Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 799 (GAU)

Shilpi Mitra v. State of Assam

2008-11-17

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court to quash the resolutions dated 20.12.2005 and 30.7.2006 adopted by the Governing Body of the Hojai College, Hojai, Nagaon (hereafter referred to as the College) for regularizing the services of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 against sanctioned posts lying vacant in the department of Economics, English and Mathematics respectively as well as the Government approval therefore as conveyed by its letter No. AHE.238/2006/207 dated 5.5.2007. A writ of mandamus and/or direction has been sought for instead to regularize her services against any of the posts in the aforementioned departments. This Court while issuing notice of notion on 4.5.2007 had maintained status quo with regard to the process of recommendation and approval of the regularization of the above mentioned respondents in terms of the resolutions impugned. I have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the State respondents, Mr. G. Uzir, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 (the College and the Governing Body), Mr. S.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate for the respondents 5 and 6 and Mr. N. Choudhury, Advocate for the respondent No. 7. 2. The fascicule of facts as the preface for the combative arguments generated thereby has been provided by the parties in their pleadings. The petitioner has introduced herself to be a Post Graduate in Chemistry (Inorganic) having secured First Class from Gauhati University. She claims to have U.G.C. Norms. She responded to an advertisement published by the College in the local daily, the Assam Tribune for appointment amongst others as a Lecturer in Chemistry with specialization Inorganic (Quantum). After subjecting herself to the selection process that followed by order dated 1.9.2000 she was appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry on ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1250/- P.M. initially for a period of three months. She accordingly joined on 2.9.2000. The petitioner has disclosed that through the same process as many as six lecturers including her were appointed in various departments, their names and other relevant particulars being as follows. 3. All these appointments were against non-sanctioned posts necessitated by the extent of enrolment in the respective departments. She accordingly joined on 2.9.2000. The petitioner has disclosed that through the same process as many as six lecturers including her were appointed in various departments, their names and other relevant particulars being as follows. 3. All these appointments were against non-sanctioned posts necessitated by the extent of enrolment in the respective departments. The petitioner has claimed that though her initial term of appointment had been for three months, she was allowed to continue thereafter and accordingly she is rendering her services as such since then till date. 4. Referring to an office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 issued by the Government of Assam in the Education Department, the petitioner has pleaded that it having provided for withdrawal of sanctioned posts lying vacant in other departments to accommodate teachers of Deficit Grants-in-aid Colleges of the State serving against non-sanctioned posts in order of seniority, the Director of Higher Education, Assam by his letter dated 20.7.2004 requested all such institutions to take necessary follow up steps in accordance therewith. The petitioner has contended that amongst the six lecturers appointed as above, she is senior to the respondents 5, 6 and Ms. Sharmistha Paul and in terms of the aforementioned office memorandum she is thus entitled to a preference in the matter of adjustment/accommodation as contemplated therein. According to her, the Governing Body of the College on 20.12.2005 adopted a resolution whereby though vacant sanctioned posts in the department of Economics and English were identified to be diverted to regularize respondents 5 and 6 who are junior to her, no such post was ascertained for her. While asserting that at all relevant times there was no vacant sanctioned post in the Department of Assamese in the College, the petitioner being aggrieved, submitted a representation on 16.7.2006 before the Departmental Minister for redressal of her grievance. Subsequent thereto on 30.7.2002, the Governing Body of the College took a resolution whereby respondents 5 and 6 were recommended for regularization against vacancies in the departments of Economics and English and a post from the Department of Assamese was resolved to be withdrawn to accommodate the petitioner. Realizing that the diversion of the post from the Assamese department would not be feasible and that the resolution dated 30.7.2006 vis-a-vis her was only a formality with no realistic prospect, the petitioner submitted representations before the various authorities of the department but to no avail. Realizing that the diversion of the post from the Assamese department would not be feasible and that the resolution dated 30.7.2006 vis-a-vis her was only a formality with no realistic prospect, the petitioner submitted representations before the various authorities of the department but to no avail. She being apprised of the fact that steps were afoot to accord approval to the resolution dated 30.7.2006 for accommodating respondents 5 and 6 which according to her is in contravention of the letter and spirit of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004, she has sought to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for succour. 5. The petitioner has also questioned the validity of the appointment of respondent No. 7 as not being preceded by any selection process in the year 2001 contending that, therefore, her case thus could not have been considered in terms of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 as done. However, as the Departmental Authorities, according to her, were inclined even to regularize her, the petitioner has also sought for the annulment of the impugned resolutions vis-a-vis the said respondent as well. 6. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, respondent No. 2 in his affidavit has averred that there is no vacancy in the Department of Chemistry in the College to regularize the services of the petitioner in the said department. However, the College also did not submit any proposal for the said purpose by way of conversion of a vacant sanctioned post from another Department. 7. The respondents 3 and 4, Shri Kumudeswar Sarma, Vice President of the College in their affidavit while affirming that the petitioner is senior in service to respondents 5, 6 and Ms. Sharmistha Paul have asserted that the Government in its meeting held on 20.12.2005 resolved to regularize the services of the petitioner and other candidates as mentioned therein by adjustment/conversion of posts from other departments in terms of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. This was followed by another resolution dated 30.7.2006 for regularization of the petitioner by way of adjustment against a vacant post in the Department of Assamese available due to the retirement of one Dr. (Mrs.) N. Mahanta, Head of the Department of Assamese, by deciding to divert the same to the department of Chemistry. This was followed by another resolution dated 30.7.2006 for regularization of the petitioner by way of adjustment against a vacant post in the Department of Assamese available due to the retirement of one Dr. (Mrs.) N. Mahanta, Head of the Department of Assamese, by deciding to divert the same to the department of Chemistry. The answering respondents, however, disclosed that in a subsequent meeting held on 25.12.2006, the Governing Body vide its resolution No. 2 in the said meeting approved the contract appointment of the respondent No. 7. It was further stated that by resolution dated 26.4.2007 thereafter the Governing Body of the College permitted the respondent No. 7 to render services on temporary arrangement. 8. In their counters which are identical the respondents 5 and 6 while claiming that they too had been appointed as lecturers in Botany and Physics respectively through the same process by which the petitioner had been inducted, have pleaded that the seniority comprehended in the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 for regularization of lecturers serving against non-sanctioned posts denoted seniority in the respective departments and not based on length of service thus repudiating the petitioner's preferential claim for regularization on the basis of service seniority. The respondents have contended that her case having also been approved for the said purpose by the resolutions dated 20.10.2005 and 30.7.2006, the recommendations in terms thereof are in conformity with the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004, and therefore, the challenge made in the instant proceeding is obviously flippant and misconceived. The answering respondents claimed that the Government has already approved the proposal for regularization of their services in terms of the resolutions of the Governing Body of the College. 9. The College in its additional affidavit filed on 2.5.2008 through the same deponent referred to the resolution dated 30.7.2006 whereby it was decided to convert one post in the Department of Mathematics lying vacant due to retirement of one Shri B.C. Saha, Head of Department of Mathematics, to the Department of Zoology to accommodate Ms. Sarmistha Paul, a lecturer therein serving against a non-sanctioned post. Sarmistha Paul, a lecturer therein serving against a non-sanctioned post. In relation to the resolution dated 20.12.2005 it was alleged that though thereby amongst others it was resolved to regularize the services of respondent No. 7 against a substantive post in the Department of Mathematics against the retirement vacancy of Shri B.C. Saha, Head of Department, no discussion to that effect was made as the said respondent was not entitled to be considered in terms of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. The deponent while asserting that he was present in the said meeting as a teacher representative also maintained that in the proceeding book of the Governing Body of the College handed over by the earlier Principal, the resolution of the said meeting was missing for which a show cause noticed dated 13.10.2007 has been issued against him with the charge of deliberate tampering and destruction thereof. While admitting that there has been a strong resentment against conversion of posts from departments of Bengali, Assamese, Economics, History and the respective Heads thereof, the College asserted that the post of Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics falling vacant due to the retirement of one Mr. A.D. Majumdar was requested by the Head of the said Department to be filled up by a candidate with specialization in Applied Mathematics. By this affidavit, the College sought to convey that Mrs. Sharmistha Paul having in the meantime left the institution, the vacant post of lecturer in the Mathematics Department earmarked for her was available for regularization of the services of the petitioner as per the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. 10. This affidavit was replied to by the respondent No. 7 endorsing the resolution No. 3(XIV) contained in the minutes of the meeting dated 20.12.2005 whereby inter alia her services were recommended to be regularized. While contending that the sudden volte face by the College vis-a-vis the issue of her regularization is unfair, mala fide and discriminatory, the said respondent has insisted that the resolution dated 20.12.2005 as a whole had been forwarded to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, under the joint signatures of the President of the Governing Body of the College as well as the earlier Principal and had been acted upon for others. While categorically denying the averment that no discussion in the meeting dated 20.12.2005 had taken place on the issue of the regularization of her services and that the same is tampered, this respondent has referred to a letter dated 21.9.2006 of the Head of Department of Mathematics requesting the Principal of the College against conversion of any post from his Department in view of shortage of staff and the rising enrolment of students. 11. By way of further elaboration of its stand, the College through the same deponent in its additional affidavit filed on 20.6.2008 pleaded that in the meeting dated 20.12.2005, there was no discussion or resolution for adjustment of the services of the respondent No. 5, 6 as well as one Monoj Swami and that a decision to that effect was taken only in the resolution dated 30.7.2006. The deponent further avowed that the proposal for the respondent No. 7 had been forwarded by the earlier Principal of the College on his own initiative for which he has been asked to show cause vide notice dated 13.10.2007. According to the College, the letter dated 31.9.2006 to the Head of the Department of Mathematics had not been received at the time when the charge had been handed over by the earlier Principal and Secretary. A letter dated 3.6.2008 of the Principal-in-Charge and the Secretary of the College intimating the Director of Higher Education, Assam, about the falsity and non-authenticity of the proposal vis-a-vis the respondent No. 7 based on the resolution dated 20.12.2005 was also referred to. 12. In her affidavit in reply the petitioner has averred that on 11.6.2008, the Governing Body of the College has already held an interview for filling up the vacant post of Lecturer in the Department of Assamese and, therefore, the resolution dated 30.7.2006 purportedly seeking to regularize her services against the said post is for all intents and purposes non est on facts. Through her additional affidavit, she has brought on record, the letter No. AHE./238/2006/207 dated 5.5.2007 of the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (H) Department, conveying the approval of the Government to the regularization of the services of respondents 5, 6 and 7 and one Monoj Kr. Swami. Through her additional affidavit, she has brought on record, the letter No. AHE./238/2006/207 dated 5.5.2007 of the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (H) Department, conveying the approval of the Government to the regularization of the services of respondents 5, 6 and 7 and one Monoj Kr. Swami. In its further additional affidavit filed on 23.9.2008, the College has contended that its records do not contain the order dated 5.5.2007 conveying the Government approval for regularization of the services of the respondents 5 and 6. 13. In the backdrop of the emulous pleadings, Mr. Mazumdar has argued that the petitioner being admittedly senior in service than the private respondents, she in terms of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 is entitled to a precedence over them in the matter of regularization and, therefore, the impugned resolutions which seek to extend primacy to their claims by overlooking hers are visibly illegal, arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory and are liable to be set aside being adjudged as such. The learned Counsel has maintained that an appropriate direction therefore ought to be issued to the respondents to undertake the exercise afresh as per the above office memorandum and take an appropriate decision on the issue of regularization of the petitioner in terms of her seniority in service. 14. Mr. Goswami has contended that as the College did not forward any proposal for the regularization of the services of the petitioner vide the office memorandum involved, the State respondents cannot be held to be at fault in any view of the matter. He however affirmed that by the letter dated 5.5.2007 of the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (H) Department, the Government had accorded approval to the regularization of the services of respondents 5, 6 and 7 and one Shri Monoj Kr. Swami but in face of the interim interdiction of this Court, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, has abstained from taking the follow up steps as regards the respondents 5, 6 and 7. The learned State Counsel has produced the official records in reinforcement of his submissions. 15. Mr. Uzir appearing for the College while reiterating that the proceeding book of the Governing Body does not contain the minutes of its meeting said to be held on 20.12.2005 has affirmed the resolution dated 30.7.2006 to be in observance of the procedure enjoined by the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. 15. Mr. Uzir appearing for the College while reiterating that the proceeding book of the Governing Body does not contain the minutes of its meeting said to be held on 20.12.2005 has affirmed the resolution dated 30.7.2006 to be in observance of the procedure enjoined by the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. He also endorsed the petitioner's claim to be senior in service to respondents 5, 6 and 7. Abiding by the pleaded stand to the College, the learned Counsel has urged that the resolution dated 20.12.2005 vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 7 was the yield of the personal initiative of the earlier Principal who held the office till 30.12.2006. The proceeding book of the Governing Body of the College as well as the letters dated 10.4.2007, 8.8.2008 and 30.8.2008 addressed to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, on its behalf has been produced for the perusal of this Court. 16. Mr. Sharma has assiduously urged that as seniority envisaged in the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004, is to be construed of a lecturer Department wise, the petitioner's claim for preference on the basis of overall service seniority is misconceived. According to him, if length of service is to be applied, then the marginal difference in the dates of joining of the candidates concerned would be a decisive factor thus rendering the time permitted to report for duty nugatory. Contending that the stand of the College qua the resolution dated 20.12.2005 being inexplicably inconsistent and vacillating is untrustworthy, the learned Sr. Counsel has urged that the Director of Higher Education, Assam, having categorically classified that the petitioner's name had not been forwarded for regularization, the respondents 5, 6 and 7 ought not to be made to suffer and that on this count alone the petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Sharma has contended that the letter dated 5.5.2007 conveying the Government's approval for regularization of the services of respondents 5, 6 and 7 belies the version of the College disowning the resolution dated 20.12.2005. The endeavour to shift the blame on the earlier Principal of the institution only demonstrates an attempt to cover up the default on the part of the College to expedite the regularization of the services of respondents 5, 6 and 7 presumably on extraneous and collateral considerations, he urged. 17. Mr. The endeavour to shift the blame on the earlier Principal of the institution only demonstrates an attempt to cover up the default on the part of the College to expedite the regularization of the services of respondents 5, 6 and 7 presumably on extraneous and collateral considerations, he urged. 17. Mr. Choudhury while emphasizing on authenticity of the resolution dated 20.12.2005 has argued that it would be apparent therefrom that the regularization of the services of the respondent No. 7 had not been under the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 but against a post in her Department in usual course and, therefore, she has been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy. The learned Counsel by referring to the letter dated 21.9.2006 of the Head of Department of Mathematics has argued that in any view of the matter, no post is separable from the Department for adjustment of a lecturer of any other Department by applying the aforementioned office memorandum and, therefore, the criteria of seniority debated upon has no relevance vis-a-vis his respondent. 18. The competing contentions have been duly examined. As the stand off appertains to the issue of regularization of services as contemplated by the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004, the criteria of seniority ordained as one of the guiding norms, therefore, deserves appropriate construction. Clause 4(a) of the said memorandum which embodies the procedure/modalities for adjustment of services of College Teachers serving against non-sanctioned posts pre-eminently commends for extraction. "(a) Vacant posts in a particular department lying in a grant-in-aid college of Assam may be allotted in order of seniority to accommodate teachers in the same college who is working in some other department without a valid sanctioned post, provided that such teacher was appointed by the respective GB observing due procedure i.e. advertisement selection and having UGC norms required and if the need for such a post is justified by enrolment in the Department of the College etc. provided further the post is not be considered essential for the department against which it was originally sanctioned." 19. The allotment of a vacant post in a particular Department has been mandated to be caused in order of seniority to accommodate teachers in the same College who are working in some other department without a valid sanctioned post. The other factors, which stipulate to condition the exercise being inessential for the present purpose, are not being dilated upon. The allotment of a vacant post in a particular Department has been mandated to be caused in order of seniority to accommodate teachers in the same College who are working in some other department without a valid sanctioned post. The other factors, which stipulate to condition the exercise being inessential for the present purpose, are not being dilated upon. The step, as the office memorandum reveals, is an initiative to accommodate teachers serving without sanctioned posts in deficit grants in aid Colleges to tide over the shortfall in posts to adjust them otherwise due to the inability of the State Government to sanction new ones. The well articulated move on the part of the Government is, therefore, to advance the cause of the teachers of deficit grants in aid Colleges of the State serving since long against non-sanctioned posts but otherwise shouldering the responsibilities of a regular lecturer appointed against valid sanctioned posts. Logically, therefore, the benefit of the measure conceptualized by the office memorandum has to be accorded by applying an uniform yardstick shorn of fortuitous variables. Aside the clear and unambiguous terminology used in the extract as above, in the opinion of this Court, length of service in the College is indubitably the most rational and realistic norm to be applied to identify the teachers for allotment of vacant sanctioned posts in other departments for adjustment. Any other benchmark would precipitate anomalous consequences thus frustrating the very underlying objective of the wholesome scheme adopted by the Government. The plea of departmental seniority being incompatible with the framework of the guidelines engrafted in the aforementioned office memorandum does not commend for acceptance. 20. Incidentally the college has accepted the petitioner to be senior to the respondents 5, 6 and 7 as is evident from the resolution dated 30.7.2006. This resolution discloses further the comprehension of the College about service seniority to be the criteria applicable for allotment of vacant posts from other departments. Though the proceeding book of the Governing Body of the college as produced before this Court for the period 20.6.2002 to 20.12.2005, most inscrutably does not contain the text of the minutes of the meeting held on that date (20.12.2005) that such a proceeding had been held on that date in which the issue of regularization of the services amongst others of the petitioner, respondents 5, 6, 7 and one Shri Monoj Kr. Swami was deliberated upon, is evident inter alia from the official records produced on behalf of the State respondents. Incidentally though the posts from the department of Economics and English were resolved to be diverted to adjust the respondents 5 and 6, no such post was located for the petitioner. The respondent No. 7 was proposed to be regularized against a vacant post in her own department of Mathematics that had fallen vacant due to retirement of Shri B.C. Saha. Apart from the fact that the imputation of tampering of this resolution so far as it relates to the respondent No. 7 is subject to enquiry and proof, so far as the petitioner is concerned it is of no avail to her viewed in the context of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 as no vacant sanctioned post from any other department has thereby been earmarked for her. The letter dated 10.4.2007 signed by the Principal Secretary of the College and addressed to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, as available from the State records convey in unequivocal terms the transmission of the resolutions dated 20.12.2005 and 30.7.2006 for regularization of the services of the following five Lecturers. 21. The said letter discloses a resolution of the Governing Body adopted on 25.12.2006 deciding to advertise the vacant post of Lecturer in the Department of Assamese. This incidentally is the resolution whereby, as pleaded by the College, the Resolution No. 2(c) dated 30.7.2006 whereby the petitioner was proposed to be adjusted against the advertised post in the Assamese Department was recalled. The State records reveal that the Director of Higher Education, Assam, had forwarded to the Government by his letter No. DHE/EST/58/2006/50/5487 dated 5.4.2007 a list of 90 incumbents proposed to be regularized by the respective Colleges as per the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. The Addl. Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (H) Department by his letter No. AHE.238/2006/2007 dated 5.5.2007 conveyed the approval of the Government to the regularization of the following four Lecturers of the College. 22. It however appears from the endorsement on the body of the said letter that the Director of Higher Education, Assam, decided to process only the case of Shri Monoj Kr. Swami in accordance with the approval while holding in abeyance those of the other incumbents in view of the pendency of the instant proceeding. 22. It however appears from the endorsement on the body of the said letter that the Director of Higher Education, Assam, decided to process only the case of Shri Monoj Kr. Swami in accordance with the approval while holding in abeyance those of the other incumbents in view of the pendency of the instant proceeding. Accordingly thereafter by order dated 28.6.2007, the said authority approved the resolution 3(xii) dated 20.12.2005 of the Governing Body of the College proposing to regularize the services of Shri Monoj Kr. Swami. So far as the petitioner is as observed hereinabove, none of the two resolutions promised any prospect of her regularization in service, no vacant sanctioned post from any other department having been located in the resolution dated 20.12.2005 and the post from the department of Assamese as recommended in the resolution dated 30.7.2006 having been eventually decided to be filled up by advertising the same. 23. Incidentally the resolution dated 30.7.2006 does neither refer to nor acknowledge the existence of the resolution dated 20.12.2005. As a matter of fact for all practicable purpose thereby the resolution dated 20.12.2005 has been rendered insignificant so far as the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are concerned. Though the persistent efforts on behalf of the College to render the resolution dated 20.12.2005 pertaining to the respondents 5, 6 and 7 invalid find manifestation in the letters dated 8.8.2008 and 30.8.2008 of its Principal in-charge addressed to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, this Court is not inclined to record any final decision thereon in absence of adequate materials on record. Further a show cause notice dated 13.10.2007 seems to have been issued to the earlier Principal of the College now under suspension requiring him to explain amongst others the charge of tampering the said resolution. As disputed questions of facts are involved this Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction considers it inexpedient to indulge in such an exercise in this regard. As disputed questions of facts are involved this Court, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction considers it inexpedient to indulge in such an exercise in this regard. However, noticing the incongruity in the stand of the College as an institution on the resolution dated 20.12.2005 as unveiled by the above narrated facts, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, is hereby ordered to ensure that the proceeding initiated against the earlier Principal is conducted to its logical end and a finding on the authenticity or otherwise of the resolution dated 20.12.2005 and the charge of tampering thereof is arrived at by following the due procedure prescribed by law. Depending on the conclusion reached it would also be open for the said State authority to make further investigation or enquiry in the matter as may be deemed fit and proper and considered permissible in law. This Court refrains from dilating further on this issue being aware of the pleaded stand of the College that in the meantime the services of respondent No. 7 have been terminated for her long unauthorized absence from duties. 