Harekrishna Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010024462016

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:1996

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5389/2016

¶6

HAREKRISHNA BORAH

¶7

S/O- LT. KAMALA KANTA BORAH, R/O VILL.- KATHALGURI, P.O.KOTHIATOLI, P.S.- KAMPUR, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782427.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION HIGHER DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY - 6.

¶10

2:THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION HIGHER DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19.

¶12

4:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECY. BAHADUR SHAH JAFAR MARG NEW DELHI- 110002.

¶13

5:THE KAMPUR COLLEGE KAMPUR REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL INCHARGE DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S CHOUDHURY, MR.P K R CHOUDHURY,MR.B RAHMAN

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DEKAR-5, MR.P K DAS(R-5),SC, U G C(R 4),SC, HIGHER EDUCATION(R 1 - 3)

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 12.02.2026

¶20

Heard Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Ms. K. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, UGC appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

¶21

By this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the communication dated 07.06.2016 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education Department to the Director of Higher Education, whereby, the department has decided to abolish the system of awarding oral marks for recruitment of faculties for Assistant Professors of colleges.

¶22

The petitioner pursuant the advertisement dated 17.12.2015 inviting application for various posts of Assistant Professor including Political Science in Kampur College, Nagaon, had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science).

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that for the selection of Assistant Professor in different colleges in the State of Assam, UGC regulation dated 30.06.2010 is followed. In the year 2012, the Director of Higher Education, Assam vide Office Memorandum dated 26.06.2012, had formulated some guidelines for selection of the Assistant Professor, which is in violation of the existing UGC Regulation dated 30.06.2010 for the post of Assistant Professor. The said Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012 was challenged before this Court in WP(C) 1368/2013, wherein, the interim order was granted staying the operation of the Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012.

¶24

During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent authorities have issued another notification dated 14.08.2015, formulating another guidelines for selection of Assistant Professor and distribution of marks for ranking of the candidate which was in conformity with the UGC guidelines/regulation.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

In the Office Memorandum, 20% marks were allotted for viva-voce/interview. Thereafter, by the impugned communication dated 07.06.2016 from the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Higher Education has sought to abolish the system of awarding oral marks in the recruitment of the faculties of Assistant Professor of colleges, which is in violation of the UGC norms and standards, which has been communicated to all the Principals of Government/Provincialied colleges.

¶27

Against which, a writ petition being WP(C) 4059/2016 was instituted in respect of the post of Assistant Professor, Assamese in Nabajyoti College in the Barpeta district. The petitioner challenging the impugned communication dated 07.06.2016, filed this petition in respect of the selection process for Assistant Professor in Kampur College, Nagaon.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue as regards the impugned communication dated 07.06.2016, has been decided by this court in a batch of writ petition leading case being WP(C) 58/2021 (Dr. Pranab Prasad Borah –vs- The State of Assam and Ors.,) by the judgment and order dated 09.03.2022. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶29

Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has been granted time to go through the said judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Pranab Prasad Borah (supra) fairly submits that the said judgment indeed squarely cover the present case.

¶30

Perusal of the judgment and order dated 09.03.2022 Dr. Pranab Prasad Borah (supra) shows that the same issue challenging the impugned communication dated 07.06.2026, has already been decided by this Court, the relevant paragraphs is reproduced herein below:-

¶31

“ 48. The law prohibiting change of Rules of the game after the game has begun, as indicated above is also presently pending consideration before a larger Bench in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra). Since there is no declaration of the law by the larger Bench till date, this Court would normally follow the existing law. This Court is of the opinion that though the law regarding the aforesaid issue is general in nature, it is still the burden of the petitioner to prima facie establish that the change is going to cause prejudice to them. This Court also has a corresponding duty to examine what is the nature of the change sought to be brought and simply, by the jargon "Rules of the game cannot be changed", this Court cannot be swayed away with.

¶32

49. What has been noticed by this Court in the present cases is that though admittedly, there is a change in the marking pattern from the Office Memorandum existing at the time of publication of the advertisement and the new Office Memorandum which came in the operation at the time of the interview, the change is only of reduction / doing away with the marks to be given in the viva-voce. This Court finds force in the submissions made by the Departmental counsel that such change has been brought in to remove the scope of bias

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

and nepotism and to make the selection process more transparent and fair. This Court is of the view that apart from the fact that no prejudice, whatsoever would be suffered by the petitioners, the said change would be in the interest of public service and to usher in a sense of trust in the selection process which is wholly in objective basis.”

¶35

On consideration of the case of Dr. Pranab Prasad (supra), I am of the view that the present case is covered by the said judgment.

¶36

Accordingly, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition stands closed as the issue in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Interim order passed earlier shall be merged along with this order.

¶37

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Harekrishna Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harekrishna Borah 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

Minati Rajbongshi Vs the State of Assam

Md. Baharul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdul Motin Mondal Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Mahfuza Khatun Alias Mahfaza Begum Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Smti Anjali Basumatary and 17 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Smti. Anmona Borah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.