JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing counsel, Education, Higher Department and Mr. C Baruah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, being the Accountant General, Assam. 2. On being recommended by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC for short), the petitioner was appointed in the Geography department of Cotton College, Guwahati. Accordingly by the joining letter, Annexure-B to the writ petition, the petitioner joined as a Lecturer in the Department of Geography in Cotton College, Guwahati on 01.06.2000. By the Notification dated 24.10.2008, Annexure-J to the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed the senior scale of pay w.e.f., 26.02.2006. Thereafter as per the proceedings of the Executive Council of the Gauhati University dated 27.05.2006, it was resolved that the petitioner be awarded with the Ph.D degree. 3. Subsequent thereto, the Gauhati University by the communication dated 03.06.2006, in respect of the award of Ph.D degree had declared the petitioner to have qualified for the Ph.D degree vide Executive Council’s resolution dated 27.05.2006. Upon the petitioner having obtained the Ph.D degree, the Director of Higher Education, Assam by the communication dated 07.01.2011 had rectified the date of placement of the petitioner in the senior scale and, accordingly, in modification of the earlier Notification dated 24.10.2008, had placed the petitioner in the senior scale w.e.f. 01.06.2004. In the said communication, it has been stated that the petitioner was awarded the Ph.D degree on 27.05.2006, and, that earlier the petitioner was granted the senior scale w.e.f. 26.02.2006. 4. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 26.05.2011, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education Department on re-examination of the matter arrived at a conclusion that there was an error as regards the grant of relaxation for acquiring Ph.D degree by the petitioner and as the date of the Notification by the University concerned, should have been the date of acquiring the Ph.D degree, the date of grant of senior scale in respect of the petitioner was modified and again held to be 01.06.2006. The said notification of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department has been assailed in this writ petition. 5. Mr. The said notification of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department has been assailed in this writ petition. 5. Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had urged that the petitioner was awarded the Ph.D degree as per the proceedings of the Executive Council dated 27.05.2006. It has been contended that by the said proceedings of the Executive Council, it was resolved that the Ph.D degree in respect of the petitioner and others, involved therein, be awarded to the concerned candidate for their thesis noted against their respective names. Accordingly, it is the contention that as the resolution was to award the Ph.D degree, the said resolution itself is an award of the Ph.D degree. The learned Senior counsel states that the subsequent communication under the signature of the Academic Registrar of the Gauhati University is merely a communication and the same by itself does not award the Ph.D degree. The learned Senior counsel, accordingly, contends that the earlier decision of the Director of Higher Education dated 07.01.2011 to place the petitioner in the senior scale w.e.f. 01.06.2004 was the correct decision and the same ought not to have been modified by the impugned order dated 26.05.2011. 6. Mr. Dutta, in order to substantiate his contention also relies upon Clause 14 of the Regulations for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) (for short the Regulations). Clause 14 of the said Regulations is as under: “14. If the thesis recommended for the Ph.D. Degree by all the examiners, including the examiners holding the viva-voce examination, the Controller of Examinations with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor shall submit to the Executive Council a report for consideration and declaration of the result. Clause 14 of the said Regulations is as under: “14. If the thesis recommended for the Ph.D. Degree by all the examiners, including the examiners holding the viva-voce examination, the Controller of Examinations with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor shall submit to the Executive Council a report for consideration and declaration of the result. If the E.C. is satisfied with the report of the Board of Examiners and consider that the candidate is worthy in all respects it shall award the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and shall cause his/her name to be published with the title of his/her thesis, the Faculty and the subject to which the thesis belongs.” The learned Senior counsel urges that Clause 14, inter alia, provides that if the Executive Council is satisfied with the report of the Board and considers that the candidate is worthy in all respects, it shall award the Ph.D degree and further the Executive Council shall cause her/his name to be published with the title of his/her thesis. Accordingly, it is submitted that as per Clause 14 it is the Executive Council who awards the Ph.D degree and the subsequent communication is a mere publication of the same. 7. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, a specific stand had been taken that the Notification dated 26.05.2011 was not preceeded by any notice being issued to the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing given. It is submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Director of Higher Education, the said averment of the writ petitioner regarding non-service of notice was not controverted and, as such, it is to be construed that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. 8. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the petitioner having been given the benefit of senior scale w.e.f., from 01.06.2004, taking away of the same by the impugned notification of 26.05.2011 brings about an adverse civil consequence upon the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel further refers to paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the Director, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner had not cleared the Ph.D degree within the period of 6 years of continuous service and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relaxation of 2 years for being eligible to the senior scale. The learned Senior counsel further refers to paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the Director, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner had not cleared the Ph.D degree within the period of 6 years of continuous service and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relaxation of 2 years for being eligible to the senior scale. The learned Senior counsel also refers to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit that the Government of Assam had re-examined the case of the petitioner and modified the date of placing in senior scale in terms of the Government Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2000 and the guidelines of the UGC. In this respect, the learned Senior counsel refers to the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2004 of the Government of Assam in the Education, (Higher & Technical) Department wherein it has been provided that minimum length of service for eligibility to the post of Lecturers (senior scale) would be 4 years for those with Ph.D. 5 years for those with M.Phil and 6 years for others. Accordingly, it is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the reference to the Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2000, would be inappropriate and incorrect, inasmuch as, under any circumstances, the Office Memorandum of 13.01.2000 had, in the meantime, been superseded by the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2004. 9. Further, by referring to the guidelines of the University Grants Commission (for short UGC), the learned Senior counsel also points out that Clause 7.1.1., of the UGC Notification, 1998, provides that the minimum length of service for eligibility to the post of lecturers (senior scale) would be 4 years for those with Ph.D., 5 years for those with M.Phil and 6 years for others, and, contends that even the guidelines of the UGC do not support the contention of the Director as made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit. It was also contended that, in the meantime, by taking the date of senior scale to be 01.06.2004, the petitioner was given the benefit of selection grade from 01.06.2009, and, subsequently she was given the benefit of being an Associate Professor from 01.06.2012. 10. Mr. It was also contended that, in the meantime, by taking the date of senior scale to be 01.06.2004, the petitioner was given the benefit of selection grade from 01.06.2009, and, subsequently she was given the benefit of being an Associate Professor from 01.06.2012. 10. Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing counsel for the Education Department, on the other hand, refers to the proceedings of the Executive Council of the Gauhati University dated 27.05.2006 and contends that the said proceeding of the Executive Council dated 27.05.2006, merely resolves that the Ph.D degree in respect of the Faculties be awarded to the concerned candidate and as such on the said date there is no award of any Ph.D degree. 11. The learned Standing counsel also refers to the communication dated 03.06.2006 of the Academic Registrar to indicate that the Ph.D degree had been awarded to the petitioner only on 03.06.2006, and, accordingly refers to the 1st paragraph of the said communication which says that the following candidates were declared to have qualified for the Ph.D degree, therefore, it is the submission of the learned Standing counsel that the Ph.D degree was awarded only upon the said declaration in the communication dated 03.06.2006. 12. On the premises of the aforesaid contentions being raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the issues for determination before this Court is as to on which date and by which act of the Gauhati University, the Ph.D degree was awarded to the petitioner. For an appropriate adjudication, on the question, as to on which date and by whom the Ph.D degree was granted to the petitioner, the proceedings of the Executive Council dated 27.05.2006 is examined. The proceeding begins with the paragraph that the Board of Examiners of the thesis submitted by the respective candidates, are of the opinion that the candidates mentioned therein deserves a Ph.D degree in their respective faculties. Thereafter, the detail particulars of the respective candidates have been provided which also includes the detail particular of the present petitioner. Upon the same being provided, the proceeding concludes by resolving that the degree of Ph.D for the respective faculties be awarded to the candidates named therein. 13. From a reading of the proceedings, it prima facie, appears to this Court that the resolution to award the Ph.D degree had been taken in the proceeding dated 27.05.2006 itself. Upon the same being provided, the proceeding concludes by resolving that the degree of Ph.D for the respective faculties be awarded to the candidates named therein. 13. From a reading of the proceedings, it prima facie, appears to this Court that the resolution to award the Ph.D degree had been taken in the proceeding dated 27.05.2006 itself. The language to be awarded upon which the learned Standing counsel had relied upon to indicate that the award of the Ph.D degree had not taken place at that point of time i.e. 27.05.2006 has to be read along with the word ‘resolve’. On a conjoint reading of the word ‘resolve’ and ‘be awarded’, the meaning that arises is that the resolution to award the degree had already taken place. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Ph.D degree was awarded to the petitioner by the said resolution of 27.05.2006 itself. The aforesaid proposition, when looked into in view of the provision of Clause 14 of the Regulations, it is noticed that when the Executive Council is satisfied that the candidate is worthy in all respect and it shall award the Ph.D degree. In other words, the Ph.D degree would be conferred by the Executive Council on being satisfied by the report submitted by the Examiner. 14. In view of such provision of Clause 14 of the Ph.D Regulations, the awarding of the Ph.d degree, takes place upon the satisfaction of the Executive Council with the report of the Board of Examiners and the resolution taken therein. In such view of the matter also, the conclusion that this Court arrives at is that the award of the Ph.d degree takes place, when the Executive Council is satisfied with the report of the Board of Examiners and takes upon itself to resolve to award the degree. The said interpretation is further fortified by the subsequent provision of Clause 14 that upon such award of degree the Executive Council shall cause the name to be published along with the Title of the thesis. The said provision indicates that on the Ph.D degree being awarded by taking the appropriate resolution, the Executive Council would further cause the name of the concerned candidate to be published. 15. The said provision indicates that on the Ph.D degree being awarded by taking the appropriate resolution, the Executive Council would further cause the name of the concerned candidate to be published. 15. In such view of the matter, the subsequent communication dated 03.06.2006 under the signature of the Academic Registrar of the Gauhati University which provides that the candidates named therein are declared to have qualified for the Ph.D degree is to be construed to be the publication as contemplated in Clause 14 of the Ph.D degree Regulations and that the same by itself does not confer the award of the Ph.D degree. 16. The said view is also fortified from further reading of the 1st paragraph of the communication dated 03.06.2006 which states that the under mentioned candidates are declared to have qualified for Ph.D degree vide Executive Council Resolution dated 27.05.2006. The mere reference that the candidates have qualified for the Ph.D degree, as per the Executive Council Resolution dated 27.05.2006 makes it further clear that the Ph.D degree was awarded by the said resolution of the Executive Council dated 27.05.2006 and the subsequent communication of 03.06.2006 is a mere publication of the same. 17. Further, as it is also noticed that the communication dated 03.06.2006 is issued under the signature of the Academic Registrar of the Gauhati University and the same nowhere says that the said communication merely communicates a decision of some other authority, which the Academic Registrar seeks to notify. In such view of the matter also by referring to Clause 14 of the Regulations that the Ph.D degree can be awarded only by the Executive Council, the contention that the Ph.D degree was awarded by the communication dated 03.06.2006 cannot be accepted. 18. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the Ph.D degree of the petitioner was awarded by the Executive Council in its proceeding held on 27.05.2006 and the subsequent communication dated 03.06.2006 is merely a publication of such award as required to be made under Clause 14 of the Ph.D Regulations. 19. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court, the reasoning given in the order dated 26.05.2011 that the date of acquiring the Ph.D should have been the date of Notification by the University concerned is found to be incorrect. 19. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court, the reasoning given in the order dated 26.05.2011 that the date of acquiring the Ph.D should have been the date of Notification by the University concerned is found to be incorrect. The communication of 03.06.2006 is not a Notification and as held it is merely a publication of the decision of the award of Ph.D degree by the Executive Council and in such view of the matter also, the Additional Chief Secretary had misconstrued the circumstances in which the communication dated 03.06.2006 was issued. Further the stand taken by the Director in the affidavit that the senior grade awarded to the petitioner was subsequently modified as the petitioner had not cleared the degree within 6 years of continuous service is also found to be unacceptable. 20. The petitioner was appointed on and from 01.06.2000, and, therefore, the period of 6 years within which the petitioner was required to clear the Ph.D degree would be 31.05.2006. As the petitioner was awarded the Ph.D degree on 27.05.2006, the said contention of the Director is not acceptable. Further, the contention of the Director in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that the placement of the petitioner in the senior scale was modified in terms of the Government Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2000 and the guidelines of the UGC was also not found to be acceptable, as firstly, the said Office Memorandum of 13.01.2000 was superceded by the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2004 and, secondly, the relevant guidelines of the UGC also does not justify the modification of the earlier placement of the petitioner in the senior scale w.e.f., 01.06.2004. Further, in any view of the matter, the said stand of the Director also cannot be accepted as the said reasoning does not find place in the order dated 26.05.2011 and in view of the law laid down contention of the Director in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that the placement of the petitioner in the senior scale was modified in terms of the Government Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2000 and the guidelines of the UGC was also not found to be acceptable, as firstly, the said Office Memorandum of 13.01.2000 was superceeded by the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2004 and, secondly, the relevant guidelines of the UGC also does not justify the modification of the earlier placement of the petitioner in the senior scale w.e.f., 01.06.2004. Further, in any view of the matter, the said stand of the Director also cannot be accepted as the said reasoning does not find place in the order dated 26.05.2011 and in view of the law laid down contention of the Director in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that the placement of the petitioner in the senior scale was modified in terms of the Government Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2000 and the guidelines of the UGC was also not found to be acceptable, as firstly, the said Office Memorandum of 13.01.2000 was superceeded by the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2004 and, secondly, the relevant guidelines of the UGC also does not justify the modification of the earlier placement of the petitioner in the senior scale w.e.f., 01.06.2004. Further, in any view of the matter, the said stand of the Director also cannot be accepted as the said reasoning does not find place in the order dated 26.05.2011 and in view of the law laid down Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , the respondent authorities cannot improve their reasoning too passing an order by expanding the scope through a subsequent affidavit. 21. In view of the above, the order dated 26.05.2011 of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam is hereby set aside and the earlier order dated 07.01.2011 of the Director of Higher Education Assam is held to be in accordance with the required provisions of law. Consequently, the order dated 21.01.2011, being the consequential order issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Higher) Department is accordingly, set aside. 22. In terms of the above, this writ petition is allowed. 23. In terms of the aforesaid findings of this Court, the State respondents, in the Education Department shall do the needful in the Office of the Accountant General.