja Baruah against the said post. However, the said selection having occasioned in the year 2019, it is stated at the Bar that the said Pooja Baruah had never come up before this Court raising a grievance with regard to non-processing her such selection for appointment against the post in question. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, this Court requires the College authorities and the Director, Higher Education to arrive at a decision with regard to the manner in which the said post would now be required to be filled up. In the event, it is decided that the post would be filled up by way of direct recruitment, the petitioner be granted an opportunity to participate in the selection process provided she fulfils the requisite eligibility criteria.

¶152

At this stage, this Court would like to consider the submission made by Mr. B. Chetry, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the event, this Court takes a view contrary to the one taken in the order dated 21-11-2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7667/2019, the matter would be required to be referred to the larger Bench.

¶153

Page No.# 28/29

¶154

This Court has on examination of the materials coming on record found that it was the Selection Committee which exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter and had by misinterpreting the directions passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court proceeded to select the petitioner in violation of the guidelines set out in the OM dated 08-11-2018. Accordingly, this Court not having taken a different view, than that taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would not mandate a further consideration.

¶155

At this stage, this Court notices that in the event the decision of the Selection Committee in awarding 15 marks under Teaching Experience in place of 03 marks earmarked for the purpose in the OM dated 08-11-2018, is to be upheld, then in the selection held the petitioner would be so considered against 112 marks, while the other candidates would be so considered against 100 marks. Such a consideration is against all cannons of selection and would be clearly impermissible.

¶156

This Court has also closely perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon consideration of the same, in view of the conclusions reached by this Court in the attending facts and circumstances of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the same would not advance the case of the petitioner and accordingly, a detailed discussion on the said decision is not made in the present order.

¶157

In view of the above discussions, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶158

Page No.# 29/29

¶159

JUDGE

¶160

Comparing Assistant

Smti Gitali Bordoloi Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Smti Gitali Bordoloi Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranab Jyoti Borboruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mazibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Chitra Rajkonwar Vs the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors.

The School Managing Committee of Dharmapur Dhulauri M.E School. Vs the State of Assam

Mahmud Hassan Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jiten Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.