Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1198 (GAU)

Kartik Pathak v. Hiramani Haloi

2017-08-29

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 whereas Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned counsel represents respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel represents respondent No. 10. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the common order dated 10.12.2015 passed in WP(C) 5210/2014 and WP(C) 4463/2015 wherein the present appellant was arrayed as respondent No. 9. 2. Adjudication of the present appeal has narrowed down to a large extent in view of the fair stand taken by the appellant. Nonetheless, the brief facts involved in the case may be noticed. On 15.08.2014, an Advertisement was issued inviting applications for one post of Assistant Professor in English and one post of Assistant Professor in Assamese at B.B.K. College in the district of Barpeta. The present case involves the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese. One of the eligibility condition stipulated in the Advertisement was the requirement of Permanent Resident Certificate (in short, PRC) and knowledge of the local language. Both the appellant and the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had responded to the Advertisement and altogether 17 (seventeen) candidates were called for interview. These seventeen candidates also included those who had not submitted PRC. Consequent upon the interview held on 14.09.2014, the Selection Committee prepared a Comparative Statement showing the appellant of having secured 45.51 marks as against the marks secured by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner at 57.87 marks. On 14.09.2014 itself, the Selection Committee submitted its report to the effect that although the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had secured the highest marks based on merit, performance and experience, however, she did not submit PRC with her application nor during the time of the interview. On this premise the second candidate securing 53.87 marks was held to be selected and accordingly her name was forwarded for approval of the Governing Body of the College. On the very next day, i.e. 15.09.2014 the Governing Body passed a resolution to the effect that a re-interview be held for the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese from amongst those candidates who had submitted PRC by setting aside the selection already made. On the very next day, i.e. 15.09.2014 the Governing Body passed a resolution to the effect that a re-interview be held for the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese from amongst those candidates who had submitted PRC by setting aside the selection already made. In the process, neither the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner nor the candidate who had secured the 2nd merit position were called for the reinterview. At this point of time, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner instituted WP(C) 5210/2014. The re-interview was held on 08.10.2014 and as and when the appellant came to be selected, the second writ petition i.e. WP(C) 4463/2015 came to be instituted. 3. On a detailed consideration of the case with reference made to the Guidelines dated 28.06.2010 of the University Grants Commission laying down the minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in universities and colleges as well as the Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012, issued by the Government of Assam in the Higher Education Department, the learned Single Judge reached a finding that the requirement of a PRC for the purpose of employment could not have been insisted upon. Accordingly, the condition laid down in the Advertisement dated 15.08.2014 as to the requirement of PRC was set aside. The learned Single Judge also held that the Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012 is not applicable in the case as it does not cover candidates seeking employment. While setting aside the Resolution No. 3 dated 15.09.2014 adopted by the Governing Body of the College as well as the selection of the appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese, a direction was made to the Governing Body of the college to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee made in pursuance to the interview dated 14.09.2014 towards filling up the post in question. 4. As to the requirement of Permanent Resident Certificate, all parties including the appellant are agreed that such a certificate is necessary only for the purpose of admission to educational institutions where such certificates are insisted upon. The requirement of PRC cannot be extended for the purpose of employment, inasmuch as, neither the UGC Guidelines of 2010 nor the Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012 mandates its requirement. The requirement of PRC cannot be extended for the purpose of employment, inasmuch as, neither the UGC Guidelines of 2010 nor the Office Memorandum dated 25.06.2012 mandates its requirement. As this issue with regard to requirement of PRC is not a matter of dispute on the very submission of the appellant, the surviving issue relates to the direction made by the learned Single Judge whereby the Governing Body of the college has been directed to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee made in pursuance of the interview held on 14.09.2014. According to Mr. Konwar, on the setting aside of the condition in the Advertisement dated 15.08.2014 with regard to the requirement of PRC, a de-novo selection exercise is required to be undertaken giving opportunity to all candidates who could not offer their candidature because of the condition requiring submission of Permanent Resident Certificate. As such, prayer is made for interfering with the direction made by the learned Single Judge, as above. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also considered the entire gamut of the case. It is seen that the Advertisement was issued way back on 15.08.2014. Many candidates, including the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, who had not submitted Permanent Resident Certificate, were also called for the interview held on 14.09.2014. A due selection was made and in the said selection the comparative merit of all the seventeen candidates, with or without PRC, were assessed. On consideration thereof, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was adjudged as the most deserving candidate in terms of merit it is also seen that whoever wished to vie for the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese had offered their candidature, with or without PRC. These are the candidates who remained vigilant and took a chance for selection and who were also called to appear in the selection process. The merit of the candidates have already been assessed and their standing on inter-se merit is a fait accompli. Had the selection process not been cancelled by the Governing Body and the re-selection not being confined to those who had submitted PRC, the selection made on the basis of the interview dated 14.09.2014 would have reached its logical conclusion. The stand of the Governing Body taken in its Resolution dated 15.09.2014 have been found to be invalid by the learned Single Judge, to which we record our agreement. The stand of the Governing Body taken in its Resolution dated 15.09.2014 have been found to be invalid by the learned Single Judge, to which we record our agreement. At this point of time and having regard to the course of events that have taken place commencing with the Advertisement dated 15.08.2014, we find no reason to grant the prayer made by the appellant for a de-novo selection process. We fully agree with the direction made by the learned Single Judge requiring the Governing Body of the College to act on the selection made pursuant to the interview held on 14.09.2014. In the course of hearing, a Division Bench judgment dated 05.06.2009 passed in PIL 21/2009 was brought to our notice wherein the requirement of PRC was considered. Mr. Konwar have placed reliance on the direction made in the said judgment dated 05.06.2009 whereby the respondent authorities therein had been directed to publish a fresh schedule of selection for all such candidates who had not been allowed to take part in the selection already held on account of non-submission of PRCs. The direction contained in the said judgment dated 05.06.2009 cannot come to the aid of the appellant, in that, the facts of the present case are altogether different, so much so, that even candidates without PRCs had already been allowed to take part in the selection held on 14.09.2014. The re-selection done on 08.04.2014 selecting the appellant is a different case altogether, which has been rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge. For all practical reasons, all candidates who did not have PRC had been allowed to take part in the selection held on 14.09.2014 along with such candidates who had submitted PRC and the inter-se merit of all the seventeen candidates were accordingly assessed. For the all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the limited prayer made by the appellant for a de-novo selection exercise to fill up the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese at B.B.K. College. As a result, the writ appeal fails and stands accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.