Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010287162025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/346/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2: THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM, KAHILIPARA-78101 VERSUS DR SWARNAJYOTI DAS AND 2 ORS. WIFE OF SRI DIGANTA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DARANGI CHUK, PO AND PS- JORHAT, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM-785001. 2:THE GOVERNING BODY SONARI COLLEGE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SONARI, P/O. SONARI DIST. CHARAIDEO ASSAM, PIN-785690 3:THE PRINCIPAL SONARI COLLEGE P/O. SONARI DIST. CHARAIDEO ASSAM, PIN-78569 For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, SC, Higher Education Mr. S. Das, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate Mr. D.K. Das, Advocate Page No.# 2/5 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 30.09.2026 (AshutoshKumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam, for the appellants, and Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Das, Advocate for the respondent. By this appeal, the appellant/State of Assam has questioned the judgment dated 31.10.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 4237/2022, whereby it has been directed that the authorities must act upon the recommendation dated 24.01.2018, made by the Principal of the Sonari College, Sivasagar, Assam, to appoint the respondent No. 1 herein as an Assistant Professor in the department of Political Science, against the vacant post reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. Sometime in July, 2017, an advertisement was issued by the Principal of the Sonari College, Sivasagar, Assam, for filling up one post of Assistant Professor in the department of Political Science, from amongst SC candidates. Out of the six candidates who had appeared, a consolidated merit list was prepared based on the marks secured by the candidates in the interview, in which the respondent No. 1 herein was placed at Serial No. 3. Appointment offer was made to the candidate who had obtained the maximum marks, but she was not willing to accept such offer, as she had already secured a job in Madhabdev Page No.# 3/5 College, Narayanpur. Thereafter, the Governing Body/Principal recommended the name of the candidate, who had been ranked second in the merit list. However, such recommendation was rejected by the Director of Higher Education on the ground that the said candidate had failed to furnish No Objection Certificate from his employer. As a sequel thereto, the Principal of the College forwarded the resolution of the Governing Body recommending the respondent No. 1 for the post. In the meantime, at the instance of the candidate who had been ranked second in the merit list, an interim order was passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1355/2018, restraining any appointment. However, later, the candidate at whose instance the entire appointment process was stayed, withdrew his objection, as he had lost interest in that offer. Accordingly, the writ petition was closed allowing the college to proceed with the appointment process in accordance with law. However, when the respondent No. 1 was not recommended even on her being ranked third in the merit list, who, in that circumstance, was the only candidate left and was interested in that offer, a writ petition came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 seeking direction for approval of the Governing Body resolution dated 18.01.2018, referred above, so that she is appointed on that post. The writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed vide the impugned judgment, directing the authorities to act upon the recommendation of the Governing Body and appoint her on the post in question. Now, the Directorate of Higher Education has taken a stand, without objecting in any manner whatsoever to the candidature of the Page No.# 4/5 respondent No. 1, that when there is no provision for preparation of a panel or waiting list, the post ought not to be automatically filled up by appointing the third candidate in order of merit, even though the first two candidates expressed their no interest in accepting such offer. Mr. Gogoi has submitted that in the absence of any statutory rules, the employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate from the so- called waiting list, and it would always be better to re-advertise the post for taking the best meritorious candidate available for the post. Another argument advanced by Mr. Gogoi is that after the Director had rejected the recommendation of the Governing Body for appointment of the second candidate, the selection process would be deemed to be finally concluded without any appointment. The recommendation of the college made thereafter cannot compulsorily be acted upon. That apart, it has been submitted by Mr. Gogoi that any such appointment by the Director would be in breach of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “AFRBM Act”) which, though not directly, but obliquely requires that a select list ought to contain only as many names as the number of vacant posts. In the present instance, only one post was advertised and for that there was no provision for preparation of any merit list by the college/Governing Body. Similar arguments were advanced before the learned Single Judge, which were not sustained for the reason that the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 and the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 contain no bar on the Page No.# 5/5 preparation of a panel list by the Selection Committee. The AFRBM Act, 2005 is only for maintaining fiscal discipline, which cannot be extended for any other purpose whatsoever. After perusing the records, it appears that prior to the issuance of the advertisement by the Principal of the college, the Director of Higher Education Assam, vide communication dated 27.06.2017, while according permission to the Principal of the college to float the advertisement, clearly mentioned that in the event of the 1st candidate joining elsewhere or not willing to join, the appointing authority may go for recommending other candidate from the select list up to candidate No. 3 in the comparative statement. We find no reason for the Director of Higher Education to take any different view in the matter, more so, when no question or suspicion has been raised on the merit or the candidature of the respondent No. 1. Taking all these facts into account, we find no infirmity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment. The appeal lacks merits and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is expected that the appointment shall be made expeditiously, as the post has remained vacant since 2017. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant