Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010124502024 2025:GAU-AS:393 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3310/2024 DHIRU BHARALI S/O- HEMKANTA BHARALI, R/O- DAKSHINHATI, NAMATI, P.O. AND P.S.- BHAWANIPUR, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781352. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI PIN- 781019. 3:THE GOVERNING BODY OF BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE BHAWANIPUR DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781352. 4:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ENGAGEMENT OF LABORATORY Page No.# 2/6 BEARER (GR.-IV) UNDER SCHEDULE CAST (SC) CATEGORY RP-08 BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE BHAWANIPUR DIST. -BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781352. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CUM PRESIDENT GOVERNING BODY OF BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE. 5:THE PRINCIPAL BHAWANIPUR ANCHALIK COLLEGE BHAWANIPUR DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781352. 6:SABITA DAS W/O- PRABHAT TALUKDAR R/O- PUTHIMARI (XILIKHAR TAL) P.O.- ODALGURI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781325 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR SAURADEEP DEY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MS P SAHA(R-3,5),DR. R SARMAH(R-3,5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 10.01.2025 Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D. Upamanyu, Page No.# 3/6 learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the selection of private respondent No. 6 by the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 to the post of Laboratory Bearer in Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Bhawanipur. 3. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 18.03.2023, bearing Memo No. BAC/5569/2023, issued by the respondent No. 5, the present petitioner had applied for the post of Laboratory Bearer in Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Bhawanipur. Mr. Dey further submits that as per the advertisement, the selection procedure would be conducted as per Government Memorandum No. AHE.239/2021/68 dated 24.01.2022 and DHE/PA/Misc/1/2016/Pt/117 dated 28.07.2022. 3.1. Referring to Annexure – 4, at page No. 30 of the petition, Mr. Dey submits that the educational qualification for selection to the said post is only the marks obtained in H.S.L.C. Further, referring to Annexure – 6, at page No. 38 of the petition, Mr. Dey submits that the petitioner had obtained 85% marks in H.S.L.C. examination and the private respondent No. 6, whose name was forwarded and selected by the respondent No. 5, obtained only 32.55% in H.S.L.C. Examination. Mr. Dey further submits that the selection is arbitrary and illegal and against the Rule, and therefore, it is contended to set it aside. 3.2. Mr. Dey referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3, submits that the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 have failed to justify on what ground the private respondent No. 6, who had obtained only 32.55% in H.S.L.C Examination, was selected ignoring the present petitioner, who had obtained 85% in H.S.L.C. Examination. Page No.# 4/6 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 also fairly submits that there is some aberration and the same had happened during the tenure of earlier respondent nos. 3 and 5 and the present incumbent of the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 are not involved in the selection process of the private respondent No. 6. 5. Whereas, Mr. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that he may be permitted some time to file an affidavit-in-opposition. 6. In view of the given facts and circumstances on the record, this court is of the view that in absence of the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, also the issue raised in this petition can effectively be adjudicated as the Principal, respondent Nos. 3 and 5 had already filed their affidavit. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record. 8. It appears that the educational qualification for the post of Laboratory Bearer is only H.S.L.C. and selection criteria is the marks obtained in H.S.L.C. Examination. The selection procedure as provided in the Memorandum No. AHE 301/2017/2, dated 18.05.2017, reads as under:- “2. Selection procedure for the post of Grade – IV Employee:- The total weightage for selection of Grade-IV posts shall be in academic qualification. There will be no more written examination and oral interview for the posts. Details as given below (up to two decimal places: 1. HSLC: 100 (Marks obtained/Total Marks) Page No.# 5/6 Merit list will be prepared on total score of above weightage composing reservation as per the advertisement. In case of same score for two or more candidates, preference will be given to the candidates having more marks obtained in mathematics in HSLC examination. All candidates must know the local languages. The other terms and condition will remain same as per the advertisement for the said posts.” 9. It also appears from the comparative chart, Annexure – 10, at page No. 48 of the petition, that the present petitioner, whose name is reflected at Serial No. 17, obtained 85% in H.S.L.C. Examination and the private respondent No. 6, whose name is reflected at Serial No. 8 and who was selected for the said post, obtained only 32.55% in H.S.L.C. Examination. 10. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how they have selected the private respondent No. 6, who obtained only 32.55% in H.S.L.C. examination, instead of the present petitioner who obtained 85% in H.S.L.C. Examination. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 had admitted aberration on the part of the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 at the time of hearing. 11. Having examined the selection of the private respondent No. 6 in the light of the given facts and circumstances on the record, this court is of the view that her selection is arbitrary and illegal and the same failed to withstand the legal scrutiny and on such count, the same deserves to be set aside and quashed. 12. Accordingly, the selection process of the private respondent No. 6, dated 23.04.2023, stands set aside and quashed. Page No.# 6/6 13. The respondent Nos. 3 & 5, the Governing Body and the Principal of Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Bhawanipur are directed to forward the name of the present petitioner to the respondent No. 2 for approval. This exercise has to be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent Nos. 3 & 5 within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today. 15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 16. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant