GAHC010044692021 2025:GAU-AS:5074 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P.(C) NO.1728 OF 2021 Ms. Bandana Sharma, D/o- Sh. G. C. Sharma, R/o- Navagiri Road, Bye Lane 2, Chandmari, Guwahati-781003, District- Kamrup (Metro), Assam. …….Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006. 2. The Director of Higher Education, Kahilipara, Guwahati-781019. 3. The Selection Committee for Selection of Assistant Professor of Khagarijan College, Represented by the Secretary & Principal of Khagarijan College, Chotahaibor, Nagaon, Assam, PIN- 782003. 4. The Principal of Khagarijan College, Chotahaibor, Nagaon, Assam, PIN- 782003. 5. Maitreyee Dutta, C/o- Principal, Khagarijan College, Chotahaibor, Nagaon, District- Nagaon, Assam, PIN-782003. …….Respondents – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. C. Chaudhury, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Das, Standing Counsel, Higher Education, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. : Mr. T. Chakraborty, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (College authorities). : Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. P. Bhattachaya, Advocate for respondent No.5. Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025. Date of Judgment : 24.04.2025. JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. J. C. Chaudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (College authorities) and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattachaya, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent No.5 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No.5 to the post of Assistant Professor English at Khagarijan College, Nagaon. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:- Pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.10.2020, whereby applications from eligible candidates were invited for filling up posts of Assistant Professor of which one was for English subject, the petitioner and the respondent No.5 along with few others applied for the said post and also participated in the interview process. Thereafter, the respondent authorities by order dated 16.02.2021 appointed the respondent No.5 to the said subject post. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the details of all candidates which were uploaded on the college website by the college authorities, it was apparent that the application of respondent No.5 was incomplete and the petitioner had secured more marks than the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. J. C. Chaudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who secured higher marks in the subject selection having been ignored by the respondent authorities while appointing the respondent No.5, that too when his application was incomplete, the entire selection stands vitiated and the appointment of respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside and quashed. He further submits that though as per the details uploaded by the college authorities, it was apparent that the respondent No. 5 had not submitted the requisite Permanent Residence Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “PRC”), however it appears that from the affidavit in opposition filed by the college authorities that the said application is shown to be available. He accordingly submits that there has been gross manipulation of the records as well as the marks awarded by the selecting authorities and hence, the entire selection is illegal, unfair and arbitrary. He further submits that the claim of the respondent No.5 that she has submitted requisite publications also appears to be not correct. 5. Per contra Mr. T. Chakraborty learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (College authorities) submits that the list of details uploaded by the college authorities on the basis of which the petitioner claims to have secured higher marks than the respondent No.5 is totally misplaced inasmuch as the marks entered therein are as per the marks entered and documents submitted by the candidates and the same is prior to the verification by the selection committee. He further submits that after the selection committee had conducted the selection and verified all the documents have found the respondent No.5 qualified and eligible and has accordingly, appointed the respondent No.5 and therefore, the said appointment ought not to be interfered with by this Court. He further submits that the comparative statement of the selection committee in respect of the subject post abundantly clarifies that the respondent No.5 has secured the highest mark and is placed at Serial No.1, whereas the petitioner is placed at Serial No.3. He further submits that the person at Serial No. 2 i.e. Bhumika Devi is not made a party respondent in the instant writ petition. He accordingly submits that non- impleading the person at Serial No.2 disentitles the petitioner from any of the reliefs sought in the present writ petition. 6. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 has all the requisite educational qualifications and having secured the highest marks in the selection conducted by the selecting authorities, the appointment of respondent No.5 to the subject post warrants no interference from this Court. He further submits that the respondent No.5 is serving in the said post since her date of joining. He further submits that the petitioner in the meantime has been appointed as Assistant Professor in English Department in Tezpur College after going through a selection process and is accordingly serving therein. 7. Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 places the records pertaining to the subject selection and draws the attention of the Court that the details of candidates which was uploaded in the college website is prior to the verification and selection by the selection committee. He further submits that the said document itself clarifies the aforesaid position inasmuch as the same is not signed by any of the members of the selection committee. He further draws the attention of the Court that the comparative statement of the marks obtained by all the candidates signed by all the members of the selection committee clearly indicates that the respondent No.5 has submitted all the requisite documents and is also eligible for appointment to the subject post and that after being evaluated, he secured first position in the select list and hence the entire selection being fair and transparent warrants no interference from this Court. 