Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010021342021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/778/2021 DR. SANGHAMITRA CHOUDHURY D/O DR. D K CHOUDHURY RETIRED PROFESSOR R/O 102 H NILGIRI APARTMENT, ADABARI TINIALI, PIN-781012 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS THE GAUHATI UNVERSITY AND 6 ORS REP .BY THE REGISTRAR JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-781014 2:THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-781014 3:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR CONDUCTING DIRECT RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPTT. OF WOMENS STUDIES GAUHATI UNIVERSITY REP. BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-14 4:ANURADHA DUTTA (SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT) SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR CONDUCTING DIRECT RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPTT. OF WOMENS STUDIES GAUHATI UNIVERSITY TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-14 5:BHUPEN SARMAH (SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT) SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR CONDUCTING DIRECT RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPTT. OF WOMENS STUDIES GAUHATI UNIVERSITY TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GUWAHATI-14 Page No.# 2/5 6:RATNA BHUYAN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL CENTRE NIRD LANE KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781022 ASSAM 7:THE SECRETARY UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002 REP.BY THE JOINT SECRETARY UGC HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA GUWAHATI-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. M SARMA,MR. A BARKATAKI,MR P BHARDWAJ Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S K DEKA, MR. K N CHOUDHURY (R-6),MR. M DAS (R- 6),MR. P J PHUKAN (SC, GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, R- 1,2,3),SC, U G C (R-7) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 28.08.2025 Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, in Gauhati University. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of the private respondent No. 6 (Dr. Ratna Bhuyan) and also challenged the Resolution of Executive Council, dated 23.01.2021, adopted by the respondents Gauhati University. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement, dated 02.06.2020, issued by the Gauhati University, for filling up Page No.# 3/5 the posts of Associate Professor in the department of Women Studies, the petitioner, amongst others, had applied for the same and she was called for interview, held on 21.01.2021. But, having appeared before the interview board, the petitioner realized that the selection was curated with a vested design only to appoint the respondent No. 6 and all credentials of the petitioner were ignored and thereby, made the entire selection process a mockery. Mr. Sarma further submits that the petitioner came to know that the appointment letter was issued to respondent No. 6, in violation of the parameters laid down by the UGC, governing the field. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, making specific accusation against the members of the selection committee and they are arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in this petition, being the subject expert in the selection process. But, though notice was served upon them and also upon the private respondent No. 6, yet, they had not entered appearance and filed their response and as such, the allegation of biasness being committed by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, remained uncontroverted. Therefore, Mr. Sarma has contended to set aside the selection of the respondent No. 6 and also to appoint the petitioner as Associate Professor in the department of Women Studies in Gauhati University. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in Gauhati University, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition, submits that the statements and averments in the petition are incorrect and moreover, the petitioner had already joined as Professor in Bodoland University and on such count, this writ petition becomes infructuous. Mr. Phukan, referring to an order of this Court, dated 05.03.2025, submits that though the status-quo order, passed earlier, was allowed to continue, yet, vide same order, the respondent university was allowed to take a decision to initiate fresh selection Page No.# 4/5 process and accordingly, on 21.03.2025, the Executive Council had taken a decision to abandon the selection process and to initiate the same a fresh. Mr. Phukan further submits that though the University is allowed to initiate fresh selection process, yet, it has not initiated the process because of the pendency of this petition and as the status-quo is operating and that the University is facing hardship in running the department due to lack of Associate Professor. 4.1. Further, referring to Section 7(1)(g) of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005 (the Act of 2005 hereinafter), Mr. Phukan submits that in view of the aforementioned provision, only one candidate was selected as there was only one vacant post at the time of calling of application and no waiting list was prepared and in the event of cancellation of the appointment of the respondent No. 6, the petitioner cannot be appointed in the said post, as her name finds no mention in the selection list. Therefore, Mr. Phukan submits that this writ petition may be closed so that the University may go ahead with the new selection process and the petitioner will be at liberty to participate in the new selection process, if so advised. 5. In reply to the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Gauhati University, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that if the age relaxation is not required for participation in the fresh selection process by the petitioner, then he has no objection in closing this writ petition, by granting liberty to the petitioner to participate in the said process and if age relaxation is required, then the respondent University may be directed to grant the same. 6. At this stage, Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati University, submits that there is no requirement of relaxation of age for the post of Associate Professor in the department of Women Studies in Gauhati University. Page No.# 5/5 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 and also perused the Section 7(1)(g) of the Act of 2005. 8. Admittedly, only one post was advertised for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Women Studies in Gauhati University and only one candidate, being the private respondent No. 6, has been selected in view of Section 7(1)(g) of the Act of 2005. That being so, even if the selection of the private respondent No. 6 is cancelled then also the petitioner could not be appointed as her name finds no mention in the select list. Moreover, the respondent University has already resolved to abandon the selection process and to initiate a fresh one and this Court has already allowed the University to initiate fresh selection process, vide order dated 05.03.2025. 9. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to close this writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to participate in the new selection process, to be initiated by the respondents in Gauhati University. It is further provided that if there is a requirement for relaxation of the age of the petitioner, in applying and participating in the selection process, then the respondents in Gauhati University shall consider such relaxation same in accordance with law. 10. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant