Gauhati High Court
Dr Gitali Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 17 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010096362023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2653/2023
DR GITALI SAIKIA
D/O LATE PRAFULLA CHANDRA SAIKIA
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, HCDG COLLEGE,
NITAIPUKHURI, P.O. NITAIPUKHURI, DIST. SIBASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-
785671
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF EKORANI SINALI PATH, DEMOW MADHUPUR,
P.O. DEMOW, DIST. SIVASAGAR, PIN-785662
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019.
3:THE INSPECTOR OF COLLEGES
ASSAM
OFFICER OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-781019.
4:THE VICE CHANCELLOR
Page No.# 2/6
DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
5:THE PRESIDENT
GOVERNING BODY HCDG COLLEGE
NITAIPUKHURI
P.O. NITAIPUKHURI
DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-785671.
6:DR BIRINCHI KUMAR BORA
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY JHANJI HEMNATH SARMA COLLEGE
JHANJI
DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P C DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
17.05.2023
Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.
Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education for the respondents No. 1, 2
& 3, Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. P.
Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is apprehending non-selection
by the Selection Committee for the process of Selection and appointment of
Principal of H.C.D.G College, Nitaipukhuri, Sivasagar. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the selection process is contrary to the Rules framed and
as per information from reliable sources the selection committee consists of a
Guardian Member which is not prescribe under the Rules.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an RTI application to
that effect has also been filed but no reply has been furnished. Representation
ventilating her grievances has also been preferred before the Vice Chancellor,
Dibrugarh University vide representation dated 20.04.2023. It is submitted that
the petitioner has satisfied all the criteria and has appeared before the interview
board and was hopeful of being selected. However, the petitioner submits that
the selection process conducted by the Authorities is an eye wash to select the
private respondent and the manner in which the selection was conducted is
totally opposed to the provisions of the Rules.
4. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education appears
and submits that the selection has been conducted in terms of Assam College
Page No.# 4/6
Employees (Provincialization) Rules, 2010 as amended up-to-date. As per the
amended provision, the selection committee for selection to the post of Principal
were direct recruitment will consist of the following members:
"(i) Vice-Chancellor of the Affiliating University Chairperson
(ii) President of the Governing Body of the College Member Secretary
(iii) One nominee of the Vice-Chancellor who shall
be a Higher Education Expert. Member
(iv) One nominee of the Governing Body of the College who
shall be an expert in academic administration Member
(v) Three experts consisting of the Principal of a College,
a Professor and accomplished educationalists not below
the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the
Governing Body of the College) out of a panel of six
experts approved by the relevant statutory body of
the University concerned. Member
(vi) An academician not below the rank of a Professor
shall be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor.
If there are candidates/applicants to the post
of Principal belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differently-
abled categories and there are no members
representing that category in the Selection Committee Member
Provided that at least five members including two experts from (v) above, shall
constitute the quorum"
5. The learned counsel for the Department submits that there is no provision
for appointment of Guardian Member and therefore, the allegations made by the
petitioner are incorrect. He further submits that this petition is pre-mature as
the selection process is not yet complete and matter is pending for approval
before the Director, Higher Education and until and unless some orders are
passed by the Director, Higher Education granting or rejecting the approval for
Page No.# 5/6
the recommendation by the selection committee, no selection process cannot be
deemed to be completed. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gogoi relies on a
Judgment of Mrinal Kr. Borah Vs. State of Assam reported in 2017 (1) GLT 737.
6. Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that the
contentions of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be accepted in view of the
fact that he participated in the selection process and having participated he
cannot now turn around and allege that the selection process is an eye wash or
that the constitution of selection committee is not as per the norms and the
Rules. He relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian
Airlines reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 to support his contention that candidates
who appear before the interview board cannot turn around and question of the
validity of the selection for the constitution of the selection committee. Mr.
Saikia submits that as per information available, the petitioner and the
respondent No. 6 are the selected candidates recommended for appointment by
the selection committee, however, the same is presently pending approval
before the Director of Higher Education.
7. Under the Circumstances, this Court is of the view that the counsel for the
Department shall obtain required instructions as to the composition of the
selection committee and whether it includes any guardian member during the
process of selection. The relevant information be placed before the Court by the
next date.
8. Since it is submitted that the matter is presently pending for approval. The
question of interim prayer of the petitioner will be considered on the next
returnable date. However, in the event of approval and appointment of the
respondent No. 6, the same shall be made subject to outcome of the writ
petition or any further orders as may be passed by this Court.
Page No.# 6/6
9. Since the matter will require examination, let Notice be issued, Returnable
in four weeks.
10. Since the learned counsels for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 are
represented, no formal notice need to be issued to them. However, extra copies
of the writ petition be furnished within a period of one week.
11. Meanwhile, steps be taken on respondent No. 5 by registered post with
A/D. Dasti is also permitted.
12. The question of maintainability of the writ petition will be kept open to be
considered on the next returnable date.
13. List on 19.06.2023.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
