Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010154202025 2026:GAU-AS:6858- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/264/2025 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SECY., HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2: THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 1 VERSUS DR KARUNA CHAMARIA NEE GOENKA AND ORS W/O SUMIT CHAMARIA, R/O GNB ROAD, TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786125 2:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECY. BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI 02 3:SAYANTAN GUHA MAZUMDAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL DIBRU COLLEGE DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM-786003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K GOGOI, MR. A R TAHBILDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, U G C, MS K BORAH(R-3),MS S MOCHAHARI(R-3),S PAUL(R-3),MR. S DUTTA(R-3),MR S DUTTA(R-3),MR. S DUTTA(R-3),MR. M K MISRA (R-1) Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2803/2025 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2: THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 VERSUS DR KARUNA CHAMARIA NEE GOENKA AND ORS. W/O SUMIT CHAMARIA R/O GNB ROAD TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786125 2:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI 02 3:SAYANTAN GUHA MAZUMDAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL DIBRU COLLEGE DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM-786003. ------------ For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. K.Gogoi, Advocate Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. K. Mishra, Advocate Mr. A. Chamua, SC, UGC Page No.# 3/5 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 19.05.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellants/State of Assam & Others, and Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. The UGC/respondent No. 2 is represented by Mr. A. Chamua, learned counsel. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 17.06.2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 2821/2023. By the impugned judgment, the Director of Higher Education, Assam and the Governing Body of the Dibru College, Dibrugarh as also the Selection Committee of the Dibru College have been directed to re- evaluate the marks of respondent No. 1, and if she is found entitled to the benefit of 13 more marks in terms of the guidelines concerned, she be given such marks and, thereafter, a final decision be taken at the earliest. The State of Assam has questioned the afore-noted direction. The facts of the case, in brief, are that against an advertisement for filling up a post of Assistant Professor in the Commerce Department, Dibru College, the respondent No. 1 had participated in the selection process but had secured lesser marks than the respondent No. 3, namely, Sayantan Guha Mazumdar and that she had pursued two courses simultaneously, one being Masters Degree in commerce and the other being Ph.D. in another discipline, which debarred her for being granted Page No.# 4/5 additional 13 marks meant for Ph.D. qualification, as claimed by her. During the course of the hearing, we asked Mr. Chamua, learned counsel representing the UGC with respect to the rules regarding permissibility of a candidate pursuing two courses simultaneously. Mr. Chamua informed this Court that by virtue of a Circular issued by the UGC in the year 2022, pursuing two courses simultaneously by a candidate is permissible but it is subject to the condition that one of the courses is pursued through distance education mode. The appellants are not willing to give 13 more marks to the respondent No. 1 and to conclude the process of selection on the ground that such Circular permitting a candidate pursue two courses simultaneously came into force in the year 2022, whereas the respondent No. 1 had undertaken two simultaneous courses prior to such Circular coming into force. The UGC Circular, however, makes it clear that in the absence of any direction by the UGC in that regard, the direction of the University concerned shall prevail. In the present case, there is no direction of the University with respect to pursuing two simultaneous courses by any applicant. Now, with the present set of rules and the respondent No. 3 being totally uninterested in the assignment, as communicated to this Court, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge asking the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, namely, the Director of Higher Education, Assam; the Governing Body of the Dibru College, Dibrugarh and the Selection Committee of the Dibru College, respectively in the writ petition, to reconsider the case of the respondent Page No.# 5/5 No. 1 and to conclude the process of appointment as early as possible, because the post in question is still lying vacant. With the afore-noted observations, the appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant