JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. From Office Note dated 11.3.2013 it appears that steps upon respondent nos. 4 and 5 have been duly served, although they are not represented by any counsel. 2. In so far as the academic qualification of the petitioner is concerned, he is a Post Graduate in Chemistry having specialisation in Inorganic Chemistry. Added to it, he is also a Ph.D degree holder awarded by the Gauhati University. 3. On 29.2.2012 the Principal of D.R. College, Golaghat was instructed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam to make Advertisement in respect of the vacant post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry having UGC norms with NET/SLET/SET qualification and/or having M.Phil Degree obtained on or before 10.7.2009. By the said letter dated 29.2.2012, it was also indicated that those having Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D.Degree) Regulation, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility conditions of NET/SLET/SET. Pursuant thereto, an Advertisement was issued by respondent no.4 on 14.3.2012, against which the petitioner responded along with five others. The interview was held by the Selection Committee so constituted on 25.4.2012 and the petitioner was ranked first in the said selection on the basis of the selection made by the Committee. 4. The Governing Body of the College adopted Resolution No. 1(A) approving the selection of the petitioner as an Assistant Professor in Chemistry. It was also resolved that the matter be forwarded to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 i.e. the Principal of the College by letter dated 17.5.2012 forwarded the proposal of the Governing Body with request for according prior approval for appointment of the petitioner. Prior to considering grant of approval, certain clarifications were also asked from the Principal and the respondent no.4 clarified to the extent that the interview held for selection of the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry had proceeded in accordance with law, the existing circulars/UGC guidelines. By the said letter it was also clarified that the person selected was on account of academic and interview marks so secured without granting any extra weightage. 5. By the said letter it was also clarified that the person selected was on account of academic and interview marks so secured without granting any extra weightage. 5. At a time when the petitioner was expecting appointment, the Officer on Special Duty, Higher Education Department issued a letter dated 27.9.2012 informing the Director of Higher Education, Assam that the Government in the Higher Education Department has conveyed its approval for filling up two vacant sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors of provincialised College, which also included the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry at D.R. College, Golaghat. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved of the letter dated 28.12.2012 issued from the office of the Director of Higher Education, Assam whereby the Principal of the College was directed to take necessary steps for re-advertisement of the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry and to select candidates as per Office Memorandum dated 25.6.2012. The said letter dated 28.12.2012 is put to challenge in the present proceedings on grounds that selection having already been completed in strict accordance with the guidelines, as such, the direction for re-advertisement is bad in law and contrary to the concept that stipulates that rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has stood completed. 7. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to which reference is made by Mr. M. Mahanta, Advocate, it is indicated that the appointment of the petitioner could not be considered as his academic percentage is not satisfactory. The requirement for filling up the posts upon re-advertisement was for the purpose of giving preference to "academically better candidate". To this end, Mr. Mahanta refers to the letter dated 18.7.2012 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam directing the Principal of the College to take necessary action for selection by giving preference to "academically better candidate". Reference is also made to the letter dated 1.12.2012 issued by the Officer on Special Duty, Higher Education Department where a request has been made to the Director of Higher Education Assam to reject the proposal forwarded by the College in respect of appointment of the petitioner. Request was also made to direct the Governing Body of the College to initiate steps for fresh interview under the latest guidelines. 8. Request was also made to direct the Governing Body of the College to initiate steps for fresh interview under the latest guidelines. 8. Having noticed the facts above, this Court finds that the Office Memorandum dated 25.6.2012, reference of which has been made by the respondent authority, do not indicate that preference is to be given to "academically better candidate". In fact, even under the said O.M. which is enclosed as Annexure-R/1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.2, it appears that the petitioner complied with all the necessary requirements as set down therein. 9. Attention is also drawn to the provisions under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010. Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules relates to method of recruitment and sub-rule (7) of Rule 5 postulates that the Governing Body will conduct the selection process and recommend to the Director, who shall issue orders of appointment. In reference to Rule 5(7), Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in the case of Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 573 . The said case is relied upon for the proposition that Rule 5(7) of the aforesaid Rules do not confer an absolute power upon the Director to disapprove or cancel the select list submitted by the Governing Body of the College. It is only under such situation where the respondent is satisfied, after due enquiry, that the selection has been vitiated either on account of violation of fundamental procedural requirement or is vitiated by consideration of favourism, nepotism etc., it can refuse to accept the select list. In such cases, the respondent is bound to record the reasons for expressing displeasure or cancellation of the select list. 10. In the present case an Advertisement had been issued which was responded to and had participation of not less than 6 candidates including the petitioner. The selection was made by a duly constituted Selection Committee having distinguished personalities and academicians, followed by a resolution of the Governing Body of the College and thereafter sent for approval to the Director of Higher Education, Assam. On the very face of it the selection process was in accordance with law and all that was needed for the selection to reach its logical conclusion was an approval of the Director of Higher Education. On the very face of it the selection process was in accordance with law and all that was needed for the selection to reach its logical conclusion was an approval of the Director of Higher Education. Taking a cue from the provisions of Rule 5(7) of the aforesaid Rules, 2010, reinforced by the Apex Court judgment in Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and another (supra), the Director of Higher Education is obliged to issue order of appointment unless there are cogent reasons made after due enquiry that disapproval or cancellation is necessitated. 11. The stand of the respondent authority directing re-advertisement and for taking steps to reject the proposal of the Governing Body on grounds that selection be made by giving preference to "academically better candidate" and in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 25.6.2012, are not cogent and sufficient grounds to refrain from granting approval of the Resolution of the Governing Body sent to the Director of Higher Education, Assam on 17.5.2012. It is also no more res integra that rules of the game cannot be changed after the process stands completed unless there are reasons to show that the process have stood vitiated on account of illegality and arbitrariness. In the instant case and as observed earlier, the process initiated for selection pursuant to the Advertisement dated 14.3.2012 stood completed and there are no material to show that the said process was vitiated by malafide or was bad on account of extraneous considerations. 12. The selection for appointment of Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry at D.R. College, Golaghat has to reach its logical conclusion pursuant to selection made and the recommendation of the Governing Body as well as the proposal sent to the Director of Higher Education, Assam by the Principal of the College on 17.5.2012. As a necessary corollary, the steps initiated for re-advertisement of the post of Assistant Professor, in the Department of Chemistry by order dated 28.12.2012, issued from the office of the Director of Higher Education, Assam is wholly unwarranted and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Accordingly, the said order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-N) is liable to be interfered with, which is accordingly done. Accordingly, the said order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure-N) is liable to be interfered with, which is accordingly done. Upon interference so made, a direction is made to the respondent authority i.e. the Director of Higher Education, Assam to discharge his role and to issue appropriate order in terms of the Resolution No. 1A of the Governing Body of the College adopted on 26.4.2012 and also in terms of the proposal submitted to it by the Principal of the College on 17.5.2012. 13. The Respondent No.2 i.e. Director of Higher Education, Assam shall take the required decision within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 14. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this order before the Respondent No.2 for his doing the needful. 15. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed, however, without any order as to costs.