JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 8057/2017 and Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 1503/2018 as well as Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the authorities of DCB Girl’s College, Jorhat and Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the Higher Education Department. 2. In WP(C) 8057/2017, the award of marks by the selection committee in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor of Geology in the College has been assailed on the ground that under the criteria presentation of paper, the respondent No.6 therein (writ petitioner of WP(C) 1503/2018) was given 5 marks, whereas, according to the petitioner, it ought to have been 2 marks. In WP(C) 1503/2018, the marks given to the respondent No.6 therein (writ petitioner in WP(C) 8057/2017) under the criteria teaching experience has been assailed on the ground that for a part of the teaching experience presented by the said respondent, she did not have the required minimum qualification and therefore, the said part of the teaching experience is to be excluded from being considered. As the allegation of both the writ petitioners is as regards the award of marks by the selection committee in respect of the respective criterias, the Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the grounds taken by the respective petitioners for assailing the marks given to the other candidates is re-considered by the selection committee and arrive at their own independent decision afresh by taking the decision denovo. 3. As pointed out, the allegation of the petitioner in WP(C) 8057/2017 is that the writ petitioner in WP(C) 1503/2018 has only one acceptable paper presentation and therefore, only two marks could have been given, whereas, the selection committee had given 5 marks. On the other hand, the writ petitioner in WP(C) 1503/2018 raises a contention that for a part of the teaching experience of the writ petitioner in WP(C) 8057/2017, she did not have the required educational qualification and therefore, the said part of the teaching experience ought not to be included for the purpose of award of marks against the criteria of teaching experience. 4. Both the aforesaid contention would require thorough examination of the materials on record that were before the selection committee. 5. 4. Both the aforesaid contention would require thorough examination of the materials on record that were before the selection committee. 5. The Court is of the view that award of marks against various criteria is the specialized job of the selection committee and it would be inappropriate for the Court to step into the shoes of the selection committee and decide the marks that the respective candidates are actually to be given. Further there is an agreement between the parties that end of justice would be met, if the selection committee is re-convened and the award of marks to the petitioner in WP(C) 1503/2018 as regards paper presentation and the award of marks to the petitioner in WP(C) 8057/2017 as regards criteria of teaching experience be worked out once again by the reconvened selection committee and award the marks denovo strictly on the basis of the materials available on record and also taking into consideration the rival submissions raised as indicated above. 6. It is provided that the selection committee while denovo undertaking the aforesaid exercise shall not be influenced by the earlier marks granted by it as well as any other observation or recommendation that the authorities in the Higher Education Department may have made in the meantime and such exercise be limited only to the aforesaid two aspects and as regards the other aspects, the earlier selection made shall not be interfered in any manner. 7. As it is stated that the earlier marks were granted in the interview process where two respective candidates were present. Therefore, it is provided that in the denovo selection also the two respective petitioners shall be allowed to remain present but the consideration shall be only in respect of the aforesaid two criterias and no further material shall be produced other than the materials already on record. 8. Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the college authorities states that in the meantime, some of the members of the selection committee may have superannuated from service. The Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the same combination of the selection committee undertakes the denovo exercise as because a fresh selection committee may have a totally different view on the matter and it can no longer be construed to be a re-exercise. 9. The Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the same combination of the selection committee undertakes the denovo exercise as because a fresh selection committee may have a totally different view on the matter and it can no longer be construed to be a re-exercise. 9. In any view of the matter, the same will also in our view would not be a violation of any rules inasmuch as, the members of the selection committee are to be selected on the basis of their position rather than any posts that they hold. 10. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 11. It is provided that the date and time of interview shall be notified to both the petitioners. Upon undertaking denovo exercise, the subsequent follow up action as per law shall be proceeded with. It is provided that the result of the denovo process as provided shall prevail over the earlier result. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.