Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Dr. Amalendu Nag And 2 Ors on 27 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010200772018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/195/2019
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6.
2: THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
VERSUS
DR. AMALENDU NAG AND 2 ORS
S/O- LATE SURENDRA KUMAR NAG, R/O- MODEL TOWNSHIP, WARD NO. 3,
P.O. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788151.
2:THE GOVERNING BODY OF SRIKISHAN SARDA COLLEGE
HAILAKANDI
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL I/C CUM MEMBER SECRETARY
P.O. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 788151.
3:THE PRESIDENT
GOVERNING BODY OF SRIKISHAN SARDA COLLEGE
HAILAKANDI
P.O. AND DIST.- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN- 78815
Advocate for the Petitioner :
Advocate for the Respondent : MR B D DAS
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 27.01.2021
Heard Mr. A Chamuah, learned counsel for the appellants State of Assam.
Also heard Mr.B Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. AB Dey,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Earlier Mr. Chamuah, learned counsel had appeared for the UGC. However, in the
present case, UGC will be represented by learned counsel Ms. D Dutta.
This appeal has been put up today on mention on the plea that respondent No.1/
writ petitioner is going to retire on 31.01.2021.
It is the case of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner that his case was already
recommended by the Governing Body in its resolution dated 03.01.2017 for appointment
as the Principal of SS College, Hailakandi. However, as the Director of Higher Education,
Assam refused to grant approval to the said recommendation of the Governing Body, the
respondent No.1/petititoner filed a writ petition being WP (C) 4086/2017 which was
allowed by directing the authority to make a fresh consideration of the recommendation
made by the Governing Body. However, before the said consideration took place, the
appeal has been filed and the judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed in WP (C) 4086/2017
has been suspended vide order, dated 26.08.2019. As a result, though the petititioner
was successful in the writ petition, he has not been able to get the fruit of the same
because of the suspension order passed in the appeal and in the meantime, respondent
No.1/petitioner is going to retire w.e.f. 01.02.2021 and as such if the appeal is not heard
before that, it will become virtually infructous.
However, we are of the opinion that if the appeal is allowed, obviously the
question on the issue of retirement of the resondent No.1/ writ petitioner will have no
consequence but on the other hand, if the appeal is dismissed, the petititoner would be
Page No.# 3/3
entitiled to get certain benefit on fresh reconsideration of his case by the Director, Higher
Education as directed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 4086/2017 which may flow
out of the order, dated 19.07.2018.
We make the above observation for the reason that it would be not possible to
hear the appeal today as the learned counsel for the UGC is not present before us today.
Accordingly, the matter stands adjourned for 2(two) weeks for hearing and the
same be listed before the appropriate bench with the observation that in the event, the
appeal is not successful, the petititioner would be entitled to such benefit as per law
which will flow out of the order, dated 19.07.2018, even if the respondent No.1 retires
from service in the meantime.
List on 15.02.2021.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
