JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned standing counsel for the Department of Higher Education, Mr. K. Gogoi appears for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The Dakha Devi Rasiwasia (DDR) College, Chabua, its Principal and the Governing Body (GB), are represented by learned counsel Mr. P.J. Saikia. 2. The challenge here is to the order 26.12.2011 (Annexure-13), whereby, the candidate Ranandra Khound (respondent No.11) was appointed as the Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department, in the DDR college. The Director of the DHE, Assam made the appointment under Rule 7(a) of the Assam College (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College Rules’), on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee and the College GB, made under Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 5 of the College Rules. 3.1. According to the petitioner, the Selection Committee improperly awarded marks and since the difference between the petitioner and the recommended candidate Ranandra Khound is just 1.2, the markings should be subjected to close scrutiny to determine the bonafide of the selection. 3.2. To be specific, Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was denied one mark for experience, as her teaching experience in the Dibrugarh H.S. Kanoi College (in short ‘the Kanoi College’) during the 2009—2010 session, was disregarded by the Selection Committee. Moreover, two marks for research paper and articles, is also additionally claimed by the petitioner. 3.3. The merit of the selection is questioned also on the ground that the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the guideline, issued under the Govt. Circular dated 20.2.2003. 4.1. On the other hand, Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel representing the DDR college and the G.B. contends that marks were awarded to each candidate as per their entitlement, in accordance with the Government guideline and it is submitted that if the individual marks of the seven members of the Selection Committee are totaled, the difference will be 8.3 and not 1.2, since the petitioner’s total is 336.6, as compared to 344.9 of the recommended candidate (respondent No.11). To explain, Mr. Saikia submits that only because of the mean average of the total score was recorded in the finalized sheet, the marginal difference (1.2) is recorded. To explain, Mr. Saikia submits that only because of the mean average of the total score was recorded in the finalized sheet, the marginal difference (1.2) is recorded. But if the total score of 344.9 of the respondent No.11 is taken into account, the addition of 2/3 extra to the petitioner’s credit will make no difference to the final result. 4.2. Asserting on correct markings, the learned lawyer submits that since one mark for one complete year of teaching experience is to be awarded, the certificate produced by the petitioner about her teaching experience in the Kanoi College, for the session 2009—2010, was rightly not considered, as the certificate is vague and does not specify whether the teaching experience was for one complete year, as is stipulated in the guideline. 4.3. Mr. Saikia submits that the petitioner was rightly awarded 3 marks for research paper and articles and the learned counsel submits that the two books i.e. Nang Faa (in Assamese) and Bonshaak aru Iyar Byobohar, for which additional marks is claimed, are irrelevant publications which do not add any value to academic qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. According to the respondents, the Selection Committee had awarded the deserved three marks for the three acceptable article/publication, in the ISSN and ISBN accredited publication. 5.1. Representing the DHE, who is the appointing authority for College Lecturers, Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned standing counsel projects that the responsibility for conducting the selection, vest on the G.B. of the College and he submits that the 7 Members Selection Committee, with 2 external subject experts was in accordance with the Govt. guideline notified on 20.2.2003. 5.2. On the petitioner’s teaching experience, the departmental lawyer submits that the certificate does not satisfy the one year requirement and therefore the said document will not be of any help to the petitioner to claim credit in the selection process. 5.3. According to Mr. Gogoi, the evaluation by the Selection Committee was consistent with the marking system specified in the guideline and the same were made bonafide and therefore, the DHE had rightly acted on the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and issued the appointment order, to the best merited candidate. 6.1. 5.3. According to Mr. Gogoi, the evaluation by the Selection Committee was consistent with the marking system specified in the guideline and the same were made bonafide and therefore, the DHE had rightly acted on the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and issued the appointment order, to the best merited candidate. 6.1. The marking system, specified in the guideline of 20.2.2003, stipulates the marks to be awarded for the examinations from matriculation uptill post graduate level and the marking for this segment, is ministerial works only. In this part, the petitioner’s score on account of inferior academic performance in the four stage of studies, was lower than the respondent No.11, as can be seen from the following chart: Name of examination Juri Borah Borgohain (Writ petitioner) Ranandra Khound (Respondent No.11) Matriculation 4.8 8.1 Higher Secondary 6.4 6.9 Graduation 5.3 6.3 M.A. 6.0 6.4 Total 22.5 27.7 6.2. But since the petitioner had done her M.Phil and also scored three extra marks for research, her aggregate score in the academic segment was 30.5, as compared to 27.7 for the respondent No.11. 6.3. But because of the better assessment by the subject experts and other members of the Selection Committee, the total aggregate of the respondent No.11 was higher than the petitioner and that is how, the Selection Committee declared the respondent to be the most meritorious. 7. The petitioner has raised the issue of denial of credit for her teaching experience in the Kanoi College. Hence the concerned experience certificate, issued on 6.5.2010 (Annexure-3), is examined with care. The certificate reflects that the petitioner had served on purely temporary basis for the session 2009—2010. But her precise duration of service tenure in the college is not mentioned. The credit of one mark for each complete year of teaching in a college is to be awarded but the certificate produced by the petitioner does not show that she taught for the entire year. Because of such vagueness, credit was not given for teaching experience and in my considered view, the decision of the Selection Committee, on this count, cannot be faulted. 8. In so far as the credit for research paper and articles for which maximum 5 point can be scored, the petitioner was given credit of 3 points for her published article, bearing the ISSN number and two books with ISBN accreditation. 8. In so far as the credit for research paper and articles for which maximum 5 point can be scored, the petitioner was given credit of 3 points for her published article, bearing the ISSN number and two books with ISBN accreditation. But credit was not given for the other two books i.e. Nang Faa (in Assamese) and Bonshaak aru Iyar Byobohar, as these two publications were not considered to be relevant for the teaching job in the Political Science Department. In my perception, this was the correct approach, as only academic publications which are relevant, can justify credit. Thus awarding of three out of five marks to the petitioner for this segment is found to be in accordance with the guideline dated 20.2.2003. 9. Due credit was given to all candidates by the two external subject experts, the HOD of the college and also by the other members of the Selection Committee and no infirmity in the marks awarded by the subject experts, is noticed. That apart, none of the seven Member Selection Committee could have influenced the recommendation for any specific individual, as the basis for selection was the average mean score. The difference of total aggregate between the petitioner and the respondent No.11 is 8.3 and as such, addition of 2/3 extra marks in petitioner’s account, will not alter the picture on the placement of the respondent No.11 at the top position, amongst the evaluated candidates. 10. As can be seen from the results of the respondent No.11, in all public examinations starting from matriculation to the MA level, his results were far superior to the petitioner. The recommended candidate had first class performance all throughout his student life, whereas the petitioner had second division in her matriculation and also in her degree examination. Therefore, the assessment made by the Selection Committee is found to be for the more meritorious candidate, with better academic credentials. 11. In my considered view, the recommendation was made by a valid Selection Committee and the evaluation was as per merit, in accordance with the guideline. Thus no illegality is seen in the appointment of the respondent No.11. 12. For the foregoing discussions, the appointment of Ranandra Khound (respondent No.11), in the Department of Political Science in the DDR College is found to be in conformity with the College Rules and guideline dated 20.2.2003. Thus no illegality is seen in the appointment of the respondent No.11. 12. For the foregoing discussions, the appointment of Ranandra Khound (respondent No.11), in the Department of Political Science in the DDR College is found to be in conformity with the College Rules and guideline dated 20.2.2003. Therefore, the challenge to his selection and appointment is found devoid of merit and accordingly this case is dismissed.