JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 10. Heard also Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 6 (UGC) and Ms. R. B. Bora, learned Standing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, for the Higher Education Department. 2. Pursuant to an Advertisement published in the Assam Tribune on 06.10.2015 by the Principal, Bijni College, (Provincialised) inviting applications from eligible candidates for filing up 1(one) post of Assistant Professor (Bodo), a total No. of 23 candidates including the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 10 applied for the same and appeared in the interview, which was held on 24.02.2016. The interview was conducted by a selection committee comprising of 8(eight) members. After the interview was completed the respondent No. 10 was placed at No. 1 position and the petitioner was placed at No. 2 by the selection committee. Not being satisfied with the result of the interview the petitioner through RTI obtained the minutes of the selection Committee held on 24.02.2016, the penal prepared by them and the marks given to the three toppers. The same is reproduced here below;- “Meeting of the selection committee for selection of candidate for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Bodo, Bijni College. Date- 24-02-2014 Time- 10.00 AM Place- Principals Office Chamber. Members present :- (1) Birhash Giri Basumatary Sd/- (2) Dr. Mangal Singh Hazoary Sd/- (3) Dr. Anil Kumar Boro Sd/- (4) Dr. Dinanath Basumatary Sd/- (5) Dr. Ada Ram Basumatary Sd/- (6) Mr. Gwgwm Brahma Kachary Sd/- (7) Kameswar Deka Sd/- (8) Dr. Pramathesh Bayan Sd/- A meeting of the selection committee for selection of a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Bodo, Bijni College is held to-day i.e. on 24-02-2016 in the Principals Chamber Sri Kameswar Deka, Chairman of the Selection Committee presides over the meeting in presence of other members of the selection committee. Member Present – (1) Birhash Giri Basumatary, Principal, Bijni College. Secretary (2) Dr. Pramathesh Bayan, Vice Principal, Bijni College (G.B. Member) Member (3) Dr. Anil Boro, Assistant Prof. Deptt of Folklore G.U. (V.C.’s nominee) Member (4) Dr. Dinanath Basumatary, Director, College Development Council Bodoland Union, Kokarajhar (V.C.’s nominee) Member (1) Dr. Adaram Basumatary, Associate Prof., Deptt. Member Present – (1) Birhash Giri Basumatary, Principal, Bijni College. Secretary (2) Dr. Pramathesh Bayan, Vice Principal, Bijni College (G.B. Member) Member (3) Dr. Anil Boro, Assistant Prof. Deptt of Folklore G.U. (V.C.’s nominee) Member (4) Dr. Dinanath Basumatary, Director, College Development Council Bodoland Union, Kokarajhar (V.C.’s nominee) Member (1) Dr. Adaram Basumatary, Associate Prof., Deptt. Of Bodo, Janata College, Serfanguri (V.C.’s nominee as subject expert) Member (2) Dr. Mangalsing Hazowary, Retd. Principal Kokrajhar Govt. Teachers Training College (G.B. Member) Member (3) Sri Gwgwm Brahma Kochary HOD, Deptt., of Bodo, Bijni College. Member The meeting discusses about the interview reports held by the selection committee today i.e. on 24-02-2016 and on the basis of the interview reports the selection committee prepares a panel of candidates for appointment. (1) Asha Rani Brahma (2) Binika Goyary (3) Guddu Prasad Basumatary The selection committee also resolves to forward the panel of the qualified candidates to the Governing Body of the college for approval and necessary action. Thus the meeting ends with the vots of the thanks from the chair. Sd/- Kameswar Deka President, Selection Committee”. [TYPED COPY] RELEVANT PORTION Statement of results for selection of candidate for the assistant professor of bodo department, Bijni college on the basis of interview held on 24.02.2016. Markes given by the members of the Selection Committee Sl. No. Name and present address of the candidate Kameswar Deka, Retd. Lecturer (President, GB) Dr. Birhash Giri Basumatary, Principal/ Secretary Dr. Pramathesh Bayan, Vice Principal, Bijni College, Gb Dr. Anil Boro Asso. Prof. Dept. of Folklore, Gu(VC’s Nominee) Dr. Dinanath Basumatary, Director, College Development Council, Bodoland Univ(VC’s Committee) Dr. Phukan C Basumatary, Assos. Prof. Janata College, Serfanguri, (subject Expert, VC’s Nominee) Dr. Adaram Basumatary Asso. Prof. Janata College, Serfanguri, (subject Expert, Vc’s Nominee) Dr. Mangalsing Hazowary, G.B. Member (Univ Nominee) Gwgwm Brahma Kochary, HOD, Bodo, Bijni College Total marks Secured remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6 Asha Rani, Brahma Village- North, Sukanipara, P.O. Khagrabari. District Chirang. Mangalsing Hazowary, G.B. Member (Univ Nominee) Gwgwm Brahma Kochary, HOD, Bodo, Bijni College Total marks Secured remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6 Asha Rani, Brahma Village- North, Sukanipara, P.O. Khagrabari. District Chirang. Pin-783390 57.99 56.99 57.99 53.99 59.99 48.99 61.99 55.99 453.92 1st - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 8 Binika Goyary Village No. 1, Boripara, P.O. Borobazar, District, Chirand, Pin 783393 60.95 55.95 56.95 50.95 55.95 57.95 54.95 58.95 452.60 2 nd - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 13 Guddu Prasad Basumatary Village-Natipara, P.O. Borkola Chowka, P.S. Kalaigaon, Dist. Udalguri, Pin- 784525 56.52 52.52 50.52 45.52 55.52 52.52 45.52 55.52 418.16 3rd 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being WP (C) No. 2564/2016 challenging the legality and validity of the selection process. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.1.22016. The court was of the view that since the recommendation of the selection committee has not been forwarded by the governing body of the college to the Director of Higher Education who will take the decision to accept the same or not the matter should be considered by the governing body of the college and the Director Higher Education and to take a decision based on the relevant laws as and when the recommendation is received. Accordingly, it was directed as such. When the order was submitted before the Director Higher Education the petitioner was informed that since the college falls under the jurisdiction of Bodo Territorial Council the subject matter is under the domain of Director Higher Education (BTC). Following received of the information the petitioner filed a review petition before this court praying for impleadment of the Director Higher Education, BTC. After hearing the parties this court on 27.01.2017 disposed the Review Petition No. 3/2017 by impleading the Director of Education, BTC and issued the same direction as was issued in the writ petition. Following received of the information the petitioner filed a review petition before this court praying for impleadment of the Director Higher Education, BTC. After hearing the parties this court on 27.01.2017 disposed the Review Petition No. 3/2017 by impleading the Director of Education, BTC and issued the same direction as was issued in the writ petition. After receiving a copy of the order passed in the writ petition and the review petition the Director of Education, BTC passed the impugned order dated 29th March, 2017 wherein, the Director accepted the recommendation of the selection committee forwarded by the governing body of the college and decided to forward the same to the BTC authority for approval and appointment of the respondent No. 10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has, once again come to this court challenging the recommendation of the selection committee and the order dated 29th March, 2017 of the Director of Education, BTC. The order dated 29-03-2017 is reproduced hereby;- “GOVT. OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, B.T.C. : KOKRAJHAR ORDER Dated Kokrajhar 29th March/2017 Read the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court’s order dtd. 09-12-2016 passed in the case No. WP(C) No. 2564/2016 and Order dtd. 27-01-2017 filed by Mrs. Binika Gayary Vs. the State of Assam and Others which was disposed of with a direction to the Governing Body of Bijni College and as well as the Director of Education, BTC to take appropriate decision for selection of candidates for appointment of Asstt. Professor in the deptt. Of Bodo against the vacant sanctioned post as per the Assam College Employees (provincialisation) Rules, 2010. Heard the GB members, the Petitioner & Respondents No. 6 dtd. 24-03-2017 at the Office Chamber of the Director of Education, BTC. Also read the particulars alongwith its enclosures submitted by the Principal of Bijni College vide his letter No. BC/2(A)Bodo/2016/13443 dtd. 26-12-2016 where is it is seen that as per report of the Selection Committed (interview) the Resolutions was adopted vided No. 3 by the Governing Body of Bijni College in its meeting held on 29-02-2016 and Resolution No. 2 dtd. 17-02-2017 recommended the name of candidate Mr.s. Asha Rani Brahma, MA who secured the 1st position in the Interview panel for appointment as Asstt. Professor against the vacant post. The petitioner Mrs. 17-02-2017 recommended the name of candidate Mr.s. Asha Rani Brahma, MA who secured the 1st position in the Interview panel for appointment as Asstt. Professor against the vacant post. The petitioner Mrs. Binika Gayary, MA who appeared in the same Interview on 24-02-2016 and she filed writ petition in the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court challenging the selection of candidate against this post. She complained the Mrs. Asha Rani Brahma joined as regular scholar in the Ph.D. programme as J.R.F w.e.f. 2708-2013 for the Session, 2013-14 and doing her Research under supervision of Dr. Indira Bro, faculty member of the deptt. Of Bodo, Bodoland University, Kokrajhar. So her teaching experience is 3(three) years. It is contended that under the head “Teaching Experience” respondent No. 6 was allotted 8(eight) marks instead of 6(six) marks. Both of them were awarded 2(two) marks per year by the members of the Selection Committee. Further also read and perused the Resolution No. 2 of the Governing Body meeting held on 17-02-2017 and the report of the Principal it is stated that Mrs. Asha Rani Brahma has been regularly attending the College during JRF period. The Selection Committed don’t know about her doing JRF (Ph.D.). Mrs. Binika Goyary also have not denied that Respondent Mrs. Asha Rani Brahma have been regular in attending College during the JRF period. Mrs. Asha Rani Brahma have been working in the post of Asstt. Professor in the deptt. of Bodo on contractual basis in the Bijni College continuously from 10-08-2010. Also perused the learned legal opinion of BTC Standing Counsel of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dtd. 28-03-2017 who has advised to approve the respondent No.6 for appointment in the post of Asstt. Professor in the deptt. of Bodo of Bijni