8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for all the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. It appears that pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.10.2020, the petitioner and respondent No.5 applied for the subject post. Apt to refer to the aforesaid advertisement which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: - “KHAGARIJAN COLLEGE, NAGAON SITUATION VACANT In pursuance of the DHE's letter No. DHE/CE/Misc/12/2020/4, dated 06.02.2020, letter No. DHE/CE/CC/29/2020/15, dated Kahilipara the 03.09.2020 and in compliance with the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 21.08.2019 in WP (C) No 5998/2019 & dated 13.02.2020 passed In Case No. I.A (Civil) 4287/2019, In W.P. (C) No. 5998/2019, applications are Invited in DHE's prescribed format with complete bio-data and all testimonials from HSLC onwards from the eligible candidates for filling up of the following sanctioned posts of Assistant professor. 1. Assamese: No of Post = 01 Unreserved (Roster Point-3) 2. Economics: No of Post=02 Unreserved (Roster point-1,16) 3. English: No of Post= 01 Unreserved (Roster Point-4) 4. Education: No of Post-01 ST (P) (Roster point-5) 5. Political Science: No of Post-01 ST (P) (Roster point-15) Educational Qualification and selection procedure will be as per Govt. Office Memorandum No.AHE.407/2017/44, dated 08.11.2018 with the NET/SLET/SET as mandatory eligibility conditions. Candidates having Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC (minimum standard and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree) regulation 2009 shall be exempted, from NET/SLET/SET The candidates must have minimum 55% marks (or an equivalent grade point scale) at Master's Degree level in the concerned subject. A relaxation of 5% marks may be provided to SC/ST/PWD candidates and the Ph.D. holders who have obtained their Master's Degree prior to 19th Sept./1991. The candidates have to acquire qualifications as on the last date for the submitting of applications. Eligibility, like M.Phil/Ph.D./Seminar Papers/Publications can be acquired and submitted on the date of Interview and not beyond. Age of the candidates should not be more than 38 years as on. 01/01/2020 with relaxation of 5 years for SC/ST/PWD candl-dates and 3 years for OBC/MOBC. candidates. Candidates who come under the purview of Hon'ble High Court Order stated above may apply. The candidates must have Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC) and must have proficiency In Local languages. In-Service candidates must apply through proper channel with NOC obtained from the competent authority. Applications with all relevant documents along with a non-refündable Demand Draft of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) only drawn. In favour of Principal, Khagarijan College, Chotahalbor, Nagaon, Pin Code- 782003, payable at S.B.I. Nagaon Branch, must reach the undersigned within 15 days from the date of publication of this advertisement. Date of Interview will be communicated to the eligible candidate latter on. No TA/DA will be paId. The advertisement is uploaded In www.khagarijancollege.co.in. Sd/- Dr. Ramesh Nath Principal, Khagarijan College, Nagaon” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid advertisement indicates that in order for a candidate to be qualified for the post of Assistant Professor, the educational qualification is as per Government Memorandum dated 08.11.2018 with the NET/SLET/SET as mandatory eligibility conditions. 11. It appears that after the candidates have appeared for the interview, the selection committee had conducted the selection and the comparative statement of selection of the subject post. Perusal of the aforesaid comparative statement, it appears that the respondent No.5 secured the highest marks and one Bhumika Devi secured the 2nd highest marks and the petitioner had secured the 3rd highest marks. It further appears that the respondent No.5 meets all the requisite eligible criteria including NET clearance. 12. This brings me to the contention of Mr. J. C. Chaudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is apparent from the list of details of the candidates uploaded in the college website, that the respondent No.5 secured lower marks than the petitioner and further did not have the requisite educational qualifications. A perusal of the aforesaid document which is annexed as Annexure-P3 to the writ petition, it appears that the said comparative statement containing details of all the candidates who had applied for the subject post was prepared by the college authorities before the selection and verification of the original documents was done by the selection committee. It further appears that the marks which were entered in the said comparative statement were tentative and not signed by either the college authorities or the members of the selection committee. It further appears that it is clearly mentioned in the said comparative statement that the marks may be changed after the members of the selection committee completes the selection and verification of the original documents of the applicants. That being so, the marks entered in the said comparative statement cannot by any stretch of imagination can be said to be final marks awarded by the selection committee. Page 10 of 15 13. It would be worthwhile to mention herein that upon perusal of the original records of the subject selection made available before this Court by Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it appears that the selection committee after verifying the original documents submitted by the candidates have entered the marks on 12.12.2020, where from it is amply evident that the respondent No.5 secured the highest marks and also had the prescribed educational qualification. Hence, it is clearly established that the respondent No.5 is eligible and qualified to be appointed to the subject post. 14. Apt at this juncture to refer to the relevant paragraph of the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 which reads as hereunder under: - “5. That as regard the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that the respondent No.5 submitted her HSLC, HSSLC and Integrated Course B.A. 6th and M.A. 10th Semester examination along with her application. Moreover, the respondent No.5 submitted her B.A. and M.A. (Integrated) Provisional Pass