JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. B.D Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for Higher Education Department and Mr. M.K Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner, who has been working as a Lecturer in the Pragjyotish College in the Department of Botany from the year 1995 is presently working as an Associate Professor in the said Department. In course of his tenure as a Lecturer, he also obtained his PhD in Botany in the year 2003 from the Gauhati University. On the superannuation of the earlier Principal of Pragjyotish College, a vacancy had arisen in the said post, for which an advertisement dated 05.12.2011 was published. Initially there was an issue as to the prescribed upper age limit for the post of Principal, which the petitioner had assailed in a writ petition being WP(C) No.5064/2011. In the said writ petition, the upper age limit of 50 years was set aside and a direction was issued for a fresh selection process under the Rules. In the resultant process, the petitioner was selected and recommended by the Governing Body of the College vide resolution dated 22.11.2016. 3. When the said resolution was sent to the Director of Higher Education for his approval, the order dated 05.01.2017 was passed by the Director of Higher Education. The Director had refused the approval on two grounds that for the purpose of research guidance, the petitioner had submitted two certificates i.e. a certificate dated 04.02.2011 from the Assam Institute of Advance Studies, which indicates that the petitioner is an approved guide of the Institute, which in turn is an authorized study centre of the Vinayaka Missions University, Salem and Tamilnadu. The other reason for refusing the approval is that the petitioner had also submitted a certificate in support of research guidance from the GMJ University. In respect of the certificate from the Assam Institute of Advance Study, the order of the Director of 05.01.2017 stated that the Assam Institute of Advance Study is not a University and as such the same cannot be accepted as a certificate of research guidance. In respect of the certificate from the Assam Institute of Advance Study, the order of the Director of 05.01.2017 stated that the Assam Institute of Advance Study is not a University and as such the same cannot be accepted as a certificate of research guidance. In respect of the certificate given by the CMJ University, the order states that there has been much litigation over the University in the recent past and although its name appeared as a Private University in the UGC consolidated list, but the same is unacceptable. 4. With regard to the first reason of not accepting the certificate of the Assam Institute of Advance Studies, this Court does not express any view on the same inasmuch as, the said Institute being a study centre of Vinayaka Missions University, Salem and Tamilnadu, the courses provided by it are in a distant mode and as per Regulation-5 of the UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Awards of MPhil/PhD Degree) Regulation, 2009, an MPhil or PhD Programme through distance mode is unacceptable. But with regard to the other reason that the certificate of the CMJ University cannot be accepted as there has been much litigation over the University, this Court finds the same on its own to be unacceptable. As long as the University is a validly recognized University by the UGC, merely because there may be some litigation over the University, the certificates granted by it cannot be said to be unacceptable. 5. But at the same time, MR. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for Higher Education Department relies upon an affidavit in opposition of the Director of Higher Education, Assam wherein a communication dated 06.07.2017 of the Secretary, UGC is annexed which provides that “Universities shall allocate the supervisor from amongst the regular faculty members in a department or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes depending on the number of students per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors and the research interest of the student. It is further clarified that any PhD/MPhil degree awarded by a University under the supervision of a supervisor who is not a faculty member of the University or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes would be in violation of UGC (Minimum standards and procedure for award of M Phil/PhD) Regulations, 2009.” 6. Mr. It is further clarified that any PhD/MPhil degree awarded by a University under the supervision of a supervisor who is not a faculty member of the University or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes would be in violation of UGC (Minimum standards and procedure for award of M Phil/PhD) Regulations, 2009.” 6. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for Higher Education Department relies upon a subsequent communication of 04.09.2015 also from the Secretary, UGC, which again reiterates that only regular faculty member of a University can be appointed as research supervisors. 7. However, it is noticed that the said reason for passing the order dated 05.01.2017 by the Director has been raised by the respondents only through an affidavit in the present writ proceeding and the said reason are not a part of the reason given in the order of 05.01.2017. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-21 of Mohinder Singh Gill and another -vs-The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , an order assailed in a Court of law has to be tested on the basis of the reasons for which such order was passed and any other reason cannot be substituted by the authority through an affidavit in a Court proceeding. 8. In view of the such principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the reasons given by Mr. K Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for Higher Education Department justifying the order of 05.01.2017 cannot be accepted in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, while setting aside the order of 05.01.2017 of the Director of Higher Education as regards the reasoning given in respect of CMJ University, while not interfering with the other reason, the matter is remanded back to the Director of Higher Education for a fresh adjudication as per law and in doing so, the earlier orders dated 30.09.2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.3371/2016 and WP(C) No.1706/2015, may also be taken into consideration. 10. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the Director within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. As the post of Principal of Pragjyotish College has been lying vacant since the year 2011, the authorities shall expedite and complete the process at the earliest. 10. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the Director within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. As the post of Principal of Pragjyotish College has been lying vacant since the year 2011, the authorities shall expedite and complete the process at the earliest. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.