Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010169402024 2025:GAU-AS:2925 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4210/2024 DR. RAJDEEP DUTTA S/O- HARENDRA DUTTA, R/O- H.NO-124, RAJIV GANDHI PATH, UDAY NAGAR, KAINADHARA, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN-781022 VERSUS THE ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785013 2:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY DIST- JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785013 3:THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MS N MAHANTA,N GAUTAM,MR. R M DEKA,MISS. R R KAKATI,MR. D J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AAU, SC, G U Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University and Mr. A.R. Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner had submitted his candidature for the vacant post of Associate Professor in the discipline of Aquatic Environment Management under the respondent No.1 in response to the Advertisement No.8/2023 dated 11.12.2023. However, the petitioner received the impugned letter dated 13.08.2024, informing him that his application had been rejected on the ground that he had done his Ph.D. under the traditional system and not under course credit system. Secondly, no marks were filled up by the petitioner in the column given for Ph.D. and no credit had been mentioned against the course in the mark sheet, as reported by the Screening Committee. 3. The petitioner’s case is that he had obtained the Ph.D. degree in terms of the UGC Regulations of 2009 by successfully completing One Semester of Course Work as a partial fulfilment of the Ph.D. degree. Further, the advertisement would reveal that there was no mention in the advertisement that the candidates who had obtained Ph.D. degree under traditional system, were not eligible to apply for the post in question. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that after completion of his Ph.D. degree, Page No.# 3/4 the authorities of the Gauhati University had assigned grades for the course work evaluation to the petitioner, which is evident from the certificate dated 03.02.2012 issued to the petitioner by the Gauhati University on completion of his Ph.D. Therefore, the petitioner could not enter the marks in the column provided for the Ph.D. in his application. 5. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that the Regulations of 2009 do not prescribe that there should be a mention of credit against the course in the mark sheet. Further, in the certificate/mark sheet dated 03.02.2012, the Gauhati University authority has not given any credit against the course. Therefore, the petitioner’s stand is that mentioning of credit against the course in the mark sheet is not a mandatory requirement. 6. This Court, vide the interim order dated 20.08.2024 had directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the selection process, for the post of Associate Professor in the discipline of Aquatic Environment Management scheduled on 22.08.2024. 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has appeared for the said examination. 8. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University submits that as this Court, vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in I.A. (Civil) No.429/2025, has allowed the respondents No.1 & 2 to publish the results of the selection process undertaken for filling up the said post, the same would be published. 9. In view of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in I.A. (Civil) No.429/2025, Page No.# 4/4 this Court has also seen the results of the selection process pertaining to filling up the post of Associate Professor in the discipline of Aquatic Environment Management. The same shows that the case of the petitioner has not been recommended for the said post. 10. As the results have to be declared by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and as this Court has already opened the envelope containing the marks of the candidates, which shows that the petitioner has not been selected, this Court is not going into the issue as to whether the petitioner could have been barred from participating in the selection process. The same would only be of academic interest as on date and if and when such a situation arises in the future, the petitioner is given the liberty to agitate the said issue again. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant