Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010197312024 2026:GAU-AS:7861 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4894/2024 POMPI DAS WIFE OF ANUJ DAS, RESIDENT GUIJAN, SHANTIPARA, DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, PIN- 786147, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), PIN- 781006, ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 4:THE PRINCIPAL TINSUKIA COLLEGE TINSUKIA POST OFFICE- TINSUKIA DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 5:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE TINSUKIA COLLEGE TINSUKIA Page No.# 2/18 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (PRINCIPAL TINSUKIA COLLEGE TINSUKIA) POST OFFICE- TINSUKIA DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 6:THE SECRETARY OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE TINSUKIA COLLEGE TINSUKIA POST OFFICE- TINSUKIA DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 7:SRI KAUSTAV DAS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY TINSUKIA COLLEGE TINSUKIA POST OFFICE- TINSUKIA DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 78612 Advocate for the Petitioner : A N HUSSAIN, MS F BEGUM,MR. S BANIK,MR. N BARMAN,MR. S BANIK Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MISS. R R KAKATI (R-5,6),MR. D J DAS(R- 5,6),MR. K N CHOUDHURY(R-5,6),MR. J PATOWARY (R-4),MS N MAHANTA(R-4),MR. R M DEKA (R-7),N GAUTAM(R-7) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 05.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. F. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & Page No.# 3/18 3, Mr. T. Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no.7. 2. The present writ petition stems from an advertisement issued by the Principal of the Tinsukia College, calling for applications from candidates for filling up one post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy and one post of Assistant Professor in Geography. The post in Geography was reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The advertisement declared that the educational qualifications and selection procedures would be as per the Government Office Memo No. AHE-239/2021/68 dated 24.01.2022. 3. For a ready reference, the contents of the Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2022, as referred in the advertisement, are quoted below: “ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATION: Qualification for Direct Recruitment of Assistant Professor (Reference, Clause 3.0.0/4.0.0/4.40/4.4.1 of the UGC Regulations 30th June 2010). (i) Good Academic record as defined by the concerned University with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade in a point scale at the Master Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. (ii) Besides, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. (iii) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub clause (i) and (ii) to the clause 4.40.1, of the UGC Regulations 30th June, 2010 candidates who have a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University Grant Commission (Minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree Regulation, 2009) shall be Page No.# 4/18 exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET. (iv) NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Master programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. (v) A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Masters level for the Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe/ Differently-abled (Physically and visually differently-abled) categories for the purpose of eligibility. The 5% relaxation will not include any grace (clause-3.4.1) (vi) The period of time taken by Candidates to acquire M.Phil and/or Ph.D Degree shall not be considered as Teaching/research experience for appointment to the positions (clause-3.9.0).” 4. The petitioner completed her MA qualification in Geography in 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, having met the required criteria as indicated in the advertisement in context, had submitted an application for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Tinsukia College. The petitioner, the respondent nos. 7 and 6 other candidates were called for the interview. The respondent no. 7 was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Tinsukia College. It is the further case of the petitioner that, as per information supplied under provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2025, by the Principal of the Tinsukia College to another candidate who had taken part in the interview, the educational qualification of the private respondent had been shown to be a Master of Science in Geographic Information Science from Bangalore University. 5. Upon receiving such information, the petitioner filed a representation to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, requesting a re-evaluation of the Page No.# 5/18 interview procedure for the post of Assistant Professor in Geography (SC Category) in Tinsukia College on the grounds that the selected candidate did not meet the eligibility criteria. The reason for the petitioner having made the representation was that a Master's degree in Science in Geographic Information Science was not a degree that could have qualified under the requirement of a Master's Degree in the relevant subject, i.e. Geography. The petitioner states in the petition that she was asked to attend a hearing on 10/06/2024, and she had attended the hearing. However, no decision on the hearing had been communicated to her. 6. Assailing the appointment of the respondent no.7 to the post of Assistant Professor, in the subject of Geography in the Tinsukia College, the petitioner has preferred this present writ petition. 7. Mr. Banik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the respondent no. 7, having qualifications at the Master's level in the subject of Geographic Information Science, is not eligible for recruitment to the post advertised. It is his submission that the Selection Committee of Tinsukia College had failed to appreciate that the requirement under the O.M of 2022 was a Masters degree in the “relevant subject” and since the post of Assistant Professor had been advertised in the subject of Geography, the Selection Committee had committed an error when it allowed the respondent no.7, a Master’s degree-holder in Geography Information Science, to be eligible for the aforesaid post. Page No.