Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010171962025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2500/2025 DR SUMANA CHAKRABORTY SARMAH W/O DR. MUKUT SARMAH, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 332, SUNCITY, MEHERPUR, SILCHAR, DIST CACHAR, ASSAM 788015 VERSUS MR KALLOL DAS TALUKDAR AND ORS SON OF LATE KABINDRA KUMAR DAS TALUKDAR, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 111, SATSANGHA ASHRAM ROAD, SILCHAR, PIN- 788007, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION GOVT. OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110011 3:THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION (UGC) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ CHAIRPERSON GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI PIN- 110002. 4:THE VICE CHANCELLOR-CUM-CHAIRPERSON EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. Page No.# 2/8 5:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. 6:THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT) ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. 7:THE SCREENING / SELECTION COMMITTEE HEADED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MAHANTA, MR T GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : MR D K DAS, SC, U G C,SC, ASSAM UNIVERSITY,MR H BETALA,MR C KUMAR Linked Case : WP(C)/1381/2025 KALLOL DAS TALUKDAR SON OF LATE KABINDRA KUMAR DAS TALUKDAR RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 111 SATSANGHA ASHRAM ROAD SILCHAR PIN- 788007 DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. Page No.# 3/8 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION (UGC) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ CHAIRPERSON GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI PIN- 110002. 3:THE VICE CHANCELLOR-CUM-CHAIRPERSON EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. 4:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. 5:THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT) ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. 6:THE SCREENING / SELECTION COMMITTEE HEADED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. ------------ Advocate for : MR D K DAS Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. Page No.# 4/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 18.08.2025 Heard Mr. D Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. H Betala, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner and Ms. P Upadhay, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking impleamnent of herself, i.e., Dr. Sumana Chakrabarty, as arrayed respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 1381/2025. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the writ petitioner challenged the selection to the post of Librarian as advertised vide Employment Notification No. 2/2024 dated 12.08.2024 in WP(C) No. 1381/2025. 4. Mr. D Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant has appeared before the interview board pursuant to the calling letter and participated in the subject selection process, her presence is essential for effective adjudication of the issues involved in WP(C) No. 1381/2025. 5. Ms. H Betala, learned counsel for the writ petitioner opposes the prayer for impleadment of the applicant as she is not a candidate who has been selected in the subject selection process. 6. Ms. P Upadhay, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 submits that she has no instruction to oppose the prayer for impleadment of the applicant. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Page No.# 5/8 8. Apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the impleadment application, which read as hereunder – “6. That the applicant begs to stated that in pursuance to the Calling Letter issued by the University, the applicant had appeared before the interview board on 11.03.2025 and after appearing the interview she was shocked and surprised that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was also called for the interview, who do not have minimum requisite qualifications and had appeared the interview and joined the selection process. It is to be further mentioned here that his candidature was rejected by the Screening Committee before the interview conducted and uploaded in the university’s official website. 7. That the applicant begs to state that being aggrieved she had approached before the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee informed the applicant that the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 has filed a writ proceeding before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court which is being registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 1381/2025 and the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.03.2025 was pleased to issue notice of motion, and allowed the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 to appear before the Selection Committee with the observation that the final selection will be subjected to the outcome of this writ petition and without leave of the Hon’ble High Court, the respondent authorities shall not publish the result of the interview. 8. That the applicant begs to state that thereafter the petitioner had been able to collect a copy of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1381/2025 pending before this Hon’ble Court and found that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has challenged the notification dated 12.08.2024 with the prayer that the notification dated 12.08.2024 shall be set aside and quashed and further he may selected for the post in question. 9. That the applicant begs to state that the main contention of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is that said Advertisement dated 12.08.2024 issued by the Assam University is done in contraventions of Recruitment and Promotional Rules 2020 (Non Teaching Group – A, B & C Employees ) as well as UGC Regulations of 2018. 