Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010171452021 2026:GAU-AS:7555 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5713/2021 MS. JITA HAZARIKA W/O SRI UPEN CHANDRA DEKA, R/O WEST MILAN NAGAR, Q-LANE, DIBRUGARH, P.O.- CENTRAL REVENUE (C.R) BUILDING, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION KAHILIPARA ASSAM GUWAHATI-781019 3:THE GOVERNING BODY (G.B.) OF NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE NIRMALI GAON DIBRUGARH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.O.-C.R. BUILDING DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786003 4:THE PRINCIPAL-CUM-SECRETARY TO THE G.B. OF NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE NIRMALI GAON DIBRUGARH P.O.-C.R. BUILDING Page No.# 2/21 P.S.-DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786003 5:DR. MANASHI GOGOI BORGOHAIN VICE-PRINCIPAL OF NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE NIRMALI GAON DIBRUGARH P.O.-C.R. BUILDING P.S.-DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786003 6:MS. MRIDUSMITA GOGOI TUTOR DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE NIRMALI GAON DIBRUGARH P.O.-C.R. BUILDING P.S.-DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786003 7:MS. MOUCHMI GOGOI ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE NIRMALI GAON DIBRUGARH P.O.-C.R. BUILDING P.S.-DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78600 Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. J. Abedin Advocates for the respondents : Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. Mr. S. Ali Mr. A. Buragohain Page No.# 3/21 Mr. S. Das Mr. S.S. Goswami BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR Date on which judgment is reserved : 26.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.M. Deka, as well as Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsels for the respondent No. 7. Also heard Mr. A. Buragohain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. S.S. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the fact that the College Authorities did not forward the name of the petitioner for consideration for provincialisation by the appropriate authorities, in due time, Page No.# 4/21 for which the petitioner had lost the opportunity to be considered for provincialisation on her turn under both Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2011), and under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2017). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she had completed her M.A. in Economics in the year 1991 from Dibrugarh University, securing second class with 54.63% marks. Accordingly, she was offered an appointment by the respondent No.4 in the Nandalal Borgohain City College, Nimaligaon, Dibrugarh and the petitioner joined her services on 31.12.1996 in the Economics Department as the second faculty member. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner was appointed, there was a standard practice or norm where the percentages above 54.5% in master’s degrees were allowed to be rounded off to 55%. The petitioner had again done her Master’s degree in Economics through distance mode, and in April 2011, she cleared the same by securing 55.08%. 5. In accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2011, the names of different staff members of the college had been forwarded to the appropriate authorities for being considered for provincialisation of services. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement annexed to the writ petition, showing the persons eligible for provincialisation of service as per the Act of Page No.# 5/21 2011 (as amended in 2012) in respect of the college in issue, to show that, in the subject of Economics, only the name of one Assistant Professor had been forwarded as eligible and qualified for provincialisation of services. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that when the second phase of provincialisation was being taken up, this Court, by the orders passed in WP(C) No. 3190 of 2012 and other connected petitions, had declared the Act of 2011 to be constitutionally invalid. By an order dated 02.01.2017, passed in Review Petition No.167 of 2016, this Court had granted protection to those persons who had already been provincialised under the Act of 2011, until the new legislation, as proposed, was enacted. 7. By an order dated 31.05.2013, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department had directed that the faculty members, who were appointed during the period from 06.09.1989 to 20.02.2003 and had scored 54.5% in their Post Graduation, would be entitled to have their percentage of marks to be rounded off to 55% and they would be treated as qualified for the Post of Lecturers in Colleges in the State of Assam. The petitioner belonged to this stream of incumbents appointed in the aforesaid period. 8. The Government in the Education Department initiated an exercise for provincialisation of teaching and non-teaching staff of various venture institutions of the State in accordance with the Act of 2017. With the hope that her case would also be considered for provincialisation of services under the Act Page No.# 6/21 of 2017, the petitioner submitted her particulars to the Principal of the College for placing her case before the appropriate authorities for provincialisation along with other incumbents of the College. 9. The first list of eligible teachers under the 2017 Act was published by the Office of the Director of Higher Education on 17.08.2020, and the petitioner came to know that her name did not figure in the said first list. However, the names of the respondents 6 and 7 figured as eligible teachers in the list. On 21.08.2020, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director of Higher Education with a prayer for consideration of her case for the second post of Economics in the College concerned. A representation was also submitted through the Principal of the college, who had forwarded the same, but had failed to inform the petitioner that her name had not yet been sent up for consideration for provincialisation even under the 2017 Act. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that the Principal of the College had thereafter coerced her to put up an application claiming the fourth post in Economics in the College for provincialisation. However, by a representation dated 31.08.2020, the petitioner had informed the Director of Higher Education, Assam, that she was required to be considered against the second post and not the fourth post for the subject of Economics. 11. By the order dated 05.02.2021, the services of the Private Respondents No. 6 and 7 were provincialised. Another list was subsequently uploaded on the official website of the Page No.# 7/21 Director of Higher Education, where the names of the incumbents, whose services were not considered for provincialisation due to non-fulfilment of the required criteria as per the Act of 2017, appeared. The name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 273 in the said list, and it is the case of the petitioner, which the respondents do not dispute, that her claim for provincialisation had been rejected on the ground that her case for the post of 4th teacher in the subject could not be considered since the requisite number of students did not appear in the final examination in the subject concerned. 12. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to different annexures in the writ petition, has submitted that the case of the petitioner was required to have been forwarded for provincialisation at the first go, under the Act of 2011, along with Smt. Punya Gogoi, who had been provincialised as the first Teacher in the College of Economics. 13. The learned counsel submits that, even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that the consideration of the case of the petitioner under the 2011 Act had lost relevance since the Act itself had been declared to be unconstitutional, the authorities in the respondent College were required to have forwarded the name of the petitioner as the second Teacher in Economics for consideration under the Act of 2017, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had joined her services in the year 1996, much prior to the respondent nos. 6 and 7. 14. 6 and 7. 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two teachers Page No.# 8/21 whose names have been forwarded as qualified teachers under the Act of 2017 were required to have been considered for the third and fourth posts, respectively, and not against the second and third posts. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities of the respondent College and members of the Governing Body are related as family to the private respondent No 7. Therefore, there was a conscious and concerted effort to deprive the petitioner of the opportunity of provincialisation of services, not only under the Act of 2011 but also under the Act of 2017, only to accommodate one of the two private respondents, namely the respondent No.7. 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that appropriate orders are required to be passed by this Court directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of her services as the second Teacher in Economics under the Act of 2017. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents No. 6 and 7, did not fulfil the conditions of the Act of 2011 and therefore, their names were forwarded as ineligible candidates, only to ensure that their presence in the college is maintained in the records. The petitioner's name was left out of the lists of both eligible and ineligible candidates to ensure that the second post would not be filled until such time that the respondents No. 6 and 7, attained the eligibility criteria and thereafter, their names could be sponsored for the second and third posts, depriving the petitioner. 17. Respondents in the Education Department have not filed any response to Page No.# 9/21 the writ petition. During the hearing, it was submitted that since the allegations have been levelled against the college authorities and the private respondents for having acted in consortium to ensure that the name of the petitioner is not sponsored, the State respondents were not required to contest the writ petition by filing any affidavit. The learned Standing counsel has, however, submitted that the respondent State had considered all persons whose names have been sponsored as eligible for consideration for provincialisation, both under the Act of 2011 and under the Act of 2017. The State respondents did not contest or dispute the eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for provincialisation of services under the Act of 2017. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that her case had been rejected under the Act of 2017 for the 4th post only on the ground of non-fulfillment of the requirement of a minimum number of students to be enrolled or to appear for final exams, has not been denied by the State respondents. 18. The respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner had joined the Dibrugarh City College, as it was then known, without UGC norms, with a promise to acquire norms within a short span of time. It is stated that the petitioner did not inform the College Authority about her certificates of educational qualification or her upgradation of qualification in terms of the UGC regulation from 1998 onwards. The College had received Government concurrence in the year 2005, and since then, in order to engage the best Page No.# 10/21 faculty, all appointments were made considering the UGC norms of 55% marks in a master's degree. 19. The assertion of the petitioner that she had passed her MA in Economics in the year 1991 from Dibrugarh University with 54.63 marks has been doubted by the respondents No.3, 4 and 5. It has been submitted that the dates reflected in the different mark sheets do not give a clear picture. It has been further submitted that there are no other credentials made available to the College Authority about the educational qualification of the petitioner, and that she has not submitted her alleged MA pass certificate of the year 1991 to the College Authorities to date. 20. It has been submitted that the respondent No.6 had joined the College in the year 2006 with a pass percentage of 55.38%, and she obtained her M.Phil degree in the year 2009. It has been further submitted that the respondent No.7 had joined the College on 08.11.2008 with a pass percentage mark of 59.50% and had subsequently obtained her M.Phil degree in the year 2009 and had also qualified the State Level Eligibility Test. On the above basis, it has been submitted by the respondents Nos 3, 4 and 5 that the respondents Nos 6 and 7 were required to be considered in the zone of the 2nd and the 3rd faculty members in the particular subjects since they were qualified in terms of UGC regulations. 21. The respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have claimed that the petitioner did not receive financial assistance in the manner it was received by the respondents Page No.# 11/21 No. 6 and 7. It is the stand of the College that the faculty members who did not have 55% or above in their MA examinations were not afforded financial assistance, and the petitioner had never raised any grievance regarding the non-receipt of the financial assistance. 22. In essence, it is the case of the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 that the respondents Nos. 6 and 7, when being sponsored in the year 2017, had the requisite length of service to be considered for provincialization. However, the petitioner could not be sponsored for provincialization since she did not deposit the relevant requisite documents before the College Authorities in time. The College Authorities have also relied upon the discrepancies in the mark sheets and the other certificates submitted by the petitioner to show that there was a difference in the names reflected in the certificates. The respondents No.3, 4 and 5 admit that under the Act of 2011, only the name of Ms. Punya Gogoi had been sponsored as a faculty in the subject of Economics and that the names of respondents No.6 and 7 were sponsored in the year 2017 as eligible candidates for provincialization. 23. It is the case of the respondent No.6 that the petitioner was not qualified to have been appointed initially into the college, as she did not fulfill the UGC norms of having 55% in her MA examinations. It has been contended by the respondent No.6 that, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had obtained her MA degree in Economics with 55.08 marks in the year 2011, her tenure in the College would be counted from the year 2011 only and in such circumstances, Page No.# 12/21 she would stand junior to the respondents No.6 and 7. Therefore, respondents No.6 and 7 would have a better claim to be considered for provincialization over and above the petitioner. The respondent No.6 has admitted that the senior- most lecturer had been sponsored for provincialization under the Act of 2011, and under the Act of 2017, the services of the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have been provincialized. 24. On behalf of the respondent No.7, it has been submitted that the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored under the 2011 Act since she did not possess the requisite UGC norms at that point in time. It has been submitted that respondent No.7 had cleared the State Level Eligibility Test in Economics as per the mandate of the UGC regulations, 2010, in the year 2017. It has been submitted that the service of the petitioner was not considered for provincialization even under the Act of 2017 (as amended in 2018) since she did not fulfill the requisite criteria under the Act of 2017. 25. To buttress their submission, the counsel for the respondent No.7 has submitted that Section 4 of the Act of 2017 provided that for provincialization, an incumbent must have a minimum educational and professional qualification as laid down under the different acts, rules and regulations. By referring to the UGC regulation of 2010, it has been submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered under the act of 2011 since she did not score 55% marks at the master's degree level examination. It has been further submitted that the petitioner did not qualify for the SLET/SET and therefore she did not Page No.# 13/21 deserve to be considered for provincialization. 26. By referring to the contention of the petitioner that she had qualified the MA degree with 55% marks in 2011, it is the case of the respondent No.7 that the petitioner had not completed 6 years of continuous service as an eligible candidate under the 2017 Act when the name of the respondent No.6 and 7 were sponsored and, therefore, there is no fault when the respondent college did not sponsor the name of the petitioner for provincialization. 27. Elaborate arguments have been made on behalf of the contesting parties. The dispute involved is within a narrow campus, i.e. whether the name of the petitioner was required to have been sponsored by the College authorities for consideration for provincialisation of her services as a second teacher in economics, both under the Act of 2011 and the Act of 2017? 28. It has not been disputed by any of the parties that the petitioner had joined her services in the college on 31.12.1996, and it is not disputed that she was the second faculty member in the subject of economics at that time and has continued as such. It is also not in dispute that the Government of Assam had required a score of 54.5% in the Master's degree examination and above to be rounded to 55% for eligibility for the post of Assistant Professors in Colleges at the time when the petitioner had been appointed. It is not in dispute that had the name of the petitioner been forwarded by the college authorities either under the Act of 2011, along with the other teacher who was granted provincialisation, the case of the petitioner would have received due Page No.