# 6/18 To buttress his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 767, where in paragraphs 21, 22 & 23, the Apex Court has held as follows : “21. As is evident from the advertisement, applications were invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA. The advertisement requires postgraduate degree in the “relevant subject”. The relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean postgraduate degree in MCA. In our opinion, for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters degree in Mathematics is not the relevant subject. The advertisement requires Masters degree in “relevant subject” and not “appropriate subject”. In the present case, the Board of Appointment has not stated that postgraduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant subject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a postgraduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the Board of Appointment. 22. It shall not make any difference even if Mathematics is taught in the Masters of Computer Application course. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely erred in upholding the contention of Ganpat and the University that “relevant subject” would mean “such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA course”. If Mathematics is taught in a postgraduate course in Commerce, a Master's degree in Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or, for that matter, in MCA. There may be a situation in which a Master's degree in MCA is differently christened, and such a degree may be considered relevant, but it would be too much to say that a candidate having postgraduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA would make the holders of a Masters degree in those subjects as holder of Masters degree in Computer Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment. 23. The language of the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to. Since the appellant Ganpat did not have a Masters degree in Computer Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a Page No.# 7/18 candidate possessing Masters degree in MCA is available, the Board of Appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal and invalid. The natural corollary thereof is that the University acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside his appointment. In our opinion, an unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the recommendee. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in Masters of Computer Application. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a Degree in Geography would not suffice for being eligible for a post where the requirement was for a Degree in Geographical Information Science; similarly, a Master’s Degree in Geographical Information Science would not suffice when the relevant post for which the Advertisement has been issued is for an Assistant Professor of Geography. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ petition therefore requires to be allowed, by interfering with the selection and consequent appointment of the respondent no.7 and with further directions to the responding authorities to appoint the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Tinsukia College, Tinsukia. The prayer for consideration of the petitioner for appointment to the aforesaid post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography has been made on the basis of the consolidated marks given by the Selection Committee has made available under the provisions of RTI Act, where the respondent no.7 was shown to have secured a total of 63.58 average marks and the petitioner had been Page No.# 8/18 shown to have scored 62.17 average marks, thereby being placed in the second position. 9. The respondent no.2, i.e. the Director of Higher Secondary Education has filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Deputy Director of the Higher Education, Assam had enquired to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University requesting to clarify whether the M.Sc in Geographical Information Science may be considered as an allied subject to Geography and whether a candidate possessing a Master’s Degree in Geographical Information Science is deemed eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Geography. The affidavit further states that the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, clarified that an M.Sc. in Geographical Information Science is widely regarded as an allied discipline in Geography. It is typically classified as a specialized branch within the broader field of Geography, particularly under areas such as Geospatial Science or Geoinformatics. Further, it was clarified that eligibility for appointment as Assistant Professor in Geography is granted to a candidate holding a Master's Degree in Geographical Information Science. 10. The respondents nos 4, 5, 6, & 7 have entered appearance in this matter on 18.03.2025, but have not responded by filing affidavits-in-opposition. 11. The matter was kept as part heard on 22.05.2026. The hearing was concluded on 25.05.2026. The written submissions on behalf of the respondent nos.5 and 6 have been submitted, i.e. for the Selection Committee and the Secretary of the Selection Committee. At the request of the learned counsel Page No.# 9/18 appearing for the respondent nos.5 & 6, and not objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is taken on record to reflect the stand of the respondent nos.5 & 6. 12. The written submission on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 first recites a chronology of events. The stand taken by the respondents, nos. 5 & 6, in their written submission on the merits of the case is reflected in paragraph 1 available at page 4 of the written submission. The stand of the respondents nos.5 & 6 is to the effect that the Advertisement dated 19/07/2023 specifically provided that the educational qualification and selection procedure would be governed by the OM dated 24/01/2022, which was issued in conformity with the UGC Regulations, 2010. The OM prescribed a Master’s Degree in a relevant subject as the requisite qualification in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010. It has been submitted that the expression within the “relevant subject” used in the Regulations cannot be interpreted in a narrow technical manner, so as to require an identical nomenclature of the degree. It has been submitted that the said expression has to be understood in the context of academic relevance and subject-relatedness. According to the respondents, no. 5 & 6, the respondent no.7 possesses an M.Sc. in Geographical Information Science, which is academically allied and relevant to the discipline of Geography. Therefore, the candidature of the respondent no.7 has been rightly considered by the Expert Selection Committee in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010. The second limb of the argument of the respondents no. 5 & 6, is to the Page No.