Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010061592024 2025:GAU-AS:1873 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/167/2024 GITALI BORDOLOI DAS ASSTT. PROFESSOR (HINDI) (AD-HOC), SANKARDEV MAHAVIDYALAYA, PATHALIPAHAR, W/O- SHRI SUSANTA KUMAR BORDOLOI, R/O- VILL- BANGALMORA, P.O. ISLAMGAON, P.S. BIHPURIA, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787054. VERSUS NARAYAN KONWAR AND ORS. SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPTT. (HIGHER), DISPUR, GHY-06. 2:DHARMA KANTA MILI THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 3:SONARAM KALITA PRINCIPAL OF SANKARDEV MAHAVIDYALAYA PATHALIPAHAR LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT PIN- 784163. 4:BIREN BHAGAWATI CHAIRMAN GOVERNING BODY/ SELECTION COMMITTEE OF SANKARDEV MAHAVIDYALAYA PATHALIPAHAR LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT PIN- 784163. 5:POMI BARUA Page No.# 2/6 ACS THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K GOGOI(R-5), MR B ISLAM (R-3),MR. J C GOGOI (R- 3),MR. D UPAMANYA(R-5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 21-02-2025 Heard Mr. B Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner had been appointed in the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in Sankardev Mahavidyalaya, Lakhimpur district, a deficit College on ad-hoc basis, on the basis of the approval of the Governing Body vide resolution No. 2 dated 25.08.2005. The petitioner continued to work in the said college and had time and again prayed for regularisation of her service. On 06.08.2019, an advertisement was issued to fill up the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) alongwith other posts and applications were invited for the same. The petitioner made a challenge to the same by way of WP(C) 7667/2019, by praying for setting aside the advertisement dated 06.08.2019 and for a direction to regularise the service of the petitioner. The same was however not accepted by this Court and the petitioner was asked to participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 06.08.2019. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed I.A.(Civil) 3348/2019 in WP(C) Page No.# 3/6 7667/2019, praying that since the interview had already been held for filling up the post of Assistant Professor, the authorities may be directed to look into the prayer of the petitioner, to take into consideration her 15 years of service as an Assistant Professor (Hindi). Further, as the petitioner had already submitted a representation dated 09.10.2019, the Governing Body may consider the petitioner’s representation dated 09.10.2019, as the selection committee had not done so. 4. WP(C) 7667/2019 was thereafter disposed of vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2023 holding at paragraph 7, 8, 9 & 10 as follows:- “7. It appears from the communication dated 06.01.2020 that due consideration of weightage for the 15 years of experience of the petitioner in spite of the order dated 21.10.2019 in IA(Civil) 7667/2019 could not be given inasmuch as, the order of the Court was received by the authorities after the interview was over. The said reasoning of the communication dated 06.01.2020 in our view would not be sustainable inasmuch as, the court in its order dated 21.10.2019 in paragraphs 4 and 5 had already taken note of the fair submission of the petitioner that the interview had already been held on 21.10.2019. In spite of taking note of the said factual circumstance, there is a direction from the Court to take note and give due consideration to the 15 years of experience of the petitioner in the selection process. Page No.# 4/6 8. As he Court had taken note of the factual circumstance and in spite of it had issued a direction, we are of the view that receiving the order of the Court after the date of the interview cannot be a reason for the college authorities not to follow the direction of the Court or not to give due consideration to the 15 years of experience of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the selection committee of Sankardev Mahavidyalaya to comply with the direction contained in the order dated 21.10.2019 in IA (Civil) 7667/2019 and upon taking note of the 15 years of experience of the petitioner to give adequate weightage in the selection process and thereafter bring the process to its logical end. As it is a matter pursuant to an advertisement of the year 2019, we direct that the requirement be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. The records produced by Mr. JC Gogoi, learned counsel be returned back. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. ” 5. As can be seen from the above paragraph 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2023 passed in WP(C) 7667/2019, the selection committee was to give adequate weightage to the 15 years of experience of the petitioner as an Assistant Professor. Page No.# 5/6 6. Mr. D Upamanyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted the Speaking Order dated 19.08.2024 issued by the Director, Higher Education in compliance with the order dated 21.11.2023, passed in WP(C) 7667/2019. A perusal of the same shows that the petitioner had been given full weightage for experience, i.e., 3 out of 3 marks had been given as per the guidelines provided for giving marks for teaching experience in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2018 issued by the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department. A maximum of 3 marks can be given for the experience of teaching, as provided in the Office Memorandum No. AHE.407/2017/44 dated 08.11.2018 issued by the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department, under the heading “vii Teaching/Library Management Experience in the concerned subject/domain (1 marks for each completed year of service after acquiring UGC norms in provincialised/Govt./Affiliated Degree college Libraries of Govt. Institutes subject to Maximum of 03 marks)” 7. In view of the speaking order dated 19.08.2024 read with the Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2018, wherein a maximum of 3 marks is provided for teaching experience and as the petitioner has been given the said maximum of 3 marks, this Court is of the view that the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in WP(C) 7667/2019 has been complied with. 8. The speaking order dated 19.08.2024 and the Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2018 are made a part of the record and marked as Annexures-8 and 9 respectively. The above being said, it has also been stated by Mr. D Upamanyu, learned counsel submits that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 5 today. Page No.# 6/6 9. The contempt petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant