Gauhati High Court
Mithun Paul vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 8 June, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010189692020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5733/2020
MITHUN PAUL
S/O LATE HARIDAS PAUL,
R/O GOBINDA PALLY, PO AND PS HOJAI, DIST HOJAI, ASSAM 782435
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI
781006
2:JOINT SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI 781019
4:THE PRINCIPAL
GOVT. MODEL COLLEGE
BORKHOLA
CACHAR
PO JARAITOLA
DIST CACHAR
ASSAM 788127
5:DR. RUPASHREE PAUL
Page No.# 2/4
W/O MR. MUN PAUL
R/O SUNDARI MOHAN LANE
RANGIR KHARI
HAILAKHANDI ROAD
NEAR ARYAN JUNIOR COLLEGE
WARD NO. 18
P.O.- SILCHAR
P.S.- RANGIR KHARI
DIISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM.
6:DIKHYA DEY
D/O- ADHIR DEY
R/O- GAGHJAN TEA ESTATE
P.O.- DOOMDOOMA
P.S.- BAGHJAN
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 08-06-2022
Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4
being the authorities in the Higher Education Department,
Government of Assam. Also heard Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for
the respondents No. 5 and 6.
2. The petitioner along with respondents No. 5 and 6 had
participated in a selection process for the post, amongst others,
Assistant Professor in Education in the Government Model College,
Borkhola in the Cachar District pursuant to an advertisement No.
Page No.# 3/4
01/2020 dated 17.10.2020. The petitioner is aggrieved by the O.M.
No. AHE.407/2017/54 dated 25.11.2020 of the Higher Education
Department of the Government Assam, whereby 5% marks allotted
for viva voce test had been withdrawn.
3. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the Higher Education
Department submits that the issue as regards withdrawing 5%
marks for the viva voce had been decided by this Court vide a
judgment dated 09.03.2022 in WP(C) No. 58/2021 and other similar
writ petitions and therefore, as the issue had been decided, no
further adjudication is required. Accordingly, reliance is placed upon
paragraph 46 of the aforesaid judgment which is extracted as below:
"46. On a careful consideration of the aforesaid OMs, this Court is of
the opinion that deletion of 5 (five) marks from the Head of Interaction
with Selection Committee which is wholly subjective in nature cannot be
faulted with and rather such deletion is prima facie in the interest of a
public service to cast aside the scope of any nepotism or bias in the
selection process. This Court is further of the opinion that allotment of 3
(three)marks under the Heads of NCC(C)certificate, Gold Medal and
representing the State in any Olympic Sport at the National Level (one
mark each) are relevant factors which have been brought under
consideration."
4. A reading of the extracted portion of the judgment dated
09.03.2022 makes it discernible that there is already a judgment
that the deletion of the 5% marks from the Head of Interaction with
Selection Committee was wholly subjective in nature and cannot be
faulted with and that such deletion was prima facie in the interest of
public service to cast aside the scope of any nepotism or biasness in
the selection process.
5. As the issue already had been decided, we are of the view that
no further adjudication is required in this matter and the issue raised
Page No.# 4/4
is answered as per paragraph 46 of the judgment dated 09.03.2022
in WP(C) No. 58/2021 and other similar writ petitions.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed.
7. A copy of the judgment dated 09.03.2022 in WP(C) No. 58/2021
is kept on record.
The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