# 10/18 effect that the issue as to whether a candidate's qualification in Geographical Information Science is relevant or allied to Geography is a question of academic assessment falling squarely within the domain of expert evaluation. The Selection Committee, which comprises subject experts in Geography, was best placed to assess and determine the question. Respondent Nos 5 & 6 have submitted that the attempt of the petitioner to invite the Writ Court to substitute its view for that of an Expert Selection Committee on a question of academic discipline deserves to be rejected. The respondents nos. 5 & 6 have placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305, where at paragraph -12, the Apex Court had held as follows: “12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure, vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the Page No.# 11/18 selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” 13. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6 have also placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 passed in WA No.106/2016 to emphasize that when the Expert Committee or the Selection Committee in a case like the present one considers a candidate to be eligible on the basis of his educational qualification, an unsuccessful candidate cannot approach the Writ Court to sit in appeal over the matter. The Division Bench of this Court was convinced that the reasons assigned by the Learned Single Judge were well-founded and that the same did not call for any interference. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge, as quoted in the order dated 08.08.2017, is as follows” “As already noticed, the respondent No.5 has NET in Criminology whereas the petitioner has NET in Business Law. Considering the fact that the respondent No.5 has specialization in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law and has obtained NET in Criminology and not in History or Geography, etc. which has nothing to do with law disciplines, I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Selection Committee that the respondent No.5 having NET in Criminology is equally eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Juridical Studies is a possible view. The law is now well-settled that where there are two possible views on any matter, this court cannot substitute its view for the view of the Selection Committee on the ground the view taken by the court could be a better view. It is also a well-settled proposition of law that in academic matters, a court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a candidate possesses requisite qualifications, should better be left to the educational institutions. This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee - Page No.# 12/18 the Selection Committee in the instant case. When the Selection Committee considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the respondent No.5, who possesses LL.M in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law, NET in Criminology and specialization in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law is a better candidate than the petitioner, who has LL.M in Business Law, NET in Law and specialization in Business Law, such conclusion cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as perverse or arbitrary. As already noticed, such view is a possible view and not an irrational view. It is, however, quite possible that the other view could have been a better view, but then this court cannot substitute the view taken by the respondent authorities by its view on such ground. Under the circumstances, the interference of this court in the selection of the respondent No.5 is not warranted. 10. We are convinced that the above quoted reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in respect to appointment of Respondent No.5 are well founded and do not call for any interference. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. ” 14. The respondents nos. 5 & 6 have refuted the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no.7 would be in any way ineligible only because he possesses the Master’s Degree in “Geographical Information Science” instead of “Geography”. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6 has further submitted that the UGC Regulations, 2010, mandate a Master’s Degree in a relevant subject and does not mandate that the Degree must be in an identical subject having the same nomenclature. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6 further submitted that the UGC intends to consider academic Page No.# 13/18 relevance, competence and allied nature of the subject and not a rigid or technical word-to-word matching of the degree title with the name of the post. The said position is further evident, according to the learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6, from Clause 4.1.0, 4.2.0 and 4.3.0 of the very same Regulations of 2010, wherein the expressions concerned/allied/relevant discipline have been used, thereby recognizing allied and similar disciplines as an eligible qualification. The learned counsel submits that the Degree of M.Sc in Geographical Information Science possessed by the respondent no.7 is academically allied and relevant in Geography, i.e., the core subject in academic competence and is substantially similar to the discipline in question. According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6, excluding the respondent no.7 from the fray of selection would defeat the object and purpose for which the University Grants Commission has prescribed the minimum qualifications. The learned counsel has also relied upon the opinion of the Dibrugarh University that Geographical Information Science is an allied discipline to Geography and that holders of such a qualification would be eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in Geography. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 & 6 has also submitted that it is only because the question raised by the Department of Higher Education enquiring as to whether Master’s in Geographical Information Science was an allied subject that the answer from the Dibrugarh University had expressed that the same is an allied subject. The learned counsel has submitted that had the proper question regarding the Page No.# 14/18 relevancy of the Degree been raised, the Dibrugarh University would have more appropriately answered the relevancy of the Masters of the respondent no.7. The learned counsel has also submitted that the answer to the second query, where the University has clarified that a candidate holding a Master’s Degree in Geographical Information Science would also be eligible for appointment in the department of Geography cannot be ignored and has to be given due weightage. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 & the respondent no. 7 have adopted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.5 & 6. 16. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties, and I have also perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. The bone of contention in the present writ, as sought to be agitated by the petitioner with regard to the M.Sc Degree in Geographical Information Science, held by the respondent no.7, is as to whether the said degree can be considered as a Master's Degree in a relevant subject for the post of Assistant Professor in Geography. The advertisement in issue did not specify any subject/topic which would be considered as “relevant” for the post, and no material has been placed before this Court to show that any Statutory rules or notifications, for that matter, elucidate the subjects which would be relevant for the post of Assistant Professor in Geography. The relevance of a master’s degree qualification in a particular subject vis-à-vis eligibility for being recruited to a certain teaching post is undoubtedly best left in the hands of experts in the Page No.# 15/18 field. Courts of law, which are not equipped with such expertise, would be treading on thin ice while venturing to decide the relevance of qualifications in the matter of appointment to teaching posts. Therefore, in the ordinary course, this Court would have declined to adjudicate the issues raised by the petitioner, but for the specific ground raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput (supra) to emphasize that, when the advertisement had referred to the Government Notification dated 24.01.2022 to be applicable for the educational qualifications required for being eligible for consideration, and when the said notification referred to a good academic record with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade at the Master’s Degree Level in a “relevant” subject, the only qualification that could have been taken to meet the eligibility conditions is a Master’s Degree in Geography and that therefore, no other qualification, including the one held by the respondent no. 7, could have sufficed the requirements of the advertisement. 17. In Punjab University vs. Narinder Kumar and Others, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 8), the Apex Court was concerned with the interpretation of the expression "relevant subject". But in that case, the advertisement itself prescribed "the essential qualifications" under one head and "desirable specialization" under another head. Therefore, the Court found that though the words "relevant subject" did not throw any light on the question as to what the Page No.# 16/18 relevant subjects are for the post of a Lecturer in any specified subject, the column dealing with "desirable qualifications" threw light upon what was relevant. In the present case at hand, however, there is neither any clue in the advertisement nor any statute or notification indicating relevancy or desirability has been brought to my notice. 18. In Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University (supra), the Court was concerned with a case where applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA, from candidates holding a postgraduate degree in the "relevant subject". The Court found that candidates with a Master's degree in Computer Applications were available, but a candidate with a Master's degree in Mathematics was selected. The Court found fault with the decision of the Board of Appointment in selecting the candidate with a Master's degree in Mathematics, with a flawed reasoning that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. It was also held that it was not the plea of the employer that a Master’s Degree in Maths was interchangeable with a Master’s Degree in Computer Application. 19. The notification of the Government of Assam had required a Master’s Degree with a minimum 55% marks in a “relevant subject”, in the present case, the subject being “Geography”. It is not the case of the respondents that the M.Sc in GISc is interchangeable with a Master’s degree in Geography; rather, it is the specific stand of the Director of Higher Education that it is an allied subject. It may be true that Geographical Information Science is one of the Page No.# 17/18 subjects taught in Geography, however, in view of the absence of any information in the advertisement defining the subjects which would be considered as “relevant” for the selection process, I am of the considered opinion that the selection committee as well as the employer had to restrict itself to the terms and conditions declared in the advertisement itself while considering the eligibility of the candidates who had responded to the advertisement. The advertisement did not indicate that candidates with a master’s degree, even in the subjects taught within the broad subject of “Geography’ would merit consideration. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of the ambiguity in the advertisement to cause detriment to a candidate who fulfills the requirements, as evident on a plain reading of the advertisement. 20. In WA 106/2016, which had been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, the conclusion of the selection committee that the selected candidate was considered to be eligible had been relied upon to uphold the selection. In the present case, neither has any affidavit been filed nor any records been placed before this Court to indicate that the selection committee had considered the matter to come to such a conclusion. In fact, the clarification had been sought from the concerned University during the pendency of the writ petition, and it was clarified that the degree held by the selected candidate was in an “allied subject”. Therefore, with utmost respect and in agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Page No.# 18/18 Division Bench with regard to the adjudication of WA 106/2016, which were rendered in the facts presented in that case, I find that the facts of the present case in hand bear more similarity to the case of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput (supra). 21. Accordingly, the appointment of the respondent no. 7 is interfered with. Since the petitioner has annexed records of the selection proceedings, which show that the petitioner had scored more than all the other candidates except the respondent. 7 during the selection process, and since the appointment of the respondent no. 7 has been interfered with, the respondents shall forthwith take steps to bring the selection procedure to its logical end by deeming the petitioner to be the candidate to have scored the most marks in merit in the selection process. 22. Registry to keep the written submissions on behalf of the Respondents no. 5 and 6 as a part of the records of this case. 23. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant