JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner, a lecturer in Bodo language in Tangla College, Tangla, ('College') located within the territorial limits of the present Bodoland Territorial Council ('the Council') seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to annul the proposal of the Director of Education, B.T.C., to appoint the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 against two sanctioned posts of Lecturer in the aforementioned subject in the institution. As this Court while issuing notice on 3.9.2009 had restrained the Secretary, Education Department, BTC, Kokrajhar, Respondent No. 2, from proceeding further with the impugned proposal, the process remains stalled at that stage. 2. I have heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Council and Mr. B.B. Narzary, learned senior counsel for the Respondents 6 and 7. 3. The pleaded versions of the parties in short would have to be recorded to properly apprehend the rival pleas. According to the Petitioner, he, who is a Post Graduate in Arts in Bodo language along with the Respondents 6 and 7 participated in a selection process initiated by an advertisement dated 11.11.2006 for filling up two vacancies against non-sanctioned posts of Lecturers in the said subject in the College. Following the interview that was held on 27.1.2008 and the resolution dated 26.6.2008 of the Governing Body of the College, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 were appointed on a temporary basis against non-sanctioned posts of Lecturer in Bodo thereat at a consolidated pay of Rs. 1,200 per month. Their appointment orders in clear terms disclosed that as and when posts would be sanctioned for the aforementioned subject, those would be filled up as per the guidelines of the University. Grants Commission/Government. The appointees aforementioned continued to render their services and while the matter rested at that by communication No. AHE. 100/2007/42 dated 26.2.2009 from the Education (H) Department, Government of Assam, sanction of 16 post of Lecturer in Bodo Language and Literature for 8 Colleges under the BTC area including that of the Petitioner was conveyed. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Education, BTC, by his letter dated 13.3.2009 requested the Principal of the College to forward the names and particulars of the serving incumbents in Bodo Language for the purpose of their regularization/adjustment against two sanctioned posts allocated for the institution. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Education, BTC, by his letter dated 13.3.2009 requested the Principal of the College to forward the names and particulars of the serving incumbents in Bodo Language for the purpose of their regularization/adjustment against two sanctioned posts allocated for the institution. The letter amongst others required that the necessary testimonials of the candidates including, if any, for NET/SLET/M. Phil, etc., be also forwarded. The Principal of the College in response forwarded the relevant Government Body resolutions pertaining to the appointment of the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 along with other available documents as sought for. The particulars so furnished inter alia revealed that the Petitioner only was possessed of NET. Besides he and Respondents 6 and 7 were Post Graduate in Arts. As the impugned letter dated 19.5.2009 of the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, followed approving the appointment of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court for redress. 4. The Respondents 1, 2 and 3 representing the Council have in essence pleaded that the advertisement initiating the process in the year 2006 was meant only for two non-sanctioned posts for the Department of Bodo. After the completion of the exercise at the time of making appointments as it was felt that more teaching hands were required, the Governing Body of the College on 22.6.2008 resolved to appoint all the four participating candidates. As one of them was not inclined to join, the Petitioner, Respondents 6 and 7 were appointed on the terms and conditions as mentioned in their appointment orders. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner was not possessed of NET on the date of the interview and cleared the said examination only thereafter. Referring to Clause 3 of the UGC Guidelines dated 9.12.2004, they have sought to highlight the permissibility of exemption from NET in the eventualities as cited out therein. According to the answering Respondents, the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had fared better in the selection process and that, therefore, as NET at time of interview was not a sine qua non for eligibility of a candidate, on an over all consideration of all relevant factors, the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were recommended for appointment. 5. The Private Respondents in their individual affidavits have substantially reiterated the stand of the BTC. 6 and 7 were recommended for appointment. 5. The Private Respondents in their individual affidavits have substantially reiterated the stand of the BTC. In his separate affidavits in reply the Petitioner has asserted that though on the date of interview, he had not passed the NET Examination, he intact had appeared in the examination not in Bodo Language but in a related subject as contemplated in the relevant guidelines of the UGC (Annexure I to the affidavit in reply of the Petitioner to the affidavit in opposition of Respondents 6 and 7). He has also brought on record by his additional pleadings, the Notification No. AHE. 334/2009/11 dated 7.10.2009 reiterating the current norms of the UGC prescribing NET/SLET to be indispensible conditions of eligibility for recruitment and appointment of Lecturer in University/College/Institutions. 6. The Learned Counsel for the parties have reiterated the above in endorsement of the pleaded facts. 7. The rival pleadings and arguments advanced project the following issues- 1. Whether NET/SLET is an indispensable condition of eligibility as per the UGC norms in vogue on the date of the initiation and completion of the selection process on the culmination of which the Petitioner and Respondents 6 and 7 had been appointed as Lecturers in Bodo language in the College against non-sanctioned posts? 2. If yes, whether the candidates aforementioned are eligible to be appointed against the two sanctioned posts of Lecturer in Bodo Language in the College? 3. If no, whether on the basis of the relative performance of the candidates in the selection process as assessed by the selection committee, the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 deserve to be recommended for appointment to these sanctioned posts in preference to the Petitioner? 8. Noticeably this proceeding was instituted by the Petitioner at a stage when the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, had forwarded his proposal for appointment of Respondents 6 and 7 against the two sanctioned posts on the basis of the recommendations of the College. The justification in support of the impugned proposal has been referred to in the affidavit of the Council. Whereas the Notification No. F1-1/ 2003(PS) Meeting dated 9.12.2004 of the UGC contemplates exemption from the requirement of NET in the circumstances as referred to therein, it contains a reservation against appointment of candidates not qualified before the proposal for exemption/relaxation of the prescribed norms is either dispatched or scrutinised. Whereas the Notification No. F1-1/ 2003(PS) Meeting dated 9.12.2004 of the UGC contemplates exemption from the requirement of NET in the circumstances as referred to therein, it contains a reservation against appointment of candidates not qualified before the proposal for exemption/relaxation of the prescribed norms is either dispatched or scrutinised. The UGC norms referred to by the Petitioner in his affidavit in reply to the counter filed by the Respondents 6 and 7 though seem to permit a candidate to appear in the NET in a subject which is relatable to one which is not covered by the list of subjects as mentioned therein, these do not in unambiguous terms declare that a candidate passing the said examination would be construed to be one possessed of NET in the parent subject. This assumes significance as admittedly the Petitioner after the date of the interview had acquired NET in Folk Language and not in Bodo Language. 9. Be that as it may, the notification dated 7.10.2009 carrying the latest UGC norms of eligibility for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in University/College/Institution refer to University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to read) (Second amendment) Regulation 2006. The relevant excerpt is extracted hereinabove: NET/SLET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment to Lecturers even for those with post graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph. D. Degree in the concerned subjects are exempted from NET for P.G. Level and U.G. Level teaching the candidates having M. Phil Degree in the concerned subjects are exempted from NET for U.G. Level teaching only. 10. It is submitted at the Bar that neither the Petitioner nor the Respondents 6 and 7 is either possessed of M. Phil. or Ph. D Degree in terms of Regulation 2006 as above. As the incumbents of the posts involved would be engaged in the teaching at the U.G. Level, NET appears to be an essential condition of eligibility unless the candidates had acquired meanwhile M. Phil Degree. The Regulation 2006 is of considerable significance in view of the fact that the selection process on the basis of which the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 now contend for being appointed against the two sanctioned posts had been initiated in the month of November 2006. 11. The Regulation 2006 is of considerable significance in view of the fact that the selection process on the basis of which the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 now contend for being appointed against the two sanctioned posts had been initiated in the month of November 2006. 11. As the matter as observed hereinabove, lay before the Respondent No. 2 at the time of the institution of the present proceeding and that due to the interim restraint no final order could be passed on the issue at that level, this Court considers it appropriate at this stage to remit the issue raised hereinabove to be addressed to and decided by the said authority on a threadbare scrutiny of the facts, the relevant eligibility norms prescribed by the UGC and applicable to the process as well as the records of the selection. This course is adopted to ensure a threadbare scrutiny/examination of all relevant documents along with the records bearing on the issue which in the opinion of this Court would be more effectively done by the authority concerned. To facilitate the exercise as ordered, the Secretary Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, is left at liberty to requisition additional records and summon as well the contesting parties, if he is of the opinion that they ought to be heard for necessary clarifications. It is made clear that this Court has not offered its comments on the merit of the rival claims and the observations made hereinabove are only as a prelude to the eventual direction so made herein. The administrative authority as above would exercise his discretion and judgment on the basis of the materials on record, however, strictly in accordance with law. 12. In view of the above direction, this Court for the present abstains from adjudicating upon the relative performance of the candidates in the selection process. This is more so as a decision on the essentiality or otherwise of NET/SLET for recruitment/appointment to the post of Lecturer as involved may be decisive of the controversy/However, if need be the comparative performance of the candidates should also be analysed so as to ensure that the lingering controversy is set at rest once for all. This is more so as a decision on the essentiality or otherwise of NET/SLET for recruitment/appointment to the post of Lecturer as involved may be decisive of the controversy/However, if need be the comparative performance of the candidates should also be analysed so as to ensure that the lingering controversy is set at rest once for all. As the matter relates to an academic institution and the protraction of the issue is not to its welfare as well as of its students in general, the process as directed should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.