24. Though the College in its additional affidavit dated 2.5.2008 has offered a post from the Department of Mathematics initially recommended for Ms. Sharmistha Paul who has since resigned from services, in face of the letter dated 21.9.2006 of the Head of Department of Mathematics (Annexure 18 to the affidavit in reply by the respondent No. 7 in M.C. 1953 of 2007) declining to part with any post, in the face of shortage of staff and soaring enrolments, this Court considers it inadvisable rather impermissible in view of the restraint contained in the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 in this regard to direct regularization of the petitioner against the same as proposed. The College in its affidavit dated 20.6.2008 though has maintained that this letter was not received by it at the time of handing over of the charge of the office of the Principal by its earlier incumbent, the same per se does not constitute an unequivocal denial of the existence thereof and warrants a probe in this regard as well. 25. It is thus not clear from the pleading of the parties that a post of Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics is unreservedly available for adjusting the petitioner in terms of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. 25. It is thus not clear from the pleading of the parties that a post of Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics is unreservedly available for adjusting the petitioner in terms of the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. On the other hand it is unambiguously obvious that one post of each from the Department of Economics and English can be utilized for regularizing the Lecturers in the College presently serving in non-sanctioned posts in order of seniority. With the cancellation of the resolution dated 30.7.2006 by the one dated 25.12.2006 and the advertisement of the post of Lecturer in Assamese initially meant for the petitioner, it is thus apparent that while on one hand though she is senior in service, no vacant sanctioned post is available to accommodate her on the other, those from the departments of Economics and English have been allotted to respondents 5 and 6 who are junior to her by the same benchmark. The case of the respondent No. 7 however stands on a different footing as even if the resolution dated 20.12.2005 is eventually found to be non-existent or invalid, her services had been sought to be regularized thereby in her own department without reference to the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. It is therefore the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 who presently, if the proposed post of Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics is not available are left on the turf to stake their claim against the posts drawable from the Economics and English Departments of the College by applying the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004. In view of the determination has hereinabove, the issue stands remitted to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to undertake the exercise for ascertaining the regular vacant sanctioned posts of Lecturer in the Departments of the College available to be filled up by invoking the office memorandum dated 17.7.2004 and determine the candidates therefore as per the criteria prescribed thereby and thereafter pass appropriate orders as required in law. This Court in adopting this course is conscious of the fact that truly the process as ordered is in normal state of affairs to be conducted by the College. This Court in adopting this course is conscious of the fact that truly the process as ordered is in normal state of affairs to be conducted by the College. However, in view of the noticeable anomalies in the proceedings of the Governing Body and the distressful inconsistencies in its approach from time to time, thus engendering a feeling of distrust and discontentment amongst the incumbents involved resultantly undermining its administrative credibility and the academic environment of the institution, this Court considers that this mode of disposal would provide the long awaited quietus to the lingering controversy under the vigilant supervision of the aforementioned departmental authority. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, would offer due opportunity of hearing to the persons interested and complete the process as ordered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the final decision is arrived at, no approval to the proposal for regularization of the services of respondent No. 5 and 6 would be accorded. The decision vis-a-vis the respondent No. 7 would depend on the fact as to whether she continues to be in service of the College and also subject to the outcome of the enquiry initiated against the earlier Principal of the institution inter alia on the charge of tampering of the resolution dated 20.12.2005. The petition thus is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs. Petition Partly Allowed.