JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. By this common judgment and order, WA Nos.43, 53 & 186, all of 2017, are being decided, as they arise out of the same impugned judgment and order dated 2.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in WP(C) Nos.3571 and 3671, both of 2014. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order under challenge has quashed the resolution dated 7.6.2014 of the Governing Body of Barama College as well as the re-interview held on 25.7.2014 for the post of Assistant Professor in Education. The Principal cum Secretary and also the Governing Body of Barama College have filed WA Nos. 43/2017 and 53/2017 whereas Miss Dwimu Rani Boro has filed WA No.186/2017. 2. Facts in short are these. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.12.2013 issued by the Principal In-charge of Barama College inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor in Education, three candidates, namely, Dwimu Rani Boro, Kabita Bala Boro and Himakshi Saikia applied for the same. Call letters were issued to them and they appeared in interview on 21.1.2014. In the said interview one Dr. Jagat Swargiary of Gauhati University was nominated as the Subject Expert. Admittedly, he was also a Subject Guide of Himakshi Saikia. Dwimu Rani Boro therefore raised an objection regarding inclusion of Dr. Jagat Swargiary as Subject Expert but without any fruitful response. Later, the Governing Body of Barama College conducted an enquiry and found that Dr.Jagat Swargiary tried to influence other members of the Interview Board in favour of Himakshi Saikia which resulted in inconsistent awarding of marks to the candidates. It was also discovered that marks under the heading “Teaching Experience” were intentionally not awarded to any of the three candidates because Himakshi Saikia had no teaching experience in a Government Degree College, though Dwimu Rani Boro had such experience and was entitled for marks under that heading. Due to this erroneous marking and irregularity, Himakshi Saikia managed to secure highest marks. The Governing Body, therefore, adopted the resolution dated 7.6.2014 to cancel the selection process pursuant to the interview that took place on 21.1.2014 and to hold re-interview of the candidates who were already in the fray. In the re-interview which was fixed on 25.7.2014 all the three candidates duly appeared and participated in the selection process. The Governing Body, therefore, adopted the resolution dated 7.6.2014 to cancel the selection process pursuant to the interview that took place on 21.1.2014 and to hold re-interview of the candidates who were already in the fray. In the re-interview which was fixed on 25.7.2014 all the three candidates duly appeared and participated in the selection process. It is reported that in the re-interview, Dwimu Rani Boro has secured highest marks whereas Himakshi Saikia has secured lowest marks. 3. Aggrieved with the resolution dated 7.6.2014 of the Governing Body to cancel the selection process pursuant to interview held on 21.1.2014, Himakshi Saikia filed WP(C) No.3671/2014 and Kabita Bala Boro filed WP(C) No.3571/2014. In both these writ petitions, Dwimu Rani Boro was not impleaded as a party because no appointment order was issued to her. The Governing Body of Barama College, however, strongly defended its resolution dated 7.6.2014 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties has held that since marks under the heading “Teaching Experience” were not awarded to any of the candidates, the Subject Expert alone cannot be blamed for that. The learned Single Judge has also held that there was no material on record to show that the Subject Expert had actually impressed upon the other members of the Interview Board to favour Himakshi Saikia. Besides this, the learned Single Judge has observed that the interview held on 21.1.2014 was, in fact, a misnomer because no marks were earmarked for “Interview” or on account of “Knowledge of Subject”. According to the learned Single Judge it was basically for verification of the testimonials of the candidates. The learned Single Judge has held that since the marks under different headings were to be awarded on the basis of laid down formula, there was no scope for the Subject Expert or for any member of the Interview Board to play any role or exercise any discretion which could lead to an unfair selection of candidate. Aggrieved with the findings of the learned Single Judge, the Principal cum Secretary and Governing Body of Barama College and also Dwimu Rani Boro have filed the present appeals. 5. The sole question which calls for our consideration is whether in the fact situation of the case, the resolution dated 7.6.2014 of the Governing Body of Barama College can be held to be just and proper. 5. The sole question which calls for our consideration is whether in the fact situation of the case, the resolution dated 7.6.2014 of the Governing Body of Barama College can be held to be just and proper. The resolution reads as under:- “Resolution No.3: Today, in the meeting of the Governing Body held on 7th June, 2014 and chaired by its regular President, Sri Rabindra Nath Swargiary, the members deliberate on the matter of interview held for a post in the Department of Education and resolve unanimously to cancel the whole process of interview on the established ground of erroneous marking and irregularity committed by the Gauhati University expert, who happens to be the Research Guide of the particular candidate, to favour the candidate who eventually stood first and decides to hold a re-interview with the same candidates.” 6. Though it is correct to say that there was really no interview on 21.1.2014 because marks were to be allotted as per the laid down formula under different headings, it is seen that 5 marks were allotted under the heading “Teaching Experience” in an affiliated Government Degree College, but none of the candidates were awarded any mark under this heading on that date. And for this act, no reason has been assigned by the Interview/Selection Board. However, the real cause for not awarding marks is that Himakshi Saikia had no experience of teaching in an affiliated Government Degree College and hence, she was not entitled for any mark whereas Dwimu Rani Boro had such experience and was entitled to marks under the heading “Teaching Experience”. Apparently, the marks were intentionally not awarded to any of the candidates to ensure Himakshi Saikia manages to secure highest marks. Likewise, since Himakshi Saikia had no research paper to her credit, no marks were allotted to Dwimu Rani Boro also under the heading “Research Paper/article published with ISSN number and research based book with ISBN number, for which, 6 marks were allotted and the latter had research papers to her credit. Therefore, had the marks were awarded to the candidates in the first interview in a fair and just manner, Dwimu Rani Boro would have come out with flying colours. Therefore, had the marks were awarded to the candidates in the first interview in a fair and just manner, Dwimu Rani Boro would have come out with flying colours. The decision of the Selection Board not to award any mark on the aforesaid two headings has thus clearly vitiated the selection process and it can be seen that the Interview/Selection Board was guided by bias. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Governing Body to cancel the selection process was wholly justified. It is also to be noted that Himakshi Saikia appeared in the re-interview on 25.7.2014 without any objection and hence, she is estopped from challenging the selection process by re-interview. 7. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. We also restore the resolution of the Governing Body dated 7.6.2014 and the re-interview dated 25.7.2014. The Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Council is directed to complete the process of finalising the recommendation made by the Governing Body for appointment of the Assistant Professor in Education pursuant to re-interview as expeditiously as possible since the matter has been long delayed. 8. The appeals are allowed, but without any order as to costs.