JUDGMENT : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. This order will dispose of both WP(C) Nos. 6474/2014 and 1206/2016. 2. While Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6474/2014 is present, Mr. K.Y. Mazumdar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1206/2016. Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in both the cases whereas Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, University Grants Commission (UGC) appears for respondent No. 3 in both the cases; Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Sipajhar College i.e., respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 in both the cases and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 7 in both the cases. 3. Mr. K.I. Majumdar appears for respondent No. 8 in WP(C) No. 6474/2014 whereas Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 8 in WP(C) No. 1206/2016. 4. Matter relates to selection and appointment of Assistant Professor in the Department of Education, Sipajhar College in the district of Darrang. An advertisement was issued on 13.01.2014 by the Principal of Sipajhar College to fill up one post of Assistant Professor in Education, the post being reserved for OBC/MOBC category. According to the petitioner, she being qualified in all aspects had responded to the said advertisement. Interview was initially scheduled on 24.05.2014 but it appears that the interview was cancelled where-after fresh interview was held on 28.11.2014. It further appears that altogether nine candidates had appeared in the interview which included the petitioner, respondent No. 7 and respondent No. 8. According to the petitioner, she came to learn that select list was finalised on 05.12.2014 but without publishing the select list it was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 for approval. She could further come to know that respondent No. 7 was selected and recommended for appointment and if such recommendation is approved and consequently if respondent No. 7 is appointed, petitioner would be highly prejudiced. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The first case is pending since the year 2014 and quite belatedly the second writ petition has been filed. 6. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 6474/2014 contends that respondent No. 7 was erroneously granted 5 marks for M.Phil. and 3 marks for teaching experience. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The first case is pending since the year 2014 and quite belatedly the second writ petition has been filed. 6. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 6474/2014 contends that respondent No. 7 was erroneously granted 5 marks for M.Phil. and 3 marks for teaching experience. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 7 obtained M.Phil degree from Vinayak Mission University, Tamil Nadu through the distance education mode which is not recognised and therefore she is not entitled to the marks allotted to her under the said heading. Clarifying this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the M.Phil degree has been obtained by respondent No. 7 from the above university which is a deemed university through the distance education mode which is not recognised by the UGC. On award of 3 marks under the heading of teaching experience, he submits that at the most respondent No. 7 was entitled to 1 mark. If these 7 marks (5+2 (3-1)=7) are deducted from the total marks secured by respondent No. 7 position of petitioner would be at serial No. 1 and she would have a fair chance of getting appointment. The statement of marks of the candidates in the interview held on 28.11.2014 has been placed on record in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 7. From the said statement, it is seen that respondent No. 7 has secured a total of 65.46 marks whereas petitioner has secured 64.39 marks. Respondent No. 8 who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1206/2016 has secured 61.03 marks. 7. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 8. The post of Lecturer in colleges has been re-designated as Assistant Professor following notification issued by the UGC. Recruitment of Assistant Professor in colleges is governed by a set of statutory rules called Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 which has been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12(1) of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005. Rule 5 lays down the method of recruitment. As per Rule 5(2), for the post of Lecturer, re-designated as Assistant Professor, appointment shall be made by direct recruitment with prescribed qualifications through open advertisement in two leading dailies at least in two consecutive issues. As per Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 5 the Governing Body shall conduct the selection process and make recommendation to the Director who shall issue order of appointment. As per Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 5 the Governing Body shall conduct the selection process and make recommendation to the Director who shall issue order of appointment. Rule 7 lays down the detailed procedure while making such direct recruitment. From a perusal of Rule 7, it is seen that the recommendation of the Governing Body would be based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee duly constituted for the purpose where-after the Director shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same within 30 days. Implicit in this is that the Director has to examine the recommendation and approve the same where-after consequential appointment order is to be issued. For posts for which UGC has prescribed norms, no candidate shall be recruited without having the required norms. Constitution of Selection Committee is laid down in Rule 10. 9. Having gone through the scheme of selection provided under the Rules, it is quite apparent that the matter relating to selection for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor, Education in Sipajhar College has not yet attained finality. The Director who is the appointing authority is yet to consider the recommendation made by the Governing Body. In his affidavit, the Director has stated that he has not yet received the entire set of documents relating to the selection. In so far contention of the petitioner is concerned regarding allocation of marks to respondent No. 7 under the heads of M.Phil. and teaching experience, it is evident that the same is yet to be examined by the appointing authority. In the opinion of the Court, at the stage when the writ petition has been filed, no definitive cause of action can be said to have accrued enabling the petitioner to move the Court. No final decision has been taken by the appointing authority under Rules 5 (7) and 7 of the Rules. Intervention by the Court at this stage would amount to preempting a decision by the designated authority. It is only when a decision is taken as provided under the Rules an unsuccessful candidate can be said to be an aggrieved party and such order of the Director either granting approval or not granting approval to the recommendation of the Governing Body would give rise to a cause of action enabling the aggrieved person to initiate a legal proceeding. Recommendation of the Selection Committee or recommendation of the Governing Body per se would not give rise to a cause of action for initiating a legal proceeding because no finality is attached to such recommendation at a stage prior to acceptance or non-acceptance of the same by the Director. Viewed in that context, the writ petition appears to be pre-mature as the appropriate authority is yet to take a decision one way or the other. 10. In the light of the above, Governing Body of Sipajhar College may forward the entire set of documents relating to the selection for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Education to the Director of Higher Education, Assam who upon receipt of the same may take a decision as provided under Rules 5 & 7 of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 in accordance with law within a reasonable period. 11. Interim order passed on 09.12.2014 stands vacated. 12. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.