Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010072132026 2026:GAU-AS:6252 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2156/2026 DR HEMANTA KUMAR BARUAH S/O LATE PHATIK CH. BARUAH, R/O NO 1 KATHIAKHUNDA, (B.T. ROAD), P.O. AND P.S. SAPEKHATI, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM 785692 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI- 110002 4:THE VICE CHANCELLOR DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY DIBRUGARH ASSAM 5:DR. SUNIL DUTTA PRESIDENT GOVERNING BODY OF SAPEKHATI COLLEGE P.O.- SAPEKHATI DISTRICT- CHARAIDEO ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 6:DR. BIJU MORAN PRINCIPAL SAPEKHATI COLLEGE P.O.- SAPEKHATI DISTRICT- CHARAIDEO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K SEN, MR A HUSSAIN,N HASAN,F. SHAHIN,P SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DIB. UNIVERSITY, SC, U G C,SC, HIGHER EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 24.04.2026 Heard Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department; Dr. P. Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel, UGC; and Ms. T. Wapangla, learned counsel for the respondent Dibrugarh University. 2. Considering the nature of issue raised in this writ petition and as consented by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final consideration at the motion stage itself. 3. Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, submits that he is not presenting a challenge to the appointment of the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of Sapekhati College, as a candidate desirous for being appointed against the said post. The challenge to the said appointment is made on the ground that the petitioner being the In-Charge Principal, Sapekhati College was also the Secretary of its Governing Body. However, it is submitted that the Meeting of the Governing Body leading to the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6, as the Principal of the College, was so held by the President of the Governing Body, without involving the petitioner, herein. 4. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department submits that Page No.# 3/5 from the materials brought on record, it is found that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, when the recommendation was made, was admittedly absent from the college. Accordingly, the college authorities had proceeded to conduct the selection in question. He submits that the aspect of the matter is apparent from the Communication dated 08.01.2026, issued by the President of the Governing Body of the Sapekhati College to the petitioner, wherein, it has been highlighted that the petitioner was found absent in the college as well as in the Special Governing Body Meeting held in the digital room of the College on 08.01.2026, without any information. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to show cause. Mr. Das submits that a perusal of the Reply submitted by the petitioner on 12.01.2026, would reveal that the petitioner had admitted his absence in the said Special Governing Body Meeting held on 08.01.2026, on account of personal problems as well as problems faced by his daughter. Mr. Das has further submitted that the petitioner had also contended that the matter was discussed with him by the President of the Governing Body and had required the meeting to be convened on the next date. Mr. Das, in the above premises, submits that there being no allegation with regard to any illegality or irregularity committed on the part of the selection committee in the matter of selection of the private respondent no. 6, as the Principal of the College and the same having been approved by the Director, Secondary Education, Assam, the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 as the Principal of the College in question would not mandate any interference from this Court on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is seen that the college in question was provincialized under the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provinzialisation of Services) Act, 2011 with effect from 01.01.2013, vide issuance of an Order dated 20.01.2014. After Provinzialisation of the college, the petitioner being the senior- most Assistant Professor was recommended by the Governing Body of the college to be allowed to act as Principal In-Charge of the College. The Director, Higher Education, Assam accordingly vide Order dated 27.09.2021, permitted the petitioner to function as the Principal In-Charge of the College for 3 (three) months, that is, w.e.f. October, 2021 to December, 2021 or till a regular Principal is appointed. The said temporary arrangement made with the petitioner is found to have been extended from time to time and the same was extended Page No.# 4/5 till 31.12.2025. 7. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, vide communication dated 03.12.2025, had required the President of the Governing Body of the College, to initiate steps for appointment of a regular Principal of the College and to complete the process of appointment, within a period of 45 (Forty Five) days, from the date of issuance of the said communication. A process for selection was accordingly, initiated and an interview, for the purpose of the said selection, was held on 07.01.2026. On conclusion of the selection process and receipt of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the President of the Governing Body, vide communication dated 05.01.2026, informed the petitioner about the convening of a Special Governing Body meeting on 08.01.2026 at 10:00 AM to discuss and arrive at a decision, with regard to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee for recruitment against the post of Principal. The petitioner did not attend the said meeting on account of certain health issues and had requested the President of the Governing Body to convene the meeting on 09.01.2026. The said special meeting of the Governing Body, was, however, held on 08.01.2026 and a resolution was adopted, therein, approving the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the name of the respondent No. 6 was recommended to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, for appointment against the post of Principal in the College. The grievance of the petitioner is that he being a Secretary of the Governing Body, such resolutions of the Governing Body was taken without his involvement. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, approved the resolutions adopted by the Governing Body, in its meeting held on 08.01.2026 and proceeded to appoint the respondent No. 6 as the Principal of the College, vide issuance of an order dated 12.01.2026. 8. The only ground on which the Selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 is so assailed, in the present proceedings, is that the recommendation, which was made in favour of the respondent no. 6, by the Governing Body of the College, was so made without the involvement of the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the said Body. The petitioner has not brought on record, any irregularity, committed in the process of selection of the respondent No. 6, against the post of Principal of the College. From the materials brought on record, it is revealed that after 31.12.2025, there was no order issued by the Director of Higher Page No.# 5/5 Education, Assam, permitting the petitioner to continue to hold the charge of the post of Principal of the College in question, as well as to function as the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. Accordingly, the challenge of the petitioner to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 only on the ground that he was not involved in the process by the Governing Body would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. Accordingly, the selection and appointment and the respondent No. 6, on the said ground urged in the present writ petition, would not mandate an interference from this Court. It is to be noted, herein, that the petitioner, on the date when the process of recruitment against the post of Principal of the College, had also not satisfied the requisite eligibility criterias and accordingly, he was ineligible for being considered for appointment against the post of Principal of the said College. 9. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the challenge made by the petitioner in the present writ petition fails and accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant