1. The writ petitioner's challenge is to annul the resolutions of the Governing Body of the B.H. College, Howly (College) in substance declining his request for extension of his lien pending his absorption in the department of English, Assam University, Diphu Campus. The advertisement dated 25.6.2009 issued for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in English in the College and the consequent selection process is also under assailment. 2. This court on 28.10.2009 while issuing notice in the interim restrained the College authorities from making any appointment to the post of Lecturer in English as advertised without its leave. The Governing Body of the College as well as its Principal have filed an application for vacation/modification, alteration of the interim order. This application registered as Misc. Case 280/2010 and the writ petition, in view of the urgency expressed by the College have been taken up for analogous hearing in presence of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. I have heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, and Mr. N. Dutta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B. Talukdar, Advocate for the College. 4. The pleaded versions of the parties in short would appropriately lay the background of the lis. The petitioner who at the relevant time had been a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Department of English in the College having been offered an appointment as Lecturer in English in the Diphu Campus of the Assam University on 5.10.2004 applied for lien for a period of two years to enable him to join the new assignment. Pursuant to the said request, he was released from the College w.e.f. 8.10.2007 with the intimation that his prayer for lien would be placed in the next meeting of the Governing Body. Vide resolution No. 7(a) dated 12.11.2007, the Governing Body sanctioned lien to him for a period of one year. This resolution was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, by his order dated 6.8.2008. 5. According to the petitioner, after his release from the College, he joined the Assam University, Diphu Campus, on 9.10.2007. Vide resolution No. 7(a) dated 12.11.2007, the Governing Body sanctioned lien to him for a period of one year. This resolution was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, by his order dated 6.8.2008. 5. According to the petitioner, after his release from the College, he joined the Assam University, Diphu Campus, on 9.10.2007. He thereafter on 8.9.2008 submitted another application before the Principal of the College praying for extension of his lien till 8.10.2009 inter alia on the ground that his application to the Assam University for protection of his pay had still not been favourably considered and that as meanwhile he had applied for promotion in the career advancement scheme, the same too was under consideration. In response, the Governing Body in its meeting held on 13.9.2008 after a threadbare discussion unanimously resolved to reject the petitioner's prayer for extension of his lien for another year w.e.f. 8.10.2008 but decided that as a special case, it be so done till 31.12.2008. By the said resolution, however, the petitioner was required to rejoin his service positively on 1.1.2009 failing which it was decided to release him from the College. A copy of the resolution was also decided to be forwarded to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, for necessary action, which was accordingly done on 4.12.2008. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner on 11.12.2008 submitted a representation before the aforenamed State authority reiterating his request for extension of lien for another year w.e.f. 8.10.2008. According to the petitioner, extension of lien was necessary as he was on probation with the Assam University. The petitioner has averred that though in response to his representation dated 11.12.2008, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, sought a clarification thereon from the Principal of. the College, the Governing Body thereof pending the finalisation of the said process vide its resolution dated 10.1.2009 while authorising the Principal to respond to the query of the said authority unanimously resolved to release the petitioner from the service of the College w.e.f. 1.1.2009 as he had failed to join the substantive post after the expiry of the lien period on 31.12.2008. This resolution was accordingly communicated to the petitioner by the Principal of the College by his letter dated 12.1.2009. 7. This resolution was accordingly communicated to the petitioner by the Principal of the College by his letter dated 12.1.2009. 7. The petitioner has asserted that though the Director of Higher Education, Assam, by his letter dated 3.4.2009 requested the Governing Body to consider the petitioner's prayer for extension of lien for another period of one year in terms of the Government Office Memorandum No. FEG.65/69/108 dated 31.12.1987, the impugned advertisement dated 25.6.2009 has been published advertising amongst others one post of Lecturer in English as referred to therein. The petitioner has assailed the impugned actions to be illegal, unfair and unjust. 8. The College in its application through the respondents 5 and 6 as alluded hereinabove, while admitting the petitioner's initial release on lien for a period of one year in response to his request therefor has in categorical terms denied that at no point of time any indication or assurance had been conveyed to him to entertain his request for lien for two years as made. According to the College authorities (also hereafter referred to as the applicants), out of the seven posts of Lecturers in the English Department, six were sanctioned and one non-sanctioned. Though the non-sanctioned post fell vacant in the year 2007, in spite of repeated attempts by the College, the same could not be filled up on contract basis. The felt shortage of the teaching staff in the department escalated with the release of the petitioner on lien so much so that a slew of representations from the Head of Department as well as the students followed impressing upon the adverse consequences due to the depleted staff strength affecting the classes in general. According to the College, the petitioner's application for extension of lien by one more year w.e.f. 8.10.2008 was considered in the above perspective and rejected, 'however, granting him time till 31.12.2008 as a special case. He was, therefore, as a corollary asked to join on 1.1.2009 failing which he was to be released. A copy of the resolution was also forwarded to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, and the petitioner. As the petitioner did not comply with the resolution, his services were terminated vide the resolution of the Governing Body dated 10.1.2009. 9. He was, therefore, as a corollary asked to join on 1.1.2009 failing which he was to be released. A copy of the resolution was also forwarded to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, and the petitioner. As the petitioner did not comply with the resolution, his services were terminated vide the resolution of the Governing Body dated 10.1.2009. 9. The applicants have stated that in response to the letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the College had furnished the clarification sought for and had in clear terms intimated the said authority that the refusal to grant extension to the petitioner for another one year w.e.f. 8.10.2008 was in the interest of the students and the College. They have stated that the impugned advertisement had been issued on receiving due approval to that effect from the Director of Higher Education, Assam, as carried by his letter dated 12.6.2009. 10. In his affidavit, the petitioner in substance while reiterating his stand in the writ petition has also questioned the termination of his services on the ground of want of prior approval thereto by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, as required under the relevant Rules. 11. Mr. Sharma has insistently urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the refusal of the Governing Body of the petitioner's request for extension of his lien for a period of one year w.e.f. 8.10.2008 is per se arbitrary, illegal and unfair. According to him, as the petitioner had been released on lien to enable him to join the Assam University, the Governing Body ought to have acceded to his request for such extension more so in view of the office memorandum dated 31.12.1987 on the issue. The learned counsel has urged that as the petitioner on being granted lien had joined the Assam University and his absorption thereat is in the offing, his release from the services of the College at this stage would bring disastrous consequence and, therefore, in all fairness, his request for extension of lien ought to have been accorded it being within the discretion of its authorities. Contending that the services of the petitioner in absence of any prior approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, of the resolution dated 10.1.2009 of the Governing Body of the College as required under the Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, 2001 (Rules) being not terminated, is continuing in service, the impugned advertisement involving his post is ipso facto void, he urged. 12. Mr. Goswami has submitted that though the advertisement had been issued with the approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the instruction that the impugned resolution had meanwhile met the approval of the said authority is not forthcoming. 13. Mr. Dutta per contra has maintained that as the petitioner does not have any vested right in law to claim lien or the extension thereof, the decision of the College in declining to accede to his request is not vitiated by any error in law. More over as the decision has been taken bona fide and in the over all interest of the institution and its students, the same ought not to be faulted with. Pointing out that the initiation of the present proceeding is unduly delayed without any explanation since after January 2009 which per se is an index of lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner, Mr. Dutta has contended, referring to the documents on record that his present endeavour to prolong the selection process indefinitely ought not to be permitted, having regard to the pressing exigency of the Department presently plagued with sagging staff strength. As the impugned advertisement had been issued with the due approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the challenge thereto is also untenable, he urged. In support of his submissions Mr. Dutta has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Anil Bajaj v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2414 . 14. The materials on record and the competing arguments have been duly noticed. Admittedly in response to the petitioner's request for lien for two years so as to enable him to join as Lecturer at the Campus of the Assam University, he was, vide the Governing Body resolution dated 12.11.2007, sanctioned the same for one year. This resolution was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. Admittedly in response to the petitioner's request for lien for two years so as to enable him to join as Lecturer at the Campus of the Assam University, he was, vide the Governing Body resolution dated 12.11.2007, sanctioned the same for one year. This resolution was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. There is nothing on record to deduce that the initial grant of lien for one year was to be extended automatically for another year conforming to his request. The office memorandum dated 31.12.1987 (Annexure P-11 to the writ petition) which deals with the various aspects of lien of Government Servants on permanent post, does not make it incumbent on any authority to grant the same on mere asking. Instead the contents of the office memorandum clearly leave the decision to such an authority which if satisfied may grant lien to a Government servant for a period of two years. In exceptional cases, one more year may also be granted. This privilege, however, is not a matter of course and visibly is dependent on the attendant facts and circumstances and the satisfaction of the concerned administrative authority. 15. Thus, the petitioner as such in law cannot either assert a right to claim extension of the period of his lien for one more year w.e.f. 8.10.2008. Consequentially, therefore, the Governing Body of the College was within its authority to scrutinise the pros and cons of the matter and limit the extension of lien up to 31.12.2008. Its plea that the petitioner's request for grant of extension of the period of lien for another year was inadvisable and inexpedient in the face of the mounting demands of the students and the department for enhanced staff strength and non-availability of part time Lecturers on contract basis cannot be repudiated per se as irrelevant or insignificant. The authorities of the College being the best judge of the prevailing situation, their decision to extend the period of lien of the petitioner up to 31,12.2008, thus, cannot, in the context of the available materials on record, be denounced as unfair, unreasonable or lacking in bona fide. The authorities of the College being the best judge of the prevailing situation, their decision to extend the period of lien of the petitioner up to 31,12.2008, thus, cannot, in the context of the available materials on record, be denounced as unfair, unreasonable or lacking in bona fide. The office memorandum dated 31.12.2007, to reiterate, embodies enabling and not peremptory guidelines and, thus, the impugned resolution dated 13.9.2008 of the Governing Body of the College rejecting the petitioner's prayer for extension of lien for a period of one year w.e.f. 8.10.2008 cannot be adjudged to be either unjustified or unsustainable in law. 16. The documents available reveal the same stand of the Governing Body vis-a-vis the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2008 submitted before the Director of Higher Education, Assam, seeking his intervention as would be evident from the impugned resolution dated 10.1.2009 releasing him from the services of the College for having failed to join in terms of the resolution dated 13.9.2008. Noticeably though a copy of the resolution was forwarded to the petitioner on 12.1.2009, he chose to linger with the process and instituted the instant writ petition only on 22.10.2009, almost after four months of the publication of the impugned advertisement. His vacillating stand with regard to his actual status with the Assam University as is evident from the averments in the writ petition, the documents annexed thereto as well as his affidavit in the aforementioned miscellaneous case are somewhat inconsistent and irreconcilable. While in the writ petition, he admits to be a probationer, in his representation dated 8.9.2008, he claimed to have applied for promotion in the career advancement scheme of the said University. The circular of the said University (Annexure P-20 to the writ petition), however, in unambiguous terms requires three years of continuous service of a regular teacher in its rolls so as to be eligible for promotion or placement under its career advancement scheme. The petitioner's stand in the aforementioned representation in the face of the circular, therefore, has the potential of conveying that he had already been absorbed in service of the Assam University. This again is confuted by him in the affidavit in the miscellaneous case. While asserting that he is not interested in the service of the College, he has conceded that he is still to be absorbed in the Assam University. This again is confuted by him in the affidavit in the miscellaneous case. While asserting that he is not interested in the service of the College, he has conceded that he is still to be absorbed in the Assam University. In this factual premise, in absence of any right in him in law to insist for extension of lien for further one year w.e.f. 8.10.2008, in the estimate of this court his demand therefor not only is unenforceable in law but also incompatible with the pressing administrative imperatives of the College and the academic interest of the students of the Department. 17. That the advertisement had been issued with the approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, is apparent from the official communication dated 12.6.2009 (Annexure K to the writ petition). As the instant writ proceeding had not been instituted by then, no impediment on the publication of the advertisement as such is discernible. The impugned resolution dated 13.9.2008 and the advertisement dated 25.6.2009 in the considered opinion of this court, therefore, need no interference. In this context the letter dated 16.1.2009 from the Registrar, Assam University, Silchar, to the Principal/Secretary of the College informing the latter that the petitioner had completed his probation period and that he would be absorbed in due course of time is also noticeable as it does not lay down any time limit therefor leaving the process to uncertainty. 18. The Apex Court in Dr. Anil Bajaj (supra), had on the application of the principle of estoppel disapproved the challenge of the appellant to the condition subject to which he was granted lien to go abroad. Dehors any right of the petitioner to insist on the extension of the period of lien beyond 31.12.2008 as granted by the Governing Body of the College, on the same analogy, his assailment of the resolution dated 13.9.2008 of the Governing Body of the College cannot be entertained. 19. The above notwithstanding in terms of rule 18 of the Rules, as no final decision with regard to the appointment, suspension, termination, removal or dismissal of teaching or non-teaching staff including that of the Principal by the Governing Body of the College can be taken without the prior approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the impugned resolution dated 10.1.2009, if not yet been approved by the said authority, cannot, thus, be given effect to. While the petitioner asserts absence of any such approval, the respondents do not in categorical terms refute this plea. The materials on record as well do not evidence the prior approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to this impugned resolution dated 10.1.2009. 20. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the mandate of the Rules, the impugned resolution dated 10.1.2009 so far as it seeks to terminate the services of the petitioner is as on date unenforceable in law. On a totality of the considerations, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned resolution dated 13.9.2008 and the advertisement dated 28.6.2009 are sustained. The matter is referred to the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to take an appropriate decision on a consideration of all relevant factors vis-a-vis the resolution dated 10.1.2009. As the selection process on the basis of the impugned advertisement awaits finalisation, the exercise as ordered by this court should be completed by the aforementioned departmental authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, while deciding as to whether approval to the said resolution would be granted or not would not be bound by the observations made hereinabove. The miscellaneous case as well is disposed of accordingly. No costs.