Certificate issued by the Controller of Examination, Tezpur University. It is stated herein that there were some confusion regarding the Integrated Marksheets submitted by the respondent No.5 and therefore, when the marks sheets were evaluated it was recorded that marksheets has not been furnished. It is specifically stated herein that all the required educational qualification certificates were duly submitted by the respondent no.5 along with her application. Moreover, the Selection Committee, on the date of interview compared the original marksheets of the respondent No.5 and the same were found to be in appropriate manner. As regard the PRC (permanent residence certificate), the answering deponent begs to state that the respondent No.5 along with her application submitted a separate application to the effect that PRC is not available with her at the present address and the respondent No.5 assured that the same will be produced before the Selection Committee on the date of interview. Further, the answering deponent further begs to state that the selection of Assistant Professor is required to be made on the basis of the UGC Regulations. Such regulation was enacted in exercise of power under Section 26 (1) (e) and (g) of the UGC Act, 1956. The object of such enactment was for maintenance of standards in Higher Education. The provisions of the UGC Regulation mandates for selection on the basis of merit and minimum qualification laid therein. Such regulation nowhere mandates requirement of PRC as a qualification for such appointment in as much as there is no nexus between the standard of higher education, merit of the incumbent and requirement of PRC. Therefore, on the count of none submission of PRC, the candidature of the respondent No.5 cannot rejected inasmuch as the respondent No.5 on the date of interview produced the PRC before the Selection Committee. 6. That as regard the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that the application of the respondent No.5 was not incomplete. Moreover, the respondent No.5 fulfills all the necessary criteria for the post of Assistant Professor English. It is further stated herein that as per UGC Guideline for selection to the post of Assistant Professor as well as extent guidelines issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, there is no provision for awarding any marks to the petitioner for the Military Training Certificate and therefore, the same was not considered.” 15. Perusal of the aforesaid averments made by the respondent No. 3 and 4, it appears that the respondent No. 5 has submitted all the requisite testimonials as regards the educational qualification etc., along with her application and as regards the PRC, it appears that the respondent No.5 along with her application submitted a separate application intimating that PRC is not available at the time of submitting the application, however, the same shall be produced before the selection committee on the date of interview. It further appears that on the date of interview the said PRC has been submitted by the respondent No.5. 16. This brings me to the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition which reads as hereunder: - “In the premises aforesaid it is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of selection and appointment and issue rule upon the respondents, especially Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5 to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued setting aside/quashing the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent No. 5 as cancelled and issue mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 the Director, Higher Education to issue a fresh appointment order in the name of the petitioner Bandanan Sharma, as Asst. Professor, English at Khagarjan College, Nagaon in strict adherence of individual merit of the petitioner and/or as to why any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued so as to give complete justice to the petitioner. And upon cause shown, or upon hearing the parties and/or on perusal of the records, be pleased to make the rule absolute.” 17. It appears that the petitioner has sought setting aside and quashing the appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.5 and also has sought a mandamus for directing the respondent No.2 to issue a fresh appointment order in the name of the petitioner. As noted above, the candidate who secured the 2nd highest marks and is above the petitioner is not impleaded as a party respondent in the present writ petition. In the event the prayer of the petitioner if is given, a valuable right of the said candidate could be affected. Therefore, on this score alone of non- impleadment of the said candidate, the writ petition can be dismissed. That apart, it is abundantly clear from the above that the selection committee has not deviated from the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and by adhering to the advertised qualification has appointed to the respondent No.5, who is eligible. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the role of selection committee and evaluate fitness of a candidate for a particular post. In other words, the constitutional court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the selection committee. The jurisdiction of the constitutional court to interfere with the decision of the selection committee is limited. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the decision of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors., reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305. Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: - “12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” 18. Reading of the aforesaid judgment it is abundantly clear that the decision of the selection committee can be interfered only with limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafide affecting the selection etc. In other words, transparency and accountability in the selection process are crucial. 19. Returning back to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear from the above that the appointment of respondent No.5 is not illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, the selection process appears to be fair and transparent. Thus, in any view of the matter the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merit or substance whatsoever. 20. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant