Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 346 (GAU)

Anamika Devi v. State of Assam

2008-05-09

SAHIDUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY

body2008
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The matter relates to appointment of Lecturer in English of the Lokanayak Omeo Kumar Das (in short LOKD) college. Since the stand of the petitioner is substantially different in further affidavits filed after filing the writ petition than what has been pleaded in the writ petition, they are indicated below : STAND IN THE WRIT PETITION 2. The petitioner is a Master Degree holder in Arts (English) from the Tezpur University which she obtained in the year 2000. According to her she fulfills the UGC norms for appointment as Lecturer in Govt. aided college in the State. By Annexure-2 letter dated 01.08.2000 addressed to her by the then Principal of the College, namely Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi, she was appointed as apart time Lecturer for three months in the department of English of the said college on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/-.Since this appointment is the centre of controversy, same is quoted below : From Dr. P. C. Rajbanshi Principal Dated 01.08.2000 To, Smt. Anamika Devi, M.A. C/o. Shri Dharma Prasad Nath, Vill- Baruadalani, P.O.- Bapubheti, Sonitpur (Assam) Sub: Appointment as a Lecturer in the Department of English Madam, With referenced your application dated 31st July, 2000,1 would like to inform you that you are hereby appointed as a part-time Lecturer for 3 (three months) in the Department of English of is College on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only P.M. Please note that your appointment is purely temporary and your appointment shall stand terminated without showing any cause thereof. So, you are hereby inform to join in your service immediately. Yours faithfully, S/d (Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi) Principal Copy to the: 1) Vice-Principal of this college 2) Accountant of the college 3) Office guard. 3. On perusal of the order on appointment, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to any selection. Throughout the pleadings and in the writ petition, the petitioner has also not pleaded that she was appointed pursuant to regular process of selection. 4. After the aforesaid order of appointment, the petitioner was given another order of appointment by the Principal of the college vide his Annexure-3 letter dated 04.11.2000. On that occasion also, the appointment of the petitioner was on part time basis for the limited duration of two months on consolidated pay of Rs. 500/-. 4. After the aforesaid order of appointment, the petitioner was given another order of appointment by the Principal of the college vide his Annexure-3 letter dated 04.11.2000. On that occasion also, the appointment of the petitioner was on part time basis for the limited duration of two months on consolidated pay of Rs. 500/-. Such appointments was subject to approval of the Governing Body of the college. For a ready reference the said appointment letter dated 04.11.2000 is also quoted below : From Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi Principal Dated 04.11.2000 To, Miss Anamika Devi, M.A. Lecturer, Deptt. of English L.O.K.D. College, Dhekiajuli Sub: Appointment as a Lecturer in the Department of English Ref: This office letter No. i) LOKD/Appent./2000-2001/76 dt. 01.08.2000 ii) LOKD/Cont./2000-2001/109 dt.30.10.2000 Madam, With reference to the subject cited above, I would like to inform you that you are hereby appointed as a part time Lecturer in the Department of English of this College for 2(two) months on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) only per month subject to the approval of the G.B. of this college. Please note that your appointment is purely temporary and your appointment shall stand terminated without showing any cause thereof. So, you are hereby inform to join in your service immediately. Yours faithfully, S/d (Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi) Principal Copy to the : 1) Vice-Principal of this college 2) Head of Department 3) Accountant 4) Office guard 5. The aforesaid appointment order was followed by another appointment order dated 01.01.01 issued by the same very Principal appointing the petitioner as Lecturer in English against a non-sanctioned (but permanent) post in the college on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/-. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that she was appointed pursuant to any regular selection as per UGC norms. The said order of appointment is also quoted below : From Dated 01.01.2001 Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi, M.A., Ph.D. Principal To, Smt. Anamika Devi, M.A. C/o. Shri Dharma Prasad Nath, Vill-Baruadalani, P.O.- Bapubheti, Dist. Sonitpur (Assam) Sub: Appointment as a Lecturer in the Department of English. Madam, With reference to the above, I would like to inform you that you are hereby appointed as a Lecturer in English against Non-sanctioned but permanent post in this College on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only per month with effect from 1st January, 2001. Madam, With reference to the above, I would like to inform you that you are hereby appointed as a Lecturer in English against Non-sanctioned but permanent post in this College on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only per month with effect from 1st January, 2001. Please note that your appointment is purely temporary and your appointment shall stand terminated without showing any cause thereof. So you are hereby informed to join in your service immediately. Yours faithfully, S/d (Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi) Principal 6. As per the averments made in the writ petition, a sanctioned post of Lecturer in English is lying vacant in the college as one Prof. Parag Moni Sharma has availed lien for one year and has joined at Silchar University w.e.f. 01.05.04. Such lien has further been extended. By Annexure-5 advertisement dated 13.05.04, the Governing Body of the College invited applications to fill up the said lien vacancy. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner alongwith others offered her candidature. However, no step to fill up the post was taken. In the meantime the lien in respect of said Prof. Parag Moni Sharma was further extended upto 01.05.06. Thereafter, he resigned from the post due to permanent absorption in the Silchar University. According to the petitioner such resignation tendered by Prof. Sharma was never disclosed by the Governing Body and the vacancy was all along shown as lien vacancy. 7. In the year 2005 (11.10.05) the vacancy was again advertised inviting applications from the candidates having UGC norms. According to the petitioner such advertisement is a camouflage to hide the real picture. It is the case of the petitioner that the Governing Body of the college has already chosen the respondent No. 6 for appointment against the vacant post illegally and arbitrarily under political influence and interference and thus the petitioner is deprived. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Governing Body has already taken resolution to appoint the respondent No. 6 and has forwarded the proposal to the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Higher Education, for necessary approval etc. 8. The statements relating to aforesaid advertisement finds place in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Governing Body has already taken resolution to appoint the respondent No. 6 and has forwarded the proposal to the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Higher Education, for necessary approval etc. 8. The statements relating to aforesaid advertisement finds place in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. In the averments there is no mention as to whether in response to the advertisement eligible candidates including the petitioner had applied and also as to whether any selection was conducted or not inviting the candidates. However, it has been stated that the respondent No. 6 has been selected without any interview or any test whatsoever. This statement runs counter to the statement made in paragraph-11 of the writ petition in which the petitioner has stated about the selection process which according to her is a farce. 9. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of the case projected by the petitioner, the petitioner seeks benefit of adjustment of service as envisaged under Annexure-7 Office Memorandum dated 17.07.04 issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher) Department. The relevant clause of the Office Memorandum is quoted below: 4. The State Govt. is not in a position to sanction any new post for the colleges to accommodate the aforementioned college teachers serving without sanctioned posts. In view of the same and in pursuance to the approval of the cabinet decision dated 09.06.2004. The following procedure/modalities are hereby prescribed for adjustment of service of college teachers working without sanction posts as mentioned above. a) Vacant posts in a particular deptt. lying in grants-in-aid college of Assam may be allotted in order of...to accommodate teachers in the same college who is working in some other deppt. without valid sanctioned post provided that such teacher was appointed by respective GB. observing due norms, i.e. advertisement selection and having UGC norms required and if the need for such a post is justified by enrolment in that deptt. of the college etc. provided further, the post is not be considered essential for the deptt. against which it was originally sanctioned. (emphasis added) 10. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 17.07.04, the statements made in the writ petition are that the petitioner having had five years of teaching experience would get preference over the respondent No. 6 who has only one year of experience. against which it was originally sanctioned. (emphasis added) 10. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 17.07.04, the statements made in the writ petition are that the petitioner having had five years of teaching experience would get preference over the respondent No. 6 who has only one year of experience. There is no mention in the writ petition that the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Clause 4(a) of the Office Memorandum in terms of which a Lecturer working against non-sanctioned post claiming adjustment against permanent post must have been appointed against non-sanctioned post strictly in accordance with UGC norms and pursuant to advertisement and selection. 11. The whole emphasis throughout the writ petition for appointment of the petitioner against the said post is her purported service seniority and not anything else. There is no whisper that the petitioner was initially appointed pursuant to advertisement and selection following the UGC norms. 12. This is how the writ petition was projected when the same was filed on 06.12.05. Interim order was passed on 07.12.05 directing the respondents not to fill up the said vacant sanctioned post. MISC.CASE No. 2839/2006 13. The Governing Body of the college has filed this Mise. case praying for vacating the aforesaid interim order dated 07.12.05. In the application it is the stand of the Governing Body that the petitioner on 31.07.2000 had submitted an application to the Principal of the College with a prayer for appointment as Lecturer in English. It was on the basis of the said application the petitioner was first appointed for three months and her such appointment was in the science stream which is not affiliated to Gauhati University. Her such appointment was without any advertisement and selection and there was no resolution of the Governing Body towards her appointment. According to the Governing Body, same is the case in respect of subsequent appointment. As regards the plea of the petitioner that vide Annexure-3 appointment letter dated 01.01.01, she was appointed against the permanent post, their stand is that the word "permanent" was a clerical mistake and the same is easily discernible from the nature of appointment and that a non-sanctioned post cannot be a permanent post. This aspect of the matter need not detain us inasmuch as, it is the own case of the petitioner that a permanent post pursuant to resignation tendered by the said Prof. This aspect of the matter need not detain us inasmuch as, it is the own case of the petitioner that a permanent post pursuant to resignation tendered by the said Prof. Sharma having had arisen, the petitioner as per her service seniority is entitled to be appointed against the said post. 14. Further case of the Governing Body of the college is that the aforesaid vacancy caused due to granting of leave to Prof. Sharma is in the Arts stream. The first advertisement issued in 2004 (13.05.04) which according to the petitioner was kept in cold storage, did not materialize towards appointment of Lecturer as the college authority did not get suitable candidate fulfilling the UGC norms specified in the advertisement, i.e. 55% in Master Degree with NET/SLET. 15. The respondent No. 6 was appointed as a substitute Lecturer pursuant to the Governing Body resolution adopted on 16.06.05. She had to be appointed as such since the lien vacancy could not be filled up. 16. Pursuant to Annexure-6 advertisement dated 11.10.05, many candidates applied for the post. After the regular process of selection and interview in which the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 dully appeared, the selection committee found the respondent No. 6 as the best suitable candidate placing her at serial No. 1 of the merit list. In the said merit list the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2. After the selection, the Governing Body of the college took resolution for appointment of the respondent No. 6 and forwarded the relevant documents to the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Higher Education for necessary approval etc. 17. The whole emphasis of the Governing Body of the college is that since the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of Clause 4(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 17.07.04, she cannot be adjusted against the vacant post for which the advertisement and selection have already been made. Further stand of the Governing Body of the college is that there was an advertisement in the issue of the Assam Tribune on 19.07.01 to fill up a non-sanctioned post in the Science stream of the college to which the petitioner never responded. Further stand of the Governing Body of the college is that there was an advertisement in the issue of the Assam Tribune on 19.07.01 to fill up a non-sanctioned post in the Science stream of the college to which the petitioner never responded. According to the Governing Body of the college, the said Science stream of the college is yet to come under deficit system of grants-in-aid and that as and when the stream would come under deficit system of grants-in-aid, the service of the petitioner along with other Lecturers working in the Science stream would come within the purview of regularization. STAND OF THE PETITIONER IN MISC. CASE 18. It is only in response to the aforesaid Misc. case, the petitioner in her affidavit filed on 21.08.06 has contended that she was not appointed in the Science stream. In para-graph-8 of the affidavit she has stated that her appointment vide Annexure-4 letter dated 01.01.01 as quoted above, was pursuant to due procedure and selection. It has been denied that her such appointment did not have the approval of the Governing Body of the college. According to her, Governing Body's resolution is very much available in the proceeding book maintained by the Governing Body. Although it is the stand of the petitioner that she was appointed following the procedure of selection, nothing has been stated as to when the advertisement was issued, when the selection was held and when the Governing Body approved her selection. In her affidavit, she has reiterated that the respondent No. 6 has been selected on extraneous consideration and that there was no interview and selection towards her appointment. 19. From the aforesaid stand of the petitioner in the affidavit in opposition filed in the Misc. case, altogether a different story regarding her appointment pursuant to advertisement and selection has been projected although same was not the story in the writ petition. Only projection made in the writ petition is that since she has been working in the college for last about five years, she should get preference over the respondent No. 6 who has only one year of teaching experience. Only projection made in the writ petition is that since she has been working in the college for last about five years, she should get preference over the respondent No. 6 who has only one year of teaching experience. If the petitioner was appointed vide Annexure-4 letter dated 01.01.01 pursuant to the advertisement and regular process of selection conforming to the requirement of Clause 4(a) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 17.07.04, in the normal circumstances, same would have been the first thing to be mentioned in the writ petition. 20. The Governing Body in its affidavit in reply to the aforesaid affidavit in opposition filed by the petitioner has reiterated its stand in the Misc. case. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner was not appointed pursuant to any advertisement and selection. STAND OF THE RESPONDENT No. 2. i.e. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER DUCATION 21. In the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 on 23.11.06, it has been stated that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement dated 13.05.04 (Annexure-5) inasmuch as she did not qualify in NET/SLET, which is a compulsory requirement of UGC norms for appointment of Lecturer. It has been stated that the petitioner was not appointed pursuant to any advertisement and selection against the non-sanctioned post and thus she is not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 17.07.04. ADDL. AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER 22. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit on 17.07.07. It is her case that on 19.07.01, the then Principal of the College issued advertisement inviting the applications to fill up among others a non-sanctioned post of Lecturer in English. Although no formal call letter was issued, she appeared in the interview and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee and resolution of the Governing Body, she was allowed to continue as Lecturer in English. In this connection, she has annexed Annexure-B certificate dated 30.03.07 purportedly issued by the former principal, namely Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi. The certificate reads as follows : TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Hereby I declare that for non-sanctioned post in the department of English, Arts stream, LOKD college, Dhekiajuli an interview was held in the year 2001 after two weeks of the advertise No. SV/3481/1 in 'The Assam Tribune' dated 19.07.2001 by maintaining due procedure. P.C. Rajbanshi. The certificate reads as follows : TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Hereby I declare that for non-sanctioned post in the department of English, Arts stream, LOKD college, Dhekiajuli an interview was held in the year 2001 after two weeks of the advertise No. SV/3481/1 in 'The Assam Tribune' dated 19.07.2001 by maintaining due procedure. Sd/- Former Principal LOKD College Dhekiajuli 23. On reading of the aforesaid certificate, it is seen that the said certificate no way reflects that the petitioner had offered her candidature and appeared in the selection. The certificate only certifies that the advertisement was published on 19.07.01 and an interview was held. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the Misc. case it is the definite stand of the Governing Body of the college that an advertisement was issued on 19.07.01 to fill up the non-sanctioned post of Lecturer of English in the Science stream, but the petitioner did not respond to the same. 24. Further stand of the petitioner in the additional affidavit is that pursuant to the Annexure-6 advertisement dated 10.10.05, no selection was held and thus naturally there was no occasion for her to appear in the purported selection. According to her, the signature in the records pertaining to selection showing her appearance in the same is a forged one. In this connection, she has annexed Annexure-C certificate dated 30.05.07 certifying that no interview was held against the lien leave vacancy in the department of English during the year 2004-2005 pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.05.04. This certificate is of no help to the case of the petitioner since it is the definite stand of the Governing Body of the College that pursuant to advertisement dated 13.05.04 (Annexure-5) no selection was held. In the instant proceeding we are concerned with the selection conducted pursuant to Annexure-6 advertisement dated 10.10.05. REJOINDER TO THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 25. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder on 29.08.07 against the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No. 5 reiterating the stand in the affidavit in opposition filed in the Misc. case and in the additional affidavit. In paragraph-5 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated that on approach being made to the former Principal of the college. Dr. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder on 29.08.07 against the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No. 5 reiterating the stand in the affidavit in opposition filed in the Misc. case and in the additional affidavit. In paragraph-5 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated that on approach being made to the former Principal of the college. Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi, for appropriate testimonial to the fact that pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.07.01 she had appeared in the selection and was selected, said Dr. Rajbanshi issued Annexure-I certificate and Annexure-II Statement of marks obtained in the selection. According to her said Dr. Rajbanshi also issued Annexure-3 certificate dated 03.08.07. 26. As per the Annexure-I certificate purportedly issued by Dr. Rajbanshi, the petitioner was a candidate in respect of the advertisement dated 19.07.01 and that in the interview she was selected. The certificate speaks of duplicate copy of the statement of marks which is Annexure-II purportedly signed by said Dr. Rajbanshi. Although the petitioner has asserted that there were other members in the selection committee, but the photo copy of the purported statements of marks does not bear any date and signatures of other members of the selection committee. 27. Annexure-3 is a certificate purportedly given by the Dr. Rajbanshi certifying that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.10.05 (Annexure-6), no interview was held in the year 2005-06. The certificate is the similar to that of Annexure-C certificate dated 30.05.07 annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner certifying that no selection was held in the year 2004-05 pursuant to Annexure-5 advertisement dated 13.05.04. AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5 28. Against the aforesaid rejoinder affidavit, the Governing Body of the college has filed an affidavit in reply reiterating its stand that the petitioner was never appointed pursuant to any advertisement and selection. A serious allegation has been made alleging fabrication of the documents by the petitioner. It has been denied that the certificates annexed to the affidavit filed by the petitioner are in fact, under the signatures of Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi. According to said affidavit, the petitioner is the manufacturer of the certificate to suit her case, hi the affidavit, the respondents have annexed Annexure-A letter dated 01.10.07 addressed to the Principal of the College by Dr. Rajbanshi certifying the documents annexed to the affidavit filed by the petitioner to be forged documents. P.C. Rajbanshi. According to said affidavit, the petitioner is the manufacturer of the certificate to suit her case, hi the affidavit, the respondents have annexed Annexure-A letter dated 01.10.07 addressed to the Principal of the College by Dr. Rajbanshi certifying the documents annexed to the affidavit filed by the petitioner to be forged documents. In fact, Dr. Rajbanshi has also sworn an affidavit on 20.11.07 to the same effect. 29. The letter addressed to Principal of the college by Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi, Ex-principal of the college reads as under : To, The Principal, LOKD, College, Dhekiajuli, Dated 1st October, 2007 Sub: Request to take measures against malpractices maligning my image by one employee of LOKD college. Sir, It has come to my notice that Smt. Anamika Devi has submitted certain documents/certificates at Gauhati High Court pertaining to no Interview held in response to the advertisement dated 13 05.04 in the Assam Tribune and an Interview for a non-sanctioned post held in the year 2001 in response to the advertisement dated 19.07.01 alongwith a Statement of Marks of the candidates under my seal and signature. Apart from these she also submitted a No-Interview Certificate claimed to be written by me in respect of advertisement dated 11.10.05 in the Assam Tribune under my seal and signature. In fact. I never issued any such certificates in favour of Smt. Anamika Devi containing the subjects as aforementioned. Furthermore, my name in those certificates has been written as Dr. P.C. Rajbanshi. Former Principal. LOKD college. Dhekiajuli. Sonitpur. The point to be noted is that. I writ my surname for all purposes as Rajbanshi and not Rajbanshi. Hence, the certificates being shown issued by me where my surname is written as Rajbanshi cannot be accepted as genuine ones and are nothing but forged and fabricated documents. The motive behind this forgery, to me, it appears, to create unnecessary delay and confusion in the legal procedure and malign my image. It is my earnest request to you to have a probe into the matter and take necessary action immediately. Thanking you, Sd/- Ex-principal, LOKD College, Dhekiajuli, Sonitpur, (Assam) 30. According to the said letter, the documents annexed to various affidavits filed by the petitioner in his name are not issued by him. It has been categorically denied that he has ever issued any such certificates in favour of the petitioner. According to Dr. Thanking you, Sd/- Ex-principal, LOKD College, Dhekiajuli, Sonitpur, (Assam) 30. According to the said letter, the documents annexed to various affidavits filed by the petitioner in his name are not issued by him. It has been categorically denied that he has ever issued any such certificates in favour of the petitioner. According to Dr. Rajbanshi, he writes his surname as "Rajbanshi". But in the certificate annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner same has been indicated as "Rajbonshi". 31. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. A. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5.1 have also heard Mr. S. Gogoi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, Education Department. I have gone through the materials on record including the records produced by learned Counsel for the respondents, i.e. the Governing Body. 32. Upon a reference to the relevant records including the Proceeding Book of the Governing Body of the college, Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner forcefully argued that it is not the petitioner who is responsible for any forgery, but it is the Governing Body of the college which is responsible for forgery and manipulation of the records. 33. Countering the above arguments of Mr. Dutta, Mr. P. Mahanta learned Counsel for the Governing Body submitted that it is a clear case of obstructing the process of law and an endeavour to get a favourable consideration. He submitted that had it been the case of the petitioner as has been subsequently projected in various affidavits, at least a whisper would have found place in the writ petition. He submits that the whole basis of the claim of the petitioner falls through once the purported author of the documents annexed to the affidavits has denied issuance of any such certificate to which there is no denial on the part of the petitioner. 34. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 more or less adopting the argument advanced by Mr. Mahanta, submitted that since the respondent No. 6 has been selected, in absence of any malafide exercise of power either on the part of the selection committee or the Governing Body, such selection should not be interfered with lightly. 34. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 more or less adopting the argument advanced by Mr. Mahanta, submitted that since the respondent No. 6 has been selected, in absence of any malafide exercise of power either on the part of the selection committee or the Governing Body, such selection should not be interfered with lightly. Learned Standing counsel, Education Department advanced arguments in tune with the respondent No. 2. 35. I have gone through the Proceeding Book of the college for the period from 27.05.2000 to 10.06.2003. As per the proceeding book, the Governing Body of the college in its meeting on 12.11.2000 adopted a resolution vide resolution No. 7 to advertise a non-sanctioned post of Lecturer in English pertaining to Science stream. Thereafter, again vide resolution No. 5, the Governing Body in its meeting held on 11.06.01 once again resolved to advertise the non-sanctioned post of Lecturer in English along with other non-sanctioned pots of Science stream. It was pursuant to such resolution the advertisement dated 19.07.01 was issued. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner responded to the said advertisement dated 19.07.01 and was selected. 36. Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner during his argument questioned the truthfulness of the Proceeding Book in view of the fact that in some of the pages pasting of separate paper is there. I have meticulously gone through such pages taking into account the explanation furnished by Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the Governing Body that the proceedings of the Governing Body may not be recorded in the Proceeding Book being not be available at the particular moment. At times proceeding may be recorded in separate sheet and thereafter pasted in the Proceeding Book. On my meticulous examination of the Proceeding Book, no foul play on the part of the Governing Body is discernible. Mere making an allegation without any substance in a situation, in which the petitioner is in the backfoot, because of her own conduct, is of no consequence. 37. The Governing Body of the college has produced the Proceeding Book in original and nothing suspicious is discernible on meticulous examination of the same. I have gone through the entire pages containing minutes and resolutions adopted by the Governing Body including the pages containing separate pastings of papers. 37. The Governing Body of the college has produced the Proceeding Book in original and nothing suspicious is discernible on meticulous examination of the same. I have gone through the entire pages containing minutes and resolutions adopted by the Governing Body including the pages containing separate pastings of papers. On perusal of the same, it cannot be said to be a manipulation of the records by the Governing Body of the college. The Governing Body does not consist of only one member. It consists of several responsible members. It is not acceptable that the members of the Governing Body will go to the extent of manipulation of the records only to deprive the petitioner. Her such plea will have to be decided in the touchtone of her own conduct. She has produced the documents in support of her case which the purported author has denied to have issued which there is no denial on the part of the petitioner. Pursuant to annexure-5 advertisement dated 11.10.05, the Governing Body of the college conducted the selection through the selection committee in which as per the records produced, the petitioner duly participated. The interview was conducted on 25.10.05. In the attendance sheet, the signature of the petitioner appears at serial No. 2. Pursuant to the selection conducted, the selection committee selected the respondent No. 6 at serial No. 1 and the petitioner at serial No. 2. As per the minutes of the selection committee and the statement prepared, the respondent No. 6 secured 55.5% marks out of total 100 marks and the petitioner secured 39 marks. Another candidate, namely Md. Nizam Uddin Ahmed secured 37.5%. The respondent No. 6 is also qualified in SLET. The proceeding has been signed by members of the Selection Committee which include two experts from two different colleges. 38. The respondent Governing Body has 'also produced the personal file of the petitioner which contains the application dated 31.07.2000 submitted by the petitioner to the Principal of the college for appointment as Lecturer in English. On the body of the application the Principal of the college made an endorsement for her appointment for three months. There is nothing in the file to indicate that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to any advertisement and selection. On the body of the application the Principal of the college made an endorsement for her appointment for three months. There is nothing in the file to indicate that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to any advertisement and selection. On perusal of the mark sheets and the certificate pertaining to the academic qualification, prima facie it appears that the respondent No. 6 is ahead of the petitioner. The statements relating to the selection prepared by the selection committee also bears the testimony of the same. Once the selection committee has found the respondent No. 6 to be better in merit, it is not for the writ court to substitute such expert opinion in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the discussions made above what has emerged is that the petitioner resorted to falsehood towards invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. At the first instance, she at the time of filing of the writ petition it was never her case that she was appointed against any non-sanctioned post pursuant to regular process of selection as per the UGC norms. Her only stand was that she having had more years of experience than the respondent No. 6, she should have been preferred over her. There is also contrary submission in the writ petition regarding selection held. However, being confronted with the stand of the Governing Body in its Misc. case being No. 2839/06, the petitioner kept on developing her case by filing affidavits one after another. In the process she also adopted dubious means by annexing the documents purportedly issued by the Former Principal of the college. The said Principal has ^ categorically denied issuance of any such certificate to her. It is simply not believable that said Principal would have kept the photo copy of the statements of the candidates pertaining to the selection held in 2001 so as to furnish the same to the petitioner in 2007. When the author of the documents himself has denied issuance of the same and in absence of any rebuttal on the part of the petitioner, the only presumption which can be drawn is that the petitioner resorted to false hood and in the process thwarted the process of law leading to abuse of the process of law. 39. There is another aspect of the matter. 39. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner after her initial appointment as part time Lecturer was appointed by Annexure-4 letter dated 01.01.01. The selection about which the petitioner has much emphasized in her subsequent affidavits is much after such appointment. The advertisement was of 19.07.01 and purported selection was conducted thereafter. After such selection, there was no fresh appointment in favour of the petitioner. The question is as to whether the petitioner was appointed pursuant to any. selection as per the UGC norms towards her appointment on 01.01.01 and not as to whether she appeared in selection pursuant to advertisement dated 19.07.01. According to the respondents, the advertisement was in the Science stream and the petitioner never responded to the same. Even if the plea of the petitioner is accepted which, however, can be accepted due to the foregoing reasons, then also the advertisement and selection being independent of her appointment on 01.01.01, same is of no help to her case. 40. When a point is ostensibly a point of Yaw is required to be substantiate by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondents, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the affidavits in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit as the case may be, the Court may not entertain the point. In the instant case, although it is the case of the petitioner that she is entitled to the benefit of Clause 4(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 17.07.07 which is ostensibly the point of law, she has not pleaded anything in the writ petition so as to substantiate the same by facts. It is only after the Misc. case filed by the respondents, she has altogether given a new twist to the case. 41. As in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 417, it is well settled principle of law that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 417, it is well settled principle of law that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. In the instant case also the whole basis of the writ petition will have to be judged on the pleading set out in the writ petition. As noticed above, there is no whisper in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to any advertisement and selection as per the UGC norms. It is only after filing of the Misc. case No. 2839/06, the petitioner by way of filing further affidavits has tried to develop her case. However, I have considered such grounds which are self contradictory and based on falsehood. 42. In paragraph-13 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the petitioner in Misc. case No. 2839/06, her categorical stand is that she was appointed on 01.01.01 pursuant to advertisement and proper selection by the selection committee. However, in her subsequent affidavits, her stand is different. Such stand is that she appeared in selection conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.07.01 and was selected. In this connection, the statements made in paragraph-5 of the rejoinder affidavit filed on 29.08.07 is noteworthy. As per the said statements, (as already indicated in the pleadings earlier) she was working in the department and pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.07.01, she appeared in the interview and was selected. Such statement runs counter to her own statement made in paragraph-13 of the affidavit in opposition filed in Misc. case No. 2839/06 in which she has categorically stated that she was appointed on 01.01.01 pursuant to an advertisement and proper selection. 43. From what has been discussed above, the irresistible conclusion reached is that the petitioner took a chance for favourable consideration by initiating the writ proceeding and in the process she took recourse to abuse of the process of law by dubious means. 43. From what has been discussed above, the irresistible conclusion reached is that the petitioner took a chance for favourable consideration by initiating the writ proceeding and in the process she took recourse to abuse of the process of law by dubious means. Although her conduct in invoking the writ jurisdiction is deplorable and she is liable for criminal prosecution, this Court refrains from issuing any direction in this regard. It will, however be open for the respondents to take recourse to such action as maybe available in law. 44. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 07.12.05 stands vacated. It will now be open for the respondents to fill up the post of Lecturer in English pursuant to Annexure-6 advertisement dated 10.10.05. 45. The writ petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.