# 14/21 consideration. It is also not in dispute that had the name of the petitioner been forwarded at the first instance under the Act of 2017, the different authorities would have considered her eligibility under the Act of 2017. It is the assertion of the college authorities and the private respondents, whose services had been provincialised, that the petitioner lacked the eligibility to be considered for provincialisation. In the opinion of this Court, that is a factor which had to be left to the competent authorities empowered under the Act of 2017 to be evaluated and decided. The grievance of the petitioner is basically that her name had not been forwarded for consideration by the College authorities in due time, and when it was actually forwarded, the condition regarding the minimum number of students enrolled/appearing came into play, and she was denied provincialisation. It is her case that had her name been forwarded in due time, with her educational and professional qualifications being properly set out, she would have been considered as the second teacher in the subject of Economics, and the respondent number 7 would have faced her present fate of being ineligible for provincialisation as a fourth teacher. 29. The Act of 2017 provides that teachers of a venture educational institution, who do not possess the minimum educational or professional qualification, are to be considered and provincialised as “Tutors” and in the event such tutors acquire the qualifications under the relevant provisions of law within a certain period of time, they would be considered for upgradation to the post of ‘Teacher'. The relevant provisions of the Act of 2017 are quoted below for ease Page No.# 15/21 of reference: Section 2: (t) "teacher" means Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Classical Teachers and also includes Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principal, Vice-Principal, Demonstrator, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and any person of the teaching faculty working in the Venture Educational Institution having required educational and professional qualification as per norms and standards fixed by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder and any other Act as the case may be, as applicable on the day of provincialisation and whose services are provincialised under this Act in the post of teacher or in any other post in the teaching faculty but, not as tutor under this Act; (u) "tutor" means and includes Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Classical Teachers and also includes Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principal, VicePrincipal, Demonstrator, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent in a provincialised educational institution under this Act who are not eligible for provincialisation of their services and whose services cannot be provincialised in the post of Teacher under this Act due to lack of his/her educational and professional qualifications required as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder and any other Act, as the case may be, as applicable on the date of provincialisation, however, his/her service is provincialised as tutor with separate terms and conditions of service, to be notified by the competent Administrative Department: Provided that a tutor shall not be eligible to hold the post of Professors, Page No.# 16/21 Principal, Vice-Principal, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, as the case may be, in an educational institution provincialised under this Act; Section 6(1) The services of teachers in a Venture Educational Institution from the Primary level up to the Degree Level, shall be considered for provincialisation in the post of teachers or relevant teaching faculty in appropriate nomenclature, as the case may be, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria relating to educational and professional qualifications as laid down under the following Acts, Rules and Regulations:- (a) The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and its Rules; (b) The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and its Regulations in force at the time of provincialisation of services. (c) The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003, as amended in 2012; (d)The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, framed thereunder, as the case may be. (2) The services of a teaching employee in a Venture Educational Institution shall be considered for provincialisation as teacher only if they have the requisite academic and professional qualifications prescribed under the relevant Acts, Rules or Regulations as mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section which are applicable for the time being in force, otherwise their services shall be provincialized as tutor. (3) In case of teachers for special subjects like Sanskrit, Arabic, Hindi, Craft Teacher, Music Teacher, and any other Classical Teachers, the qualification should Page No.# 17/21 be as per the qualification prescribed by the relevant statutory Rules of the State Government in force. Section 7(1) The tutor must acquire the prescribed educational and professional qualifications within a period of five years from the date of publication of the order of provincialisation of services of the teachers and or tutors of the concerned Venture Educational Institutions in the Official Gazette and after acquirement of required qualification, they shall be upgraded to the post of teacher in appropriate cadre. (2) If such tutor fail to acquire such prescribed qualifications within a period of five years from the date of publication of the order of provincialisation in the Official Gazette, their cases shall not be considered for up-gradation to the post of teacher after the lapse of a period of five years from the date of publication of provincialisation order in the Official Gazette and they shall continue to function as tutor as per same terms and conditions which were applicable to them before provincialisation of the concerned Venture Educational Institution. 30. On the one hand, the petitioner has cried foul, alleging that the respondent authorities at the helm of affairs in the College had, acting in consortium with the respondents Nos. 6 and 7, withheld the name of the petitioner when it was required to be forwarded ahead of the respondent nos 6 and 7. On the other hand, the respondents in the College have asserted that her name had not been forwarded ahead of the respondents 6 and 7, since either she did not possess the requisite qualification or since she did not deposit the requisite certificates of her qualifications. 