Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 770 (GAU)

AKHIL CH KALITA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-06-09

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.M. BUJOR BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel for Higher Education Department and Mr. B. Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, being the Governing Body of the Lumding College. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.02.2016, inviting applications, inter-alia, for the post of Assistant Professor in the Hindi Department of the Lumding College, the petitioner had participated in the selection process. The petitioner was aggrieved by the allotment of 05(five) marks to one of the candidate namely, Dr. Bind Kumar Chauhan in respect of teaching experience. It was the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner had secured a total mark of 61.40, the said Dr. Bind Kumar Chauhan had secured 62.95 marks. If the 05(five) marks allotted to Bind Kumar Chauhan is held to have given illegally and the same is deducted, the petitioner would be the first candidate in order of merit. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner had preferred an earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.6538/2016, which was disposed of by the order dated 04.11.2016. In the said order of 04.11.2016, it was provided that the issuance of appointment order by the Director is not an empty formality and the Director while passing such order is required to scrutinize the selection record and only upon the satisfaction, he is to issue the consequential appointment order. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Director of Higher Education for due consideration. 4. Consequently, the Director of Higher Education had passed the order dated 28.12.2016, wherein it had been held that the 05(five) marks awarded to Dr. Bind Kumar Chauhan is deleted and the entire selection is altered. But at the same time, the Director had also provided that he had withheld the approval and directed the college authorities to hold re-interview amongst the candidates who had responded to the earlier advertisement of the college. 5. This writ petition is preferred by the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid provision in the order dated 28.12.2016, by which the Director had directed the college authorities to hold re-interview amongst the candidates, who had responded to the earlier advertisement. 6. The College authorities on the other hand had filed an affidavit in opposition, wherein a stand had been taken that on the deletion of the 05(five) marks being awarded to Dr. 6. The College authorities on the other hand had filed an affidavit in opposition, wherein a stand had been taken that on the deletion of the 05(five) marks being awarded to Dr. Bind Kumar Chauhan, the writ petitioner automatically becomes the first candidate in the merit. It is further stated that if the interview is held once again amongst those candidates, who had responded to the earlier advertisement, nothing will change as regards the marks allotted to the respective candidates. 7. It is also taken into consideration that presently the selection is made on the basis of the marks obtained by the respective candidates in their qualifying examination and therefore, the evaluation is quantified and objective and not open to any discretion on the part of the Selection Committee. In such view of the matter, the stand of the Governing Body is found to be correct that nothing will be changed, if the re-interview is held as directed by the Director. Further it is also seen that the direction of the Director to hold the re-interview is without any basis. 8. A re-interview may be permissible in the circumstance when the illegality committed in the earlier interview cannot be segregated and isolated and no remedial measure can be taken. But when it is the case of the Director himself that the 05 (five) marks has to be deleted from the marks awarded to Dr. Bind Kumar Chauhan, no discernible reason is made out as to why a re-interview should be held. 9. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director to send the matter back to the Governing Body to act accordingly by taking into consideration that 05 (five) marks awarded to Dr. Bind Kumar Chauhan had been deleted from the marks awarded to him. 10. Upon the matter being remanded back, the Governing Body shall proceed in the matter and bring the selection process to its logical end. The aforesaid requirement be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands closed.