Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 22 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010196132022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6299/2022
DR. DIMA RANI BORGOHAIN AND 3 ORS
DAUGHTER OF SRI HEM BORGOHAIN,
RESIDENT OF PADMAPUR,
P.O.- LAKHIPATHAR,
DISTRICT- DHEMAJI, ASSAM,
PIN- 787057.
2: DR. ARCHITA BHATTACHARYYA
WIFE OF MRINMOY DUTTA
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.-2
NEAR JAGANATH HOMEO HALL
K.K. BHATTA ROAD
CHENIKUTHI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
PIN- 781003.
3: DR. ANURADHA DAS
WIFE OF CHIDANANDA TALUKDAR
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 170
SOURAV NAGAR
GOLAP PATH
BELTOLA TINIALI
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM. PIN- 781028.
4: ROFIQUE UDDIN LASKAR
SON OF ABDUR RAHMAN LASKAR
RESIDENT OF ABDULLAPUR PART-2
P.O.- SARBANANDAPUR
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
PIN- 788163
Page No.# 2/5
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION),
127-C, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
3:JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19.
5:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI- 110002
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
ORDER
Date : 22-09-2022
Heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M
Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioners
are aggrieved by the communication dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-7) by
Page No.# 3/5
which letter of appointment for the post of Assistant Professors/Librarians
amongst others have been sought to be given to the persons, whose names
are attached to the said communication as Annexure-A.
The learned senior counsel submits that a number of persons had earlier
approached this Court, including the present petitioner No. 2 by filing three
separate writ petitions challenging the Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2022
(Annexure-3) by which the State of Assam in the Higher Education Department
had formulated guidelines for selection of Assistant Professors/Librarians in
provincialised Government and Government Model Colleges, Assam. According
to the petitioners in those writ petitions, such guidelines were not necessary in
view of the fact that the UGC has formulated its guidelines in this regard and
the same is applicable to all the colleges and institutions affiliated to the UGC.
This Court vide the common judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 in
those writ petitions came to a finding that the UGC regulations are only
directory in nature and not mandatory and therefore, did not interfere with the
Office Memorandum impugned in the writ petitions. However, the Court was of
the view that the respondent/Government should adopt and undertake the
process of rationalisation by devising its own method to rationalise the marks
obtained by candidates concerned so as to avoid a situation of violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned senior counsel for the
petitioners submits that without undertaking any such process of rationalisation,
the impugned communication has been issued.
At this stage, Mr. D Saikia, learned Advocate General appears for the State
respondents and submits that this Court in earlier round of litigation, as referred
to by the petitioners did not interfere with the Office Memorandum dated
24.01.2022. If at all the petitioners, more particularly, petitioner No. 2, who was
Page No.# 4/5
a party to the earlier round of litigation is aggrieved with the subsequent actions
of the State respondents, the course of action to be adopted would be to file a
contempt petition and not a fresh writ petition. He also submits that the
petitioners in the earlier round of litigation have also filed WA No. 302/2022
challenging the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 and therefore, the
petitioners cannot insist on compliance of the judgment and order and at the
same time challenge the same before the appellate forum. By producing a
notification dated 03.09.2022 and also the minutes of the meeting dated
05.09.2022 of the Expert Committee to discuss rationalisation of the selection
process in terms of the Court's direction, the learned Advocate General submits
that upon due examination of the Office Memorandum and also the process
undertaken at an earlier point of time, the Expert Committee was of the view
that the exercise of rationalisation had already been undertaken and therefore,
it was not necessary to repeat the exercise afresh. The exercise included all the
petitioners and other similarly situated persons and therefore, the petitioners
cannot have any grievance.
Having regard to the above, projection made by the petitioners and the
State respondents, on the other hand, let notice of motion be issued, returnable
by 4 (four) weeks.
Mr. K Gogoi, learned State Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf
of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, while Mr. H Gupta, learned counsel appears and
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. A Chamuah, learned
Standing Counsel, UGC appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.
5.
Notice is complete upon all the respondents.
Page No.# 5/5
Petitioners to serve extra copies of the writ petition to the learned
counsels for the respondents within 2 (two) days.
List the matter again after 4 (four) weeks.
Respondents to file their counter-affidavit in the meantime.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
