Petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged approval given by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Government of Assam, Kahilipara approving the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Lecturer in the Department of English in NC College, Badarpur in the district of Karimganj by Annexure 6 letter No. G (A) AC-3/10/253 dated 19! 1.93. 2. The case of the petitioner is that NC College, Badarpur in the district of Karimganj is a deficit college receiving Government aid under deficit scheme. As per Rule 4, sub-rule (2) the appointment of Professor and Lecturers are to be made in accordance with the provisions contained under the said sub-rule. Under the said provision the Governing Body is to advertise all the vacancies for a period exceeding 6 month in at least two daily newspapers and shall on scrutiny of the records, and after interview, if necessary, make appointments subject to the approval of the Director of Public Instruction. A post of Lecturer in English fell vacant and the Governing Body published a notice inviting applications for a sanctioned post of Lecturer in English from the candidates having revised UGC norms i.e. Master Degree in relevant subject with at least 55% marks in aggregate and consistently good academic records from HSCL onwards. The applications were to be submitted within 15 days from the date of publication. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner submitted his application giving details of his educational qualifications. Petitioner passed HSLC examination securing 519 marks and was placed in 1st division and PU examination in 1st division securing 587 marks, BA with 2nd class Hons. securing 432 marks and MA in 2nd class securing 56.75%. The last date of submission of application as per advertisement published in the Assam Tribune was 14.7.92. The petitioner submitted her application on 13.7.92. The 4th respondent also submitted his application within the period. However, at the time of submission of the application by the 4th respondent he did not have Master degree inasmuch as he appeared in the MA examination in the said year and the results were yet to be announced. The respondent No.4 passed HSLC examination in compartmental in English and Social Studies, PU in second division and BA in second class. However, there is nothing on record to show what were the marks obtained by him. He passed MA in English securing 56% marks. The respondent No.4 passed HSLC examination in compartmental in English and Social Studies, PU in second division and BA in second class. However, there is nothing on record to show what were the marks obtained by him. He passed MA in English securing 56% marks. Along with the petitioner, 4th respondent and some others also submitted applications. 7 candidates applied for the post. Out of 7 candidates only 5 appeared including the petitioner and the 4th respondent. A Selection Committee was constituted with the following members : A. Principal - Chairman. B. District Elementary Education Officer, Karimganj - Member. C. Head of the Department of English, NC College, Badarpur-Member. D. Two Subject Experts, nemely, (1) Sri Nirmal Bhattacharjee, Lecturer in the Department of English, Karimganj College, Karimganj. (2) Md.Abul Hussain Majumdar, Head of the Department English, Lala Rural College, Lala, Hailakandi. The Selection Committee selected the 4th respondent. Guideline was issued by the Director, Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati 19 for appointment of teachers/lecturers. As per the said guidelines a Selection Committee is to be constituted with the Chairman and other members Principal shall be the Chairman and either Inspector of Schools or the District Elementary Education Officer or any senior Govt. official (Local) as member, two experts from the University and the Head of the Department. I quote the relevant portion of the guidelines : “ In view of the above position and with a view to streamline the procedure of selection of teaching staff and to give proper and justified emphasis on the academic achievements and career of a candidate or teaching job, the following guidelines and procedure are formulated for proper and effective implementation by all concerned As per the said guidelines 30 marks are allotted, namely, 15 marks for knowledge on the subject and 15 marks for interview. Besides these academic qualifications the marks are also allotted for achievement in the academic line, namely, 1st Division or 1st class - 10, Second Division - 5, Distinction - 6, Third Division - 3, Compartmental - Nil. However, to secure 5 marks the candidate must secure 55 to 60% and for 3rd Division the candidates must secure 45 to 50%. Petitioner secured 32 marks on the basis of the guidelines so far the academic qualification is concerned. However, respondent No.4 got only 17 marks. However, to secure 5 marks the candidate must secure 55 to 60% and for 3rd Division the candidates must secure 45 to 50%. Petitioner secured 32 marks on the basis of the guidelines so far the academic qualification is concerned. However, respondent No.4 got only 17 marks. In the interview the Selection Committee gave 1st position to the 4th respondent and 2nd position was given to the petitioner. Considering the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Governing Body forwarded the same to the Director of Higher Education and proposed appointment was approved by the order dated 19.1.93 issued by the Joint Director, Higher Education and accordingly, on the basis of such approval appointment was made by the Governing Body. Hence the present petition. 3.1 have heard Mr.AK Bhattarcharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.AB Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Mr.AH Saikia appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears on behalf of the other respondents. 4. The main contention of Mr.Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Joint Director, Higher Education ought not to have approved the proposed appointment inasmuch as the selection was made in utter violation of the guidelines as well as the rules. Besides, the selection was made arbitrarily without considering the respective merits of the parties. Mr.Bhattacharyya while making his submission on arbitrary selection has submitted that the 4th respondent was not a qualified person as per the advertisement inasmuch as he did not hold Master degree on the date of submission of application. Under the Annexure H advertisement a candidate must possess Master degree. However, on the date of submission of his application the result of respondent No.4 was yet to be announced and, therefore, he was not eligible to submit the application. 5.1st, 2nd and 4th respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition. The 4th respondent has annexed a copy of the notification in the form of corrigendum by which it was notified that those persons who appeared in MA examination in the said year would also be eligible to apply for the said post on the condition that they would produce all the certificates and testimonials at the time of interview. Mr.Bhattacharyya submits that this notification had no force in law inasmuch as this was not notified properly. Annexure H was published in a daily newspaper. Mr.Bhattacharyya submits that this notification had no force in law inasmuch as this was not notified properly. Annexure H was published in a daily newspaper. In order to change the norms the notice should have been published in the same manner as it was done earlier. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondents 1 and 2 also respondent No.4 are absolutely silent in respect of the manner in which the notice was issued. Besides learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a better candidate securing better marks uniformly from High School Leaving stage to MA, her case ought not to have been turned down only to accommodate the 4th respondent; she ought not to have been given only 7 marks. On the other hand, 4th respondent was given 28 marks out of 30.30 marks were allotted to two experts i.e. 15 marks each. But one of the experts did not turn up and the selection was made only with one expert and he gave marks allotted to both the experts. This also on the face of it is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules. 6. Mr.AB Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 strenuously argues in support of the action of the Governing Body as well as the order of approval. He submits that though on the basis of Annexure H, 4th respondent was not eligible to apply for the post but by virtue of the subsequent notice which was issued only a day after publication of Annexure H notice, the 4th respondent became eligible. Mr. Choudhury challenges the maintainability of the writ petition also inasmuch as the cause title does not indicate that it was in accordance with High Court Rules. The cause title does not indicate what order has been challenged by the writ petitioner. Besides, the allegations made in the petition are vague, indefinite and does not contain any supporting materials. He further submits that the respondent No.4 is yet to be selected by the State Selection Committee. Hence it is not maintainable. There is also no prayer for cancellation of the approval to the appointment of the respondent No.4. 7. Mr.Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also supports the action taken by the Governing Body and the subsequent approval given by the Joint Director, Higher Education. Hence it is not maintainable. There is also no prayer for cancellation of the approval to the appointment of the respondent No.4. 7. Mr.Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also supports the action taken by the Governing Body and the subsequent approval given by the Joint Director, Higher Education. He also submits that though as per Annexure H the 4th respondent was not eligible to make application but persons like 4th respondent became eligible by subsequent notification Annexure A to the affidavit-in-cpposition filed by them. 8. On the rival contention of the parties now it i s to be seen whether the action of the Governing Body, namely, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the approval given by the Joint Director, Higher Education can sustain in law. 9. The admitted position is that the college is a deficit scheme college where the Government pays the entire deficit amount. Thus a substantial amount is paid. Therefore, the people have interest over it and every person has a legitimate expectation to get a job in such institution. As per the rules made no appointment can be made by the Governing Body without the prior approval of the Director, Public Instruction now Director, Higher Education in the present case. It is the duty of the authority to scrutinise the entire matter and to see whether the selection was made by the Governing Body in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the guidelines issued by the Government. The authority cannot pass order either approving or disapproving for appointment of any teacher on its sweet will. Any action on the part of the authority must be on reasonable basis and such action must be informed by reasons. Overlooking all relevant provisions the authority has no jurisdiction to pass any order approving or disapproving the appointment. In the present case as per Rule 2, the Governing Body can select a person for appointment, but such appointment can be made only with the prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction and the Governing Body is also required to advertise in respect of vacancies for a period exceeding 6 months in at least two newspapers. The rule making authority was conscious about the necessity of wide publicity at the time of making appointment as person interested in the said job may apply for it. The rule making authority was conscious about the necessity of wide publicity at the time of making appointment as person interested in the said job may apply for it. Therefore, the rule making authority made specific direction for selecting a person for appointment and it must be done by proper advertisement. The rule also requires that it should be published in ywo newspapers. On the instant case the 1st advertisement Annexure H was published in one newspaper. In my opinion, as per the rule it is not sufficient. The subsequent notice changing the eligibility criteria was issued without publishing in any newspaper. In what manner the notice was issued is not know. From the record it does not appear how and in what manner the notice was issued. Mr.Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has informed this Court that this was placed in the notice board of the school. In my opinion, such notice cannot change or alter the requirement of Annexure H. Therefore, the notice is not just and proper and that notice has no force in the eye of law. That being the position, the eligibility criteria as per Annexure H remained unaltered. If that be so, the 4th respondent was not eligible at the time of submission of the application and as he was not eligible, his selection cannot be said to be just and proper. Besides, as per the guidelines for selection of a Lecturer at least two experts were necessary and the resolution also indicates that two subject experts were appointed, namely, Nirmal Bhattacharjee and Md. Abdul Hussain Majumdar. But according to the petitioner one did not turn up. This has been confirmed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondentNos. 1 and 2. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, respondent Nos.l and 2 have categorically stated that one of the two experts did not turn up. The relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition are extracted below : “......If is correct that one of the members of Selection Committee Shri NC Bhattacharjee could not be present in the selection test and Selection Committee consist of 4 members, which was premissible under the guidelines issued for the purpose of selection.” This itself is sufficient to indicate that the requirement of guidelines were not properly adhered to. Besides, 30 marks were allotted for two experts one is for general and the other interview. Besides, 30 marks were allotted for two experts one is for general and the other interview. One expert gave 28 marks out of 30 marks to respondent No.4. From all these it is apparent that the Joint Director, Higher Education passed the above order without considering all these aspects. It was his duty to consider whether the selection was made in accordance with rules and guidelines. As I have already stated that as per the rule the advertisement ought to have been made in two newspapers. But it was not done. Subsequent alteration of the advertisement was made by a mere notice. This, in my opinion, cannot alter the requirement of Annexure H advertisement. 10. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of opinion that the approval was accorded without proper application of mind and such approval cannot sustain in law. In view of the above, I hold that Annexure 6 to the affidavit-in-opposition is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law. Regarding other contention of Mr. AB Choudhury, learned counsel for respondent No.4 on the point of maintainability of the writ petition, I do not find any force. Hence this- contention is rejected. Accordingly, I set aside Annexure 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition and direct the Governing Body to select candidate in strict compliance with the provisions of law and the guidelines of the Government. The Civil Rule is allowed. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.