College. Consequent upon the above facts and circumstances it is affirmed that Mrs. Asha Rani Brahma (Respondent No. 6) is duly selected by the Selection Committee and the Governing Body of the College also recommended the said candidate as per provision of Rules and procedures. As such the proposal alongwith necessary particulars may be forwarded to the BTC authority for necessary Administrative Approval for appointment of the said candidate. With the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court’s Order dtd. 09-12-2016 passed in case No. WP(C) No.2564/2016 and Order dtd. 27-01-2017 is complied with and accordingly disposed of in terms of the above observation. As such the proposal alongwith necessary particulars may be forwarded to the BTC authority for necessary Administrative Approval for appointment of the said candidate. With the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court’s Order dtd. 09-12-2016 passed in case No. WP(C) No.2564/2016 and Order dtd. 27-01-2017 is complied with and accordingly disposed of in terms of the above observation. Sd/- Sri R.S. Borgayari Director of Education Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar”. 4. The case of the petitioner as submitted by her learned counsel in brief is that Bijni College being a Provincialised college is bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Govt. of Assam Education (Higher) Department for selection of Assistant Professors in colleges as per the UGC guidelines. Therefore, the guidelines given in the Memo No. AHE.211/2015/95, dated 14.08.2015 circulated by the respondent No. 2 has to be strictly followed. According to the learned counsel the selection committee, while giving marks to the candidates, particularly to respondent No. 10 has violated clause 2, 3 and 8 of the guidelines. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the guidelines a candidate is to be given 2 marks for a year’s teaching experience under the column of teaching experience with the maximum marks up to 10. However in the case of the respondent No. 1 each committee member had given 8 marks though she was entitled to only 6 marks since she had the teaching experience of only 3 years and 16 days. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has no objection as far as the allotments of marks under the other heads are concerned but is aggrieved only by the marks given in the case of teaching experience. Learned counsel for the respondent No.10 on the other hand submitted that the respondent No.10 had 5 years of teaching experience therefore she should have been given 10 marks. In fact allotting her 8 marks only was a mistake committed by the selection committee. The learned counsel further submitted that though the respondent No. 10 was admitted as Jr. Research Fellow she continued to work in the college with the permission of the college and the department concerned of the university under which she was pursuing her research. Therefore, no wrong was committed in giving her marks as per the years of her teaching period in the college. Research Fellow she continued to work in the college with the permission of the college and the department concerned of the university under which she was pursuing her research. Therefore, no wrong was committed in giving her marks as per the years of her teaching period in the college. The only thing that can happen to her at the worst is cancellation of her JRF by the university and not discounting of her marks for the teaching experience. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the respondent No. 10 was working in the same college but she did not raise any objection on that at the relevant time, therefore, she cannot raise any objection in the allotment of marks for the teaching experience the private respondent had acquired. 5. Mr. Chamuah learned counsel appearing for UGC submitted that UGC regulation/Memorandum on qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in university and colleges and measures for the purpose of standard in higher education, 2010 is still enforced and as per regulation No. 3.9.0 of the same the time taken by candidate to acquire M Phil and or PhD Degree is not be considered as teaching experience. Mr. Chamuah in support of his submission cited paras-40, 42 and 44 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University represented by Registrar Vs. Secretary To Government, Information And Tourism Department And Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 . The contents of the paras are reproduced below :- “40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas the Open University Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnancy of the provisions of the said tow Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the Statement of objects and reasons of the Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalize educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible. 42. The provision of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The system is rigid inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible. 42. The provision of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof. 44. It has not been denied or disputed before us that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Act (sic the Regulations) are applicable and binding on all concerned. The Regulations framed, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly aimed at the open universities. When the regulations are part of the statute, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the same which operate in a different field would be ultra vires the parliamentary Act. IGNOU has not made any regulation; it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the Regulations framed by UGC. The validity of the provisions of the Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or by the appellant University. From a letter dated 5-5-2004 issued by Mr. H.P. Dikshit, who was not only the Vice-Chancellor but also the Chairman of DEC of IGNOit is evident that the appellant University has violated the mandatory provisions of the Regulations”. The learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all the university colleges both conventional or open. Therefore the regulation i.e. 3.9.0 is binding on the Bijni College and they are bound to follow the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all the university colleges both conventional or open. Therefore the regulation i.e. 3.9.0 is binding on the Bijni College and they are bound to follow the same. As such, without much ado, he would submit that the selection process of the selection committee wherein marks for teaching experience of the respondent No. 10 was given by taking into account the years during which she was persuing her Ph.D was in violation of the regulation No.3.9.0 of the UGC Regulation. 6. In reply the learned counsel for the private respondent No. 10 submitted that the UGC Regulation 2010 is being replaced by a new Regulation 2018 wherein the period of active service spend while persuing research degree is being counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/selection. The learned counsel however admitted that the 2018 regulation is only in the draft stage and it has not been enacted so far. But the learned counsel persistently submitted that it has instructive value. The learned counsel also submitted that UGC regulations 2010 are partly mandatory and partly directory. Therefore the college concern and BTC University are not bound to follow the same strictly. In support of his submissions the learned counsel referred to paragraph 62 of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj And Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 363 . The same is reproduced herein below :- “62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory.” 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 supported the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 10, therefore, recording of their submissions will only increase the volume of this judgment order. 8. The marks obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No.10 are 452.60, 453.92 respectively. Therefore, if the marks given in the teaching experience is reduced as submitted by the petitioners learned counsel the mark of the respondent No. 10 would slide down below that mark of the petitioner. 8. The marks obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No.10 are 452.60, 453.92 respectively. Therefore, if the marks given in the teaching experience is reduced as submitted by the petitioners learned counsel the mark of the respondent No. 10 would slide down below that mark of the petitioner. The relevant portions of the office Memorandum dated 14th August, 2015 No.AHE. 211/2015/95 issued by the Government of Assam (Education) Higher Department which are relevant for determining the issue in this case are reproduced herein below annexure 1 of the writ petition 1, 2, 3 and & 8 : “Government of Assam Education (Higher) Department Dispur-Guwahati-6. No.AHE.211/2015/95 Dated Dispur the 14th August, 2015. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Guideline for selection of Assistant Professors: Distribution of marks for ranking candidates. In conformity with the UGC guidelines and in partial modification of earlier O.M.s in this regard for selection to the post of Assistant Professors in Colleges, Distribution of marks is prescribed as follows : Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (30%) Interview (20%) Total(100) Examination Max Marks Score Max Marks Score Sub-total out of 20 HSLC 5 .05 x marks Teaching skill 10 HSSLC 5 .05 x marks Teaching Experience 10 Graduation 10 .10 x marks Conference/Seminar/attended 5 Post-Graduation 15 15 x marks Publication 5 Ph D 10 M Phil 5 Sub-total 50 Sub-total 30 20 100 Following criteria may be noted for further – 1. Assessment of Publication marks shall be judged by the Selection Committee based on its discretion at the time of interview. Due importance shall be given on ISSN/ISBN publications and impact factors. Detail reasons shall be kept on record. 2. Teaching skills shall be assessed based on documents to be produced in support of the same and for additional qualifications like degree/diploma/certificates which help enhancing the teaching capability of the candidates and objective assessments as per criteria to be formulated by the Selection Committee at the time of interview. This will also include proficiency of the candidate in the languages of instruction of the college and communication skill of the candidate. Details reasons for marking against each candidate be kept on record. 3. Teaching experience shall carry 2 marks for one year of experience of teaching undergraduates in as State Govt. recognized College subject to a maximum of 10 marks. Details reasons for marking against each candidate be kept on record. 