10. That the applicant begs to state that she had appeared before the selection process which was held on 11.03.2025 as per notification dated 12.08.2024, concerning which the writ petition being WP(C) No. 1381/2025 has been filed. The petitioner had filed the writ proceeding Page No.# 6/8 without impleading parties, more particularly, the candidate who had participated in the selection process for the post of Librarian. 11. That the applicant begs to sate that the contention made by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 are totally non application of the mind and also non sustainable in law due to the fact that his candidature was rejected due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria and which is mandatory in nature. 12. That the applicant begs to state that the applicant having being qualified had appeared before the interview and selection process set up by the University authority held on 11/03/2025 as per the Employment Notification No. 2/2024 dated 12/08/2024 issued by the Assam University, Silchar and there is a every possibility of selection of the petitioner by dint of her educational qualifications as well as experiences and other qualifications as stipulated in the said notification. It is to be further stated that if the notification dated 12/08/2024 is set aside and quashed as claimed by the Writ petitioner/opposite party no.1, then she along with other candidates will be affected and therefore she is very much interested to contest the writ petition pending before this Hon'ble court. 13. That the applicant begs to state that the documents as well as contentions submitted by the writ petitioner/respondent before this Hon'ble Court by it has been clearly seen that the writ petitioner has no right to sit in the interview process due to the lack of his educational qualification such as PhD and 10 of teaching as Assistant/Associate Professor in Library Science or 10 years of experience years' experience as a College Librarian. The Employment Notification dated 12/08/2024 was published by following the University's own policy or set up procedure as well as the UGC Regulations, 2018 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the educational qualification, "A Ph.D. Degree in Library Science/Documentation/ Archives and Manuscript Keeping", and the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 has obtained his Ph.D degree on 16/12/2024. But in the said Employment Notification dated 12/08/2024 it had been clearly mentioned that the last day for on online application submission was fixed 21/09/2024 and therefore, it is evident that all the minimum qualification must be obtained on or before 21/09/2024 which cannot be ignored and denied. 14. That the applicant begs to state that to be Librarian in the Central University, the applicant must have at least "10 years as a Librarian at any level in University Library or 10 years of teaching as Page No.# 7/8 Assistant/Associate Professor in Library Science or 10 years' experience as a College Librarian" but here in this case the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 has no requisite qualification and therefore if his petition is allowed then the eligible candidates like petitioner will be affected and therefore the impleadmnet of the applicant is necessary to project the case of the applicant. 15. That the applicant begs to state that his main intention of the prayer is to set aside and quash the Employment Notification No. 2/2024 dated 12/08/2024. If the Hon'ble court decided without hearing the applicant or decided the writ petition in favour of the petitioner then the applicant and other eligible applicants right will be affected and their whole afford to appear interview and being select will be prejudiced. 16. That the applicant begs to state that if the writ petitioner succeed the writ proceeding, the whole proceeding will be vitiated and then the right of selection of candidate like applicant will be curtailed. Moreover, the petition has been filed by submitting some false statements and if this will not be clarified the selection process will be highly affected. 17. That the applicant begs to state that in the UGC Regulations, minimum qualifications has been given but the writ petitioner misinterpreted the law and got a chance to appear in the interview and if he has been allowed then it will affect the right of selection of the applicant as well as other eligible candidates. 18. That the applicant begs to state that she is very - much interested in the outcome of the W.P.(C) No. 1381/25 and she is also a necessary party in the instant writ petition pending before this Hon'ble Court. As such, for proper adjudication of the matter it is very much necessary to implead the petitioner as -party Respondent Nos.-7 in W.P.(C) No.1381/2025 so that she can agitate her grievances and interest before this Hon'ble Court.” 9. Reading the aforesaid averments, it appears that though the applicant may not be classified as a necessary party in W.P.(C) No.1381/2025, she however cannot be said to be an outsider. Reference in this regard is made to Paragraph- 7 of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia -Vs- Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another reported in 1963 Supp (1) SCR 676, which reads as hereunder – “7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law Page No.# 8/8 on the subject is well settled : it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.” 11. In view of the aforesaid, the presence of the applicant is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. Hence, the applicant qualifies to be impleaded as being a proper party. 12. Accordingly, the impleadment application stands allowed and disposed of. 13. The applicant, Dr. Sumana Chakrabarty be impleaded as party respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No.1381/2025. 14. Let an amended cause-title be submitted before the Registry for doing the needful. JUDGE Comparing Assistant