Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 862 (GAU)

Subharam Rajkhowa v. Gauhati University

2009-12-04

AMITAVA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner, Reader in the Department of Law, Gauhati University (hereafter referred to as the University), seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for an appropriate writ and/or direction to it to promote him to the post of Professor of the aforesaid Department and cancelling the selection of the Respondent No. 5 and the recommendation for his promotion as well to the same rank. 2. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the University and Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5. 3. The pleaded accounts of the parties in bare essentials would be necessary. The Petitioner has averred that he had joined the Post Graduate Department of Law of the University as a Lecturer in the year 1986 and was promoted to that of Reader in the year 1998. The Respondent No. 5, he admits, has been serving as Reader of the said Department from the year 1996. According to him, the Department is possessed of three posts of Reader and five Lecturers of which two posts of Lecturers are vacant. While contending that the charge of the office of the Head of Department is held by rotation on the turn of every three years, the Petitioner has stated that the Respondent No. 5 who is otherwise senior to him as a Reader is presently functioning as such. He has elaborated that by dint of his office and seniority the Respondent No. 5 is the Dean of the Faculty of Law and is also a Member of the Executive Council. He has averred that the three years term vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 5 in the office of the Head of Department is scheduled to expire in December, 2009 and it would be his turn thereafter. He has averred that the three years term vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 5 in the office of the Head of Department is scheduled to expire in December, 2009 and it would be his turn thereafter. Referring to the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, (for short hereafter referred to as the Regulation) framed in exercise of the powers under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, he has pleaded that guidelines have also been framed by the University Grants Commission (for short also referred to as UGC) for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (for short also referred to as CAS) which have since been adopted by the University with certain modifications, hereafter referred to as Rules/Guidelines. 4. According to the Petitioner, he being eligible to be promoted to the post of Professor under the CAS, applied to that effect on 26.9.2006. The Respondent No. 5 applied as well. An interview was held by a Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of the Vice Chancellor of the University on 26.7.2007 in which two external subject experts from outside the State were also present. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 were interviewed by the same Selection Committee on the same date. As inspite thereof, the results of the interview were unduly delayed, the Petitioner approached this Court with WP (C) 289/2008 praying amongst others for a direction for placing the recommendation of the Selection Committee before the Executive Council for the needful. 5. In that proceeding, the University in its counter sought to justify the delay due to some confusion with regard to the quorum of experts. It having been disclosed by the Petitioner in his reply affidavit with reference to the letter dated 22.2.2008 from the UGC setting at rest the purported confusion, this Court noticing the submission on behalf of the University that it would proceed to open the sealed cover of the recommendations on the basis of the said letter and take follow up steps, closed the writ proceeding on 27.11.2008. 6. 6. While questioning the correctness of the stand of the University bearing on the delay, citing instance of selections for other departments for similar promotions, the Petitioner has pleaded that on receipt of the copy of the resolution No. 2008/12/( 12.a)/144(3 & 4) dated 6.11.2008 and R/EC-1/2009/02 dated 12.1.2009, it transpired therefrom that he had been recommended for the post of Professor in the Department in the interview held on 26.7.2007 and that the Executive Council had requested the Academic Registrar of the University to place the matter before the Academic Council for creation of that post under the CAS for issuance of the appointment order. The said documents disclosed that the Respondent No. 5 had not been recommended for the said post. The resolution dated 6.11.2008 of the Executive Council as above however revealed its decision to hold a fresh selection for the Respondent No. 5 on the ground that the procedure of interview of two candidates by the same Selection Committee was not a sound one. Pursuant to this resolution another interview was held on 4.3.2009 to consider the case of the Respondent No. 5 in which he was recommended. Thereafter the Executive Council in its meeting held on 9.3.2009 also accepted the said recommendation. The Petitioner has assailed the validity of this process to be violative of Rule 10 of the Rules/Guidelines having been initiated before the expiry of the stipulated period as prescribed. As inspite of the decision of this Court rendered on 27.11.2008, the Respondent University has neither created a post of Professor in the department nor acted on the recommendation of the Petitioner therefore without any justification, he has instituted the instant proceeding for redress pleading that the inexplicable delay is to favour the Respondent No. 5 with promotion to the post involved ahead of him (Petitioner) on extraneous considerations. 7. The Respondent University in its affidavit while disputing the Petitioner’s claim for the Head of Department on the turn of three years has admitted the receipt of the applications by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 for the post of Professor under the CAS to be on 10.10.2006 and 18.9.2006 respectively. 7. The Respondent University in its affidavit while disputing the Petitioner’s claim for the Head of Department on the turn of three years has admitted the receipt of the applications by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 for the post of Professor under the CAS to be on 10.10.2006 and 18.9.2006 respectively. While admitting that the Selection Committee in connection with this, had held the interview of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 on 26.7.2007, it reiterated its earlier stand of certain confusion about the quorum of experts for which it sought necessary clarifications from the UGC which was ultimately communicated by its letter dated 22.2.2008. The University has pleaded that thereafter, the matter was placed before the Executive Council on 6.11.2008 and that the minutes of the selection committee revealed that the Petitioner had been recommended for the post. According to it, in deference to the directions contained in the order dated 27.11.2008 of this Court passed in WP (C) 289/2008, necessary follow up steps were taken and the issue was again placed before the Executive Council on 12.1.2009 which in turn approved the selection of the Petitioner. The University has denied the Petitioner’s imputation of deliberate delay in the issuance of his promotion order. It has admitted that the Respondent No. 5 had been interviewed again on 4.3.2009 and that the Executive Council has on 9.3.2009 accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee in his favour. The University has insisted that the repeat process vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 5 is valid as the same had been conducted in terms of paragraph 10 of the Rules for promotion to the post of Professor under the CAS, the period being computable from 26.7.2007. It has also clarified that paragraph 9 of the said Rules is not required to be complied with for the second time by the Respondent No. 5 and that the date of application would be the date of effect of such promotion in terms of its notification dated 25.11.2004 of the University to the said effect. The answering Respondent citing unavoidable formalities, contributing to the time taken, however, assured that appointment order of the Petitioner would be issued following the creation of the post by the Academic Council and approval by the Executive Council. 8. The answering Respondent citing unavoidable formalities, contributing to the time taken, however, assured that appointment order of the Petitioner would be issued following the creation of the post by the Academic Council and approval by the Executive Council. 8. In his affidavit, the Respondent No. 5 while questioning the locus of the Petitioner in impugning the validity of his recommendation has averred the existence of one post of Professor of the Department on extension service, the term whereof is scheduled to expire on 31.12.2009. He has disputed as well the Petitioner’s claim to be the next Head of Department. According to him, CAS is an in situ promotion scheme without a vacancy at the higher level and, therefore, the interview of two candidates by the same Selection Committee being militative of the objective of such progression was rightly held to be unacceptable by the Executive Council. Refuting the Petitioner’s allegation of undue delay in the process to favour him as baseless and malicious, the answering Respondent has endorsed the validity of his interview held on 4.3.2009 to be in conformity with paragraph 10 of the relevant Rules for CAS it having been conducted after a period of 20 months from the first interview on 26.7.2007. He has asserted as well that having regard to the two stages of the process, for the repeat process a candidate who is qualified at the stage of publication of research papers etc. need not submit his application afresh therefor. According to this Respondent, the challenge is wholly misconceived in the attendant facts and circumstances. 9. In its supplementary affidavit, the University while reiterating its earlier stand that the Executive Council had in its meeting held on 12.1.2009 while approving the recommendation in favour of the Petitioner had resolved to request the Academic Council to create a post of Professor in the Department has brought on record an episode of 3.3.2009 on the eve of the interview of Respondent No. 5 on 4.3.2009 alleging circulation of some letters signed by one Shri Tailendra Talukdar amongst the experts of the Selection Committee adversely commenting on his candidature. That such letter had been addressed by the same gentleman to several authorities of the University and the State Government has also been stated. It has been averred as well that these letters were similar to those written by the Petitioner against the Respondent No. 5 on many occasions. That such letter had been addressed by the same gentleman to several authorities of the University and the State Government has also been stated. It has been averred as well that these letters were similar to those written by the Petitioner against the Respondent No. 5 on many occasions. The Respondent University has also stated that on 3.3.2009, the Petitioner had addressed a letter to the Registrar bringing to his notice some news item published in a local Daily and that the Executive Council it in its meeting held on 9.3.2009 had resolved that an explanation be called for from him as to why a disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for violation of the Teachers Conduct Rules, 1975. The University has alleged as well that similar letters had been furnished to the outside experts in the night of 25.7.2007 i.e. day ahead of the first interview on 26.7.2007. While admitting that the Petitioner had in the meantime submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 27.3.2009 it has been disclosed that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 14.7.2009 had resolved to request the Academic Council not to create the post of Professor under CAS. That an FIR has also been lodged against the Petitioner as per the resolution dated 9.3.2009 of the Executive Council for distribution of letters to the three experts for the interview scheduled to be held on 4.3.2009 and also to disinter the actual facts about the letters addressed to the authorities has also been brought on record. 10. While the Petitioner in his separate affidavits to the counters filed by the Respondents has generally reiterated his stand in the writ petition, the Respondent No. 5 by his additional affidavit has clarified that he has no objection if he (Writ Petitioner) is promoted to the post of Professor earlier to him. The Petitioner in his said reply while imputing the Respondent University's intention to promote the Respondent No. 5 ahead of him, has pleaded that the show cause notice dated 27.3.2009 is one of its obstructive tactics founded on baseless charges to which however, he has replied on 2.4.2009. 11. In the above backdrop of the contentious pleadings, Mr. The Petitioner in his said reply while imputing the Respondent University's intention to promote the Respondent No. 5 ahead of him, has pleaded that the show cause notice dated 27.3.2009 is one of its obstructive tactics founded on baseless charges to which however, he has replied on 2.4.2009. 11. In the above backdrop of the contentious pleadings, Mr. Goswami has persuasively argued that having regard to the scheme and underlying objective of the CAS, it being a wholesome procedure for the same Selection Committee to asses the suitability or otherwise of more than one eligible candidate, the decision to the contrary as recorded by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 6.11.2008 is apparently flawed being in defiance of logic and rationale. Contending that the consequential direction of the Executive Council to hold a fresh Selection for the Respondent No. 5 without insisting for a fresh application from him is obviously impermissible under the Rules/Guidelines pertaining to the CAS, the learned Sr. Counsel has urged that it is an apparent move to favour him (Respondent No. 5) and to secure his promotion/appointment to the post of Professor ahead of the Petitioner. As the Respondent No. 5 had been rejected by a duly constituted Selection Committee once, there is no justification whatsoever to save the earlier process and organise another interview for him in absence of a fresh application as required under the Rules/Guidelines, he urged. With reference to the University's pleaded stand that the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 4.3.2009.had been approved by the Executive Council on 9.3.2009 and that the promotion is to be given effect to from the date of the application Mr. Goswami has insisted that it is a clear index of undue favour sought to be bestowed on the Respondent No. 5 at the cost of the Petitioner. Without prejudice to the above, he has maintained that in any view of the matter, in the face of Rule 10 of the Rules/Guidelines, the repeat process could not have been initiated before 5.11.2009, the recommendation of the Selection Committee rejecting the candidature of the Respondent No. 5 having been finally attended to by the Executive Council on 6.11.2008. Without prejudice to the above, he has maintained that in any view of the matter, in the face of Rule 10 of the Rules/Guidelines, the repeat process could not have been initiated before 5.11.2009, the recommendation of the Selection Committee rejecting the candidature of the Respondent No. 5 having been finally attended to by the Executive Council on 6.11.2008. As in any view of the matter, creation or existence of the post of Professor as such is not a condition precedent for the issuance of the order of promotion under the CAS, following the Petitioner’s recommendation, the delay as the sequence of events would proclaim has been devised to his detriment, the learned Sr. Counsel argued. There being no impediment in the process pertaining to the Petitioner following his recommendation, the undue lethargy in the above attending premise only demonstrates the University's strategy of promoting the Respondent No. 5 above the Petitioner by postponing his elevation, he urged. 12. According to Mr. Goswami, the want of bonafide on the part of the Respondent University is also clear from the fact that though on the date of disposal of WP (C) 289/2008, the results of the interview were known, the Executive Council having taken note thereof, the same was not disclosed to this Court. Moreover inspite of the time frame of two months being granted by this Court, the Respondent University tarried with the process on extraneous and impertinent considerations only to deprive the Petitioner of his timely entitlements under the CAS. While being severely critical on the developments based on the imputation of alleged circulation of letters to the experts of the Selection Committee to be, a ruse to seal the fate of the Petitioner, Mr. Goswami has insisted that it is a case where an appropriate direction or order ought to be issued to the Respondent University to promote him to the post of Professor, Department of Law, by creating one and to offer him due seniority over the Respondent No. 5 on the basis of his earlier recommendation therefore under the CAS. 13. Mr. Sharma in reply has argued that in the facts of the case, the decision of the Executive Council taken in its meeting held on 6.11.2008 is valid and that in the repeat process, the Respondent No. 5 was not required to file a fresh application. 13. Mr. Sharma in reply has argued that in the facts of the case, the decision of the Executive Council taken in its meeting held on 6.11.2008 is valid and that in the repeat process, the Respondent No. 5 was not required to file a fresh application. While admitting with reference to the related decision of the University that the effect of promotion under the CAS would be traceable to the date of the application of the candidate concerned, the learned Standing Counsel has clarified that such upgradation is only personal to him or her entitling him or her only to a higher pay scale. While affirming that all necessary steps pursuant to the order of this Court had been taken vis-a-vis the Petitioner, Mr. Sharma has however echoed the Respondent No. 5's plea of want of his locus standi. 14. Mr. Kakoti while generally endorsing the contentions of the University has reiterated that as the ascension to the post of Professor under CAS is not a promotion as contemplated in law, the decision of the Executive Council rejecting the assessment of two candidates by the same Selection Board is valid and informed with reason. As the advancement to the post of Professor in the instant case is not a promotion involving comparative assessment of merit and suitability of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5, he (Petitioner) lacks in locus standi as well to assail the repeat process and on that count alone, the petition is liable to be rejected, he urged. As the repeat interview in terms of Rule 10 is permissible on the expiry of one year from the date of the earlier interview, the challenge to the proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 4.3.2009 is otherwise untenable as well, he urged. While pleading that the processes pertaining to the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 are not in conflict in any view of the matter and that the University would take consequential steps in connection therewith, Mr. Kakoti has dismissed the challenge in the writ petition as wholly unsustainable. 15. The competing pleadings and the rival arguments have been duly taken note of. The tussle evidently is for promotion to the post of Professor in the Department of Law of the University under the Career Advancement Scheme. Kakoti has dismissed the challenge in the writ petition as wholly unsustainable. 15. The competing pleadings and the rival arguments have been duly taken note of. The tussle evidently is for promotion to the post of Professor in the Department of Law of the University under the Career Advancement Scheme. The Petitioner’s averment that the Respondent No. 5 as the Head of the Department as on date and being the seniormost Dean of Faculty, is a Member of the Executive Council and that his (Petitioner’s) promotion to the post of Professor under CAS before him would cut short his term in that capacity, has not been denied by the Respondents. Though, it has been sought to be represented in course of the arguments by the Respondent University that the promotion to the post of Professor under CAS is only personal yielding financial benefits alone, the insistence on its part to effect the same on and from the date of the application of the candidate concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be construed to be totally shorn of any bearing on the inter-se-seniority for consequential service benefits. Evidently, the Petitioner’s application for the post of Professor under CAS is later in point of time than that of the Respondent No. 5 and if the latter is promoted on the basis of the recommendation dated 4.3.09 and approved by the Executive Council of the University on 9.3.2009, then judged by the same measure, he would be treated to be senior to the Petitioner in the promotional post. Viewed in the perspective of the challenges made in the instant petition, whereby the resolution dated 6.11.08 of the Executive Council permitting a repeat process vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 5 without insisting for fresh application from him has been assailed, the plea of want of his locus standi does not commend for acceptance. The plea that the process of promotion of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Professor as undertaken, is wholly independent of that of the Petitioner without posing any prejudicial consequence to him whatsoever, in the facts of the case, is an over simplification of the debate involved. 16. Admittedly, the Regulations framed by the UGC amongst others lay down the minimum qualification for the post of Professor for CAS besides outlining the modalities for the selection therefor. 16. Admittedly, the Regulations framed by the UGC amongst others lay down the minimum qualification for the post of Professor for CAS besides outlining the modalities for the selection therefor. These also stipulate the composition of the Selection Committee as per Clause 3.3.0. The norms for promotion from Reader to Professor as per Clause 3.4.0 under the CAS as framed by the Commission enjoin minimum service experience of eight years of a candidate as a Reader to be eligible for such promotion. It is essential thereunder that the self appraisal report for the period including five years before the date of eligibility be submitted and that a minimum of five research publications out of which two could be books be submitted for evaluation/assessment before the interviews. The assessment of the research publications, including books ought to be done by three experts in the subject different from those to be called for the interview later on. The experts in their evaluation reports would have to indicate as to whether the research publications and the books are recommended or not. 17. The Rules provide that, interview for promotion under the CAS to be conducted by the University has to be held only for those candidates who have secured minimum of three positive recommendations from the experts on their research publication/books. The interview is to be conducted thereafter by inviting three experts of concerned subject ensuring that they are different from those who had assessed and evaluated the research publication/books. On repeat process of promotion/interview for the rejected candidates can be conducted only after a minimum period of one year from the date of promotion process/interview in which the candidate was rejected. The Rules clarify that promotion from Reader to Professor under CAS is a personal position and not against a sanctioned post and therefore the teaching work load of the Reader would be carried forward with him/her and would be undertaken by the promotee in the capacity of the CAS Professor. 18. As can be gleaned from the essentials of the Rules as synopsized hereinabove, the submission of self appraisal report of the candidate concerned would signify the date of his/her eligibility. In the instant case, while the Petitioner claims to have submitted his application on 26.9.2006 (said to have received by the University on 10.10.06), the Respondent No. 5 had done so on 18.9.2006. In the instant case, while the Petitioner claims to have submitted his application on 26.9.2006 (said to have received by the University on 10.10.06), the Respondent No. 5 had done so on 18.9.2006. The date of the application of the Respondent No. 5 is evidently earlier than that of the Petitioner. That both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 had been considered to be eligible for the interview which was held on 26.7.2007 is not a matter of dispute. There is no wrangle at the bar either that in the said interview, whereas the Petitioner was recommended for promotion as Professor, the candidature of the Respondent No. 5 was rejected. 19. Noticeably, as the results of the interview were not forthcoming within a reasonable time, the Petitioner had approached this Court with WP (C) No. 289/2008 for redress. The Respondent University initially sought to explain the delay citing the reason of some clarifications sought for from the UGC to ascertain the quorum of the Selection Committee. Eventually, this Court by taking note of the letter dated 22.2.08 of the UGC containing the said clarifications and recording the statement made on behalf of the Respondent University that it would proceed to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the Selection Committee and in case, the Petitioner was found recommended, would take necessary follow up action in terms of the guidelines within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of that order and accordingly, closed the writ proceedings on 27.11.2008. The pleadings reveal that even before the disposal of the writ proceeding, the sealed cover of the interview held on 26.7.07 had been opened at the instance of the Executive Council which on the very same date had resolved to approve the recommendation of the Selection Committee vis-a-vis the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor under CAS after obtaining necessary clarifications in connection with the writ proceeding and requested the Academic Registrar to place the same before the Academic Council for creation of the post. The Executive Council also resolved to accept the conclusion of the Selection Committee declining to recommend the Respondent No. 5 for such promotion. The Executive Council also resolved to accept the conclusion of the Selection Committee declining to recommend the Respondent No. 5 for such promotion. However, it observed that the procedure of two candidates being interviewed by the same Selection Committee was not sound and it authorized the Vice Chancellor of the University to examine the matter and hold fresh selection soon for the said Respondent without inviting fresh application from him. The Executive Council subsequent thereto being apprised of the decision dated 27.11.2008 of this Court in WP (C) No. 298/2008 and noticing the deadline of two months, in its meeting held on 12.1.2009 resolved to request the Academic Council to create a post of Professor in the Department of Law observing that in view of the judgment and order of this Court, it was essential for the University to decide on the recommendation of the Selection Committee qua, the Petitioner. By his letter dated 6.2.2009 the Registrar of the University while forwarding the copies of the resolutions dated 6.11.08 and 12.1.09 of the Executive Council intimated the Petitioner that necessary appointment letter on promotion would be issued after creation of the post by the Academic Council and approval of the Executive Council. 20. While the Petitioner thus waited in expectation of his promotion following the creation of the post of Professor in the Department of Law, the Respondent University conducted the repeat interview of the Respondent No. 5 on 4.3.2009. The Selection Committee this time recommended him for promotion which was approved by the Executive Council on 9.3.2009. Situated thus, and apprehending that his process would be by passed to facilitate the promotion of the Respondent No. 5 ahead of him, the Petitioner has laid the present challenge to the resolution dated 6.11.08 of the Executive Council permitting repeat interview of the Respondent No. 5, the Selection Committee's recommendation in his favour and the approval thereof by the Executive Council of the University. 21. A bare perusal of the Regulations concerning promotion to the post of Professor by way of career advancement as well as the Rules delineating the procedure therefore demonstratively evince an element of assessment of the candidate(s) concerned. 21. A bare perusal of the Regulations concerning promotion to the post of Professor by way of career advancement as well as the Rules delineating the procedure therefore demonstratively evince an element of assessment of the candidate(s) concerned. In other words, a candidate otherwise eligible and even if his/her required number of publications/books are recommended by the experts, he/she would not per se be promoted to the post of Professor under CAS unless, he/she is adjudged to be suitable by the Selection Committee. The minutes of the Selection Committee vis-a-vis the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 proclaim that the assessment reports of the experts on their research publications and books had also amongst others been taken note of by in course of its proceedings on 26.7.07 at the time of recording its final recommendations. Apart from the fact that there is no dissension on the validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee conducting the interview of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 as prescribed by the Regulations, no bar as such is discernible therein prohibiting the same Body to interview more than one candidate at a time. As the process of evaluation of the candidates assuredly involve an element of selection, a common Selection Committee would logically guarantee an uniform evaluation based on common norms of objectivity. Such a practice has stood the test of time approved and acknowledged to be a valid mode of appraisal of candidates in selection akin to the one in hand. Not only the Executive Council did not in its resolution dated 6.11.08 record any reason whatsoever to disapprove this procedure, it is unlikely that it was unaware thereof from the initiation of the process and therefore such delayed response of this kind is inexplicable as well. Noticeably, the Executive Council in its said resolution had resolved to accept the report of the Selection Committee declining to recommend the Respondent No. 5. To this extent the approach of the Executive Council in accepting the report of the Selection Committee as well as to impeach the procedure adopted by it is visibly contradictory. Even assuming that the promotion involved is personal in nature, to essentially secure additional financial benefits as represented by the University, it unerringly envisages a lift to a higher post and status in the departmental hierarchy symbolizing, recognition of merit and suitability of the candidates deserving of such distinction. Even assuming that the promotion involved is personal in nature, to essentially secure additional financial benefits as represented by the University, it unerringly envisages a lift to a higher post and status in the departmental hierarchy symbolizing, recognition of merit and suitability of the candidates deserving of such distinction. The endeavour to neuter the challenge to the resolution dated 6.11.2008 of the Executive Council on the plea of in situ promotion is thus unconvincing. 22. A plain reading of the findings of the Selection Committee as recorded in its meeting held on 26.7.07 vis-a-vis the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 would clearly testify that those were not by way of a comparative assessment of the suitability of the two candidates, but on independent basis and in absolute terms. As alluded hereinabove, in the process of determining the merit and suitability of the candidates, the Selection Committee amongst others had considered the assessment reports on the research publications and books. Its final recommendation thus irrefutably had been on a cumulative analysis of all facets of the suitability of the candidates. The Selection Committee as referred hereinabove, had been constituted in terms of the Regulation having a statutory force. The Executive Council as well has not commented contrary thereto while recording its omnibus view disapproving the assessment of two candidates by it in the same interview. The impugned resolution of the Executive Council dated 6.11.2008 of the Selection Committee disapproving the procedure of interviewing both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 by the same Selection Committee and permitting a repeat process for the latter without inviting fresh application from him thus cannot be said to be informed with logic and rationale. As the Selection Committee had declined to recommend the Respondent No. 5 on an in-depth scrutiny of his candidature as a whole, in the estimate of this Court, the process initiated vide his application dated 18.9.06 stood effaced. The Executive Council having accepted the resolution of the Selection Committee declining to recommend his case, it could not have permitted a repeat process for interview without requiring a fresh application to be made by him. The resolution of the Executive Council dated 6.11.08 to the above effect therefore is unsustainable in law and on facts and is thus interfered with. 23. The resolution of the Executive Council dated 6.11.08 to the above effect therefore is unsustainable in law and on facts and is thus interfered with. 23. In view of this determination, it is inessential to dilate on the competing interpretations on the period on the expiry of which a repeat promotion process/interview under Clause 10 of the Rules could be allowed. By the same analogy, the debate on the date on and from which the promotion to the post of Professor under CAS would fructify need not be attended to. As a consequence of the annulment of the resolution dated 6.11.08 of the Executive Council to the extent as indicated hereinabove, the proceeding of the Selection Committee held on 4.3.09 and the approval dated 9.3.2009 of the Executive Council thereto are thus rendered non est. 24. Apart from the fact that the University though on the date of the disposal of WP (C) No. 298/2008 i.e. 27.11.08 was aware of the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 but, no disclosure thereof was made before this Court, even thereafter, though the time frame of two months was to the knowledge of the University and more particularly, the Executive Council, except recommending the placement of the issue before the Academic Council for creation of a post of Professor in the Department of Law, nothing tangible was done. Instead, the Executive Council vide its resolution dated 9.3.09 by taking note amongst others of a letter dated 3.3.09 of one Mr. Tailendra Talukdar said to have been circulated amongst the experts scheduled to conduct the interview on 4.3.09, letters written by the Petitioner dated 3.3.09 and 4.3.09 addressed to the Registrar and the Chancellor of the University had decided to call for an explanation from him as to why disciplinary action should not be taken for violation of Teachers Conduct Rules, 1975. It was resolved as well to lodge an FIR to inquire into the cause of distribution of the aforementioned letters under the signature of Mr. Tailendra Talukdar. Pursuant thereto, a notice has also been issued to the Petitioner on 27.3.2009 to which he has already submitted his reply on 2.4.2009. An FIR has also been lodged on 14.3.2009 as resolved. 25. Tailendra Talukdar. Pursuant thereto, a notice has also been issued to the Petitioner on 27.3.2009 to which he has already submitted his reply on 2.4.2009. An FIR has also been lodged on 14.3.2009 as resolved. 25. The University in its affidavit has sought to justify the above action against the Petitioner on the sole ground that the contents of the letters of Mr. Tailendra Talukdar and of his are identically aligned. This Court noticing the above stand in the affidavit of the University, by order dated 18.8.09 had directed personal appearance of the Registrar of the University to explain the correct state of affairs. This Court was impelled to do it as the learned Counsel for the University could not satisfactorily indicate the basis of the action taken. Pursuant to the above order, Mr. Uttam Ch. Das, Registrar of the Gauhati University personally appeared on 25.8.09 and when queried, disclosed that though an FIR had been lodged on 14.3.09 specifically involving one Mr. Tailendra Talukdar with the address as mentioned therein, there has been no endeavour on the part of the University to ascertain from the investigating agency either his existence or whereabouts. The aforementioned officer of the University further admitted that the explanation from the Petitioner had been sought for on the basis of an inference of his involvement in the episode as the Executive Council had construed the queries made by the Petitioner and Mr. Talukdar visa-vis the Respondent No. 5 on the process pertaining to him for the post of Professor to be identical. He however, assured that the decision of the Executive Council against creation of the post of Professor in the Department of law under CAS is a temporary one. 26. No further material has been placed on record by the University to reinforce the impression with which the action against the Petitioner had been initiated. No information is forthcoming as to the further action if any taken by the University against the Petitioner on receipt of his reply to the show cause notice dated 27.3.09. The above notwithstanding, the University in its affidavit has disclosed that for all above, the Academic Council has deferred the creation of the post of Professor in the Department of Law. 27. The above notwithstanding, the University in its affidavit has disclosed that for all above, the Academic Council has deferred the creation of the post of Professor in the Department of Law. 27. Though noticing the progression of events as recited hereinabove, to say the least, these developments are seemingly disadvantageously poised against the Petitioner this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review considers it expedient in praesenti not to intervene and adjudge the correctness or otherwise of the resolution dated 9.3.2009 of the Executive Council. Be that as it may, in the face of the judgment and order of this Court rendered on 27.11.08 in WP (C) No. 298/08, it is incumbent on the part of the Respondent University to complete the process of promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Professor under CAS unless there is any insuperable impediment in law authorizing it to defer or postpone the same. The University being a statutory authority is under a legal and solemn obligation to act with fairness, objectivity and transparency so much so, that its further decisions on this issue do not undermine its credibility and esteem as a premier institution of the country. I leave it at that. 28. In view of the determination as above, the petition is allowed. The impugned resolution dated 6.11.2008 of the Executive Council to the extent as indicated hereinabove is set aside. All consequential steps pursuant thereto concerning the Respondent No. 5 axiomatically stand annulled. The Respondent University would now act in accordance with law and with necessary expedition to process the Petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Professor in the Department of Law under CAS bearing also in mind the decision dated 27.11.08 passed in WP (C) No. 298/08. As the resolution dated 9.3.09 of the Executive Council bears on the administrative domain of the University, this Court for now has refrained from offering any comment thereon. However, as indicated hereinabove, the Respondent University is expected to be fair, judicious, reasonable and just in proceeding in this regard as well. No costs. Petition allowed