3. Teaching experience shall carry 2 marks for one year of experience of teaching undergraduates in as State Govt. recognized College subject to a maximum of 10 marks. This will be related to actual total hours of teaching imparted by the candidate in the particular year with the standard teaching hours of a regular Asstt. Professor as per UGC guidelines. Further, teaching experience shall be counted only for those candidates and to such extent only who have taught the concerned subject after acquiring the eligibility conditions. 8. Interview marks will be given by individual members/chairperson separately and such marks shall be totaled and averaged out to rank the candidates in order of preference. In case, any individual members awards marks to particular candidates in a manner which indicates extremes on either side, such members shall record in writing the reasons for the same. If the interview board forms the opinion that awarding marks in such extreme manner by any individual member /chairperson, may alter the ranking of the candidates in a manner unfair to particular candidates, the matter shall be brought to the notice of the higher Authority before finalization of the results. 9. At the beginning of the Memorandum it would be seen that the same was issued in conformity with the UGC guidelines. The UGC, guidelines referred to in this O.M. is definitely the regulation No. 3.9.0 of the UGC regulation on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff for university and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education, 2010. The contents of the regulation No.3.9.0 are reproduced herein below: “3.9.0. The period of time taken by candidates to acquire M. PhGCil. and/or Ph. D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions.” 10. The contents of the UGC regulation of the guidelines given in the Government O.M. stated above particularly at para 3 of the same makes it clear beyond doubt that the period of teaching under taken by the candidate while pursuing research would not be counted for teaching experience for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The contents of the UGC regulation of the guidelines given in the Government O.M. stated above particularly at para 3 of the same makes it clear beyond doubt that the period of teaching under taken by the candidate while pursuing research would not be counted for teaching experience for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. There is no denying the fact that the respondent No. 10 got herself admitted to JRF from 27.08.2013 and was still continuing her Ph.D.degree when the interview was held in 2016. Therefore, the period of her teaching experience which has to be counted is from 2010-2013 only and for that she is entitled to get only 6 marks, 2 X 3=6. This shows that the selection committee had committed an error by allotting 8 marks instead of 6 by each member. As stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited by the learned counsel of the UGC, UGC Act is mandatory for all the universities and colleges both open and formal, therefore, the rules or regulations framed under it are also mandatory needs no further discussion, and as such, the argument of the learned counsel representing the private respondent No. 10 that the college concern i.e. Bijni College which is under Bodoland University are not governed by the UGC Rules and Rregulations therefore, they are not bound to follow every regulations of the UGC does not appear to be correct. UGC regulations are issued from time to time to maintain and promote higher standard of education in the country therefore it is obligatory on the part of the colleges and universities to follow the same. Moreover, the fact that the office Memorandum dated 14th August, 2015 which was notified by the Govt. of Assam, Education(Higher) was applied and followed in the selection process shows that UGC regulations are followed in the State of Assam. 11. In view of what has been stated above this court is of the opinion that the selection committee had committed error in giving 8 marks to the private respondent No. 10 instead of 6 under the head of teaching experience. Therefore the recommendation is quashed and set aside to that extent. The committee should modify their recommendation accordingly. 12. 11. In view of what has been stated above this court is of the opinion that the selection committee had committed error in giving 8 marks to the private respondent No. 10 instead of 6 under the head of teaching experience. Therefore the recommendation is quashed and set aside to that extent. The committee should modify their recommendation accordingly. 12. Further, since the main cause of action has been quashed and set aside the consequential actions like the acceptance of the recommendation by the governing body of the college and by the Director of Education BTC vide the impugned order dated 29th March, 2017 are also quashed and set aside. The selection committee after modifying or rectifying the recommendation in terms of what has been stated above shall placed the same before the governing body of the college and the governing body in turn shall forward the same to the Director of Higher Education, BTC. The Director of Education BTC, on receipt of the same shall do the needful as per the relevant laws and rules. The whole exercise should be completed within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.