JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the High Education Department, Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the Gauhati University, Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the Dibrugarh University, Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for UGC and Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the Assam University. 2. Considering the nature of the order to be proposed to be passed, we do not feel that the notices are required to be issued to other respondents inasmuch as, the order in our view would not cause any prejudice to any of such respondents. By this order, we propose only to clarify the implications and purport of an earlier judgment of this Court dated 16.09.2019 in WP(C) No. 7318/2017 and other writ petitions. 3. In the writ petition no. 7318/2019 and the other writ petitions, a circular dated 03.10.2017 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam was assailed. In the said circular it was provided that only M.Sc in Botany and Zoology would be eligible to be applied for the post advertised for the subject Botany and Zoology, which is extracted as below. "Based on the view so received, it is provided that only M.Sc. in BOT and Zoology will be eligible to apply for the post advertised for Botany and Zoology." 4. By the judgment dated 16.09.2019 in WP(C) No. 7318/2017 in paragraph 26 it was provided as extracted below: " Accordingly, the reasons discussed above, the impugned circular dated 03.10.2017 is set aside with the direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, Director of Higher Education, to reconsider acceptance or otherwise of the recommendation made by the selection committee for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher in Botany." 5. The implication of paragraph 26 of the judgment dated 16.09.2019 is that the circular dated 03.10.2017 providing only M.Sc in Botany and Zoology would be applicable to apply for the posts advertised for Botany and Zoology was set aside. As a corollary of setting aside the said circular it would mean that the persons who are qualified in M.Sc. in subjects other than Botany and Zoology would also be eligible to participate for the post of Botany and Zoology. It is given to understand that the subjects other than that Botany and Zoology comprises of M.Sc in Biotechnology, Microbiology etc. 6. in subjects other than Botany and Zoology would also be eligible to participate for the post of Botany and Zoology. It is given to understand that the subjects other than that Botany and Zoology comprises of M.Sc in Biotechnology, Microbiology etc. 6. The petitioners are aggrieved to the extent that in the advertisement impugned in this writ petition, the educational qualifications have been provided that the candidates must have 55% marks or have equal grade at the Master Degree level in the concerned subjects. A confusion has arisen as regards the interpretation of the expression 'concerned subjects' in the advertisement that are impugned. As the issue had already been decided as to whether for being eligible for the subjects of Botany and Zoology whether the educational qualifications should be confined to Botany and Zoology itself, we are of the view that the expression 'concerned subjects' in the advertisement impugned would have to be interpreted as to what has been provided in the judgment dated 16.09.2019 of this Court in WP(C) No. 7318/2017 and other writ petitions. 7. We are of the view that if the expression 'concerned subjects' in the advertisements impugned is not appropriately explained by the authorities in the Higher Education Department, the confusion would remain as regards whether a given candidate is or not eligible to participate in the selection process pursuant to such advertisements. 8. In view of the above, instead of issuing notice to all the respondents, we require the Director of Higher Education, Assam to examine the said aspect and give a clarificatory explanation of the expression 'concerned subjects' as provided in the various advertisement that are impugned before the Court. Upon such clarificatory order being issued by the Director which should be inconfirmity with the provisions of the judgment dated 16.09.2019, the selection process pursuant to the advertisement be continued and brought to its logical end and whoever is found to eligible as per the clarificatory order to be issued by the Director and had applied pursuant to advertisement be allowed to participate in the selection process. 9. Any clarificatory order that the Director would pass be communicated to the petitioners. The requirement be done within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.