31. Though this Court, in the absence of any stand taken by the State Page No.# 18/21 respondents, would be loath to entertain the allegations raised by the contesting parties, it is noticed that the assertion of the petitioner, that her case deserved to be placed before the concerned authorities for provincialisation, if not prior to, at least along with the respondents no. 6 and 7, has to be answered in the affirmative. Had her case been put forward along with the respondents 6 and 7 at the relevant time, it would have been upon the District Level Scrutiny Committee, the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the State Government in the concerned department to decide as to whether the petitioner deserved to be provincialised at all, and if so, whether she deserved the post of teacher or a tutor. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has suffered an injustice when her case had not been put up before the appropriate authorities along with the respondents Nos 6 and 7, leading to a complete non-consideration of her case along with the aforesaid respondents. The said injustice deserves to be remedied by affording an appropriate and equal opportunity to the petitioner to be considered for provincialisation, if not ahead of, at least along with the respondents no. 6 and 7. 32. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate appeal/representation before the Director of Higher Education within a period of 15 days from the date of this order, accompanied by all relevant documents which she would rely upon. Upon receipt of the appeal/representation, the Director of Higher Education shall initiate immediate steps to ensure that her case is considered in accordance Page No.# 19/21 with law, in the manner it would have been considered in the event her particulars had been forwarded along with the application dated 19.6.2017, by which the particulars of the respondents nos. 6 and 7 had been forwarded. The consideration for the petitioner would be as the second teacher of the institution, and not as the fourth/additional teacher of the institution. It is made clear that the consideration of the petitioner shall be without reference to the earlier rejection of her case, since on that occasion, she had been considered for an additional post and had been rejected due to a smaller number of students appearing in the final exam. 33. In the event the petitioner is found to be eligible for provincialisation, either as a teacher or as a tutor, the same shall be given effect to from the date from which the other teachers of the college had been allowed to enjoy the benefits of provincialisation pursuant to the list dated 5.2.2021 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. The entire exercise of consideration of the petitioner for provincialisation shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the appeal/representation filed by the petitioner. 34. Further effects of provincialisation of respondents no. 6 and 7 had been kept in abeyance by this Court through the order dated 1.11.2021. The said interim orders shall remain operative till a decision is arrived at by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, with regard to the provincialisation of the services of the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is found eligible for provincialisation, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, would be at liberty to cause a Page No.# 20/21 reconsideration of the cases of the respondents no 6 and 7, if so required. 35. By the order dated 1.11.2021, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, was required to file an affidavit and was also required to produce the records enumerated in the order. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below : “5. On a prima facie case being made out on the violation of the legal right of the petitioner whose claim for provincialisation was ignored and considering the balance of convenience and the irreparable loss that the petitioner may suffer, further effects of provincialisation be not given to the respondents No.6 and 7 until further orders. 6. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the present Principal of the Nandalal Borgohain City College is Dr. Sanjibananda Borgohain. 7. The President of the governing body is stated to be Smti. Jyoti Borgohain. The vice principal of the college is Dr. Manoshi Gogoi Borgahain who is the wife of the Principal Dr. Sanjibananda Borgohain. 8. The respondent No.7 is stated to be the sister of the vice principal Dr. Manoshi Gogoi Borgohain or in other words sister in law of the Principal. 9. The Director of Higher Education shall file an affidavit on or before 09/11/2021 as to whether the aforesaid information recorded is correct information or not. Depending on the affidavit to be filed, further orders shall be passed. 10. The Director shall also procure the original records from the college as regards the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents No.6 and 7 as well as the service particulars of the lecturer/professor in Economics sent by the principal of the college for the purpose of provincialisation under the Act 2017.” 36. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, shall therefore also be under the Page No.# 21/21 responsibility to cause an enquiry, independent of the consideration of the case of the petitioner, into the allegations recorded in the order dated 1.11.2021 and take a decision as to whether the alleged family connections had any role to play in the College authorities forwarding the name of the respondents no 6 and 7 ahead of the petitioner for consideration for provincialisation. The enquiry shall be conducted affording due opportunity of hearing to all involved persons. Further orders as deemed appropriate in accordance with law shall be passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, on the culmination of the enquiry. 37. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant