Dr. Madhab Sutradhar vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2154 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Dr. Madhab Sutradhar vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 22 January, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                            Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010106402024




                        THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/2776/2024

         DR. MADHAB SUTRADHAR
         S/O- JITEN SUTRADHAR,
         R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O- SALBARI,
         DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6 ASSAM.

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION

          ASSAM
          KAHILIPARA
          GUWAHATI-19
          ASSAM.

         3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
          BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM
          PIN-783370

         4:THE SECRETARY
          BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM
          PIN-783370

         5:THE PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY
                                                                         Page No.# 2/9

             BARAMA COLLEGE
             P.O.- BARAMA
             DISTRICT- BAKSA
             BTAD
             PIN- 781346.

            6:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE BARAMA
            COLLEGE
             FOR INTERVIEW HELD ON 6-6-22 FOR SELECTION OF ASSISTANT
            PROFESSOR OF ASSAMESE (ROSTER POINT NO-40) IN BARAMA COLLEGE
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
             BARAMA COLLEGE
             BAKSA-781346

            7:KARABI DAS
             R/O- VILLAGE- BARBELBARI

            P.O- ZARKHONA
             DIST- TAMULPUR
             PIN-78136

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N HAQUE, MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR M HUSSAIN,MR. A K
AZAD,MR K UDDIN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, BTC




             Linked Case : WP(C)/3058/2024

            DHANASHREE KALITA
            D/O- JOY CHARAN KALITA
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARJAR
            P.O. BARAMA
            DISTRICT- NALBARI (ASSAM)
            PIN- 781346


             VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
            GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
            HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
            DISPUR
                                                         Page No.# 3/9

GUWAHATI-6

2:DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
 KAHILIPARA
 GUWAHATI-19

3:SECRETARY TO THE BODOLAND COUNCIL
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRRAJHAR

4:DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
KOKRAJHAR
PIN-

5:PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY
BARAMA COLLEGE
BARAMA
DIST.- BAKSA (BTR)
ASSAM
PIN- 781346

6:SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE BARAMA COLLEGE
FOR INTERVIEW HELD ON 6-6-22
FOR SELECTION OF ASSISTNT PROFESSOR OF ASSAMESE (ROSTER POINT
NO-40) IN BARAMA COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
BARAMA COLLEGE
BAKSA- 781346

7:UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI- 110002

8:SMT. KARABI DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARBELBARI
P.O. ZARKHONA
DISTRICT- TAMULPUR
PIN- 78136
------------
Advocate for : MR D MAHANTA
Advocate for : SC
HIGHER EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
                                                                     Page No.# 4/9




                               BEFORE
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                   ORDER

Date : 22.01.2025

1. Heard Mr.T.J.Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) /3058/2024 and Mr. N.Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024. Mr. S.Bora, learned counsel appears for the respondent BTC and Dr.P.Agarwal, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.7. Ms. I Das, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. D.Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department, Government of Assam.

2. The two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order, inasmuch as, the two writ petitioners have made a challenge to the selection of Smti Karabi Das who is the respondent No.8 in WP (C) /3058/2024 and respondent No. 7 in WP(C) /2776/2024, as Assistant Professor, Assamese in Barama College, Barama pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.04.2022. No one appears for Smti Karabi Das, though she is deemed to have been served notice as per the order of the Lawazima Court on 05.08.2024 in WP (C) / 3058/2024.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 07.04.2022 for filling up the post of Lecturer/ Assistant Professor in the department of Assamese in Barama College, the two writ petitioners herein and Smti Karabi Das took part in the selection process, amongst others. The marks obtained by the various candidates were tabulated by the Selection Committee, Page No.# 5/9

wherein the petitioner in WP (C) /3058/2024 had secured the highest marks, i.e. 67%. The petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024 secured 55% of marks, while Smti Karabi Das secured 54.57% marks, though in the tabulation sheet, the marks of Smti Karabi Das has erroneously been shown to be 64.14%.

4. The Advertisement dated 07.04.2022, for filling up the post of Assistant Professor, Assamese provided that the required eligibility qualifications of the candidates would be as provided in the Office Memorandum No. AHE.239/2021/68 dated 24.01.2022 (Page 31, WP(C)/3058/2024). The Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2022 amongst others provided the educational qualification as follows:

(i) Good Academic record as defined by the concerned University with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade in a point scale at the Master Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University.

(ii) Besides, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.

(iii) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub clause (i) and (ii) to the clause 4.40.1, of the UGC Regulations 30th June, 2010 candidates who have a Ph.D Degree in accordance with the University Grant Commission (Minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree Regulation. 2009) shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET.

(iv) NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Master programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted.

(v) A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Masters level for the Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe/ Differently-abled (Physically and visually differently-abled) categories for the purpose of eligibility. The 5% relaxation will not Include any grace (clause-3.4.1)

(vi) The period of time taken by Candidates to acquire M.Phil and/or Ph.D Degree shall not be considered as Teaching/research experience for appointment to the positions (clause-3.9.0).

5. The above being said, the Selection Committee selected and Page No.# 6/9

recommended the appointment of the petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024 as Assistant Professor in the Department of Assamese on the ground that he was a qualified Ph.D Degree holder and that the college needed a Ph.D Degree holder, though he had secured lesser marks than the petitioner in WP(C)/3058/2024.

6. The petitioner in WP(C)/3058/2024 being aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024, put the selection under challenge in WP (C) No. 6333/2022.

7. This court while disposing the WP (C) No. 6333/2022, observed that there was nothing provided in the eligibility conditions / educational qualification that candidates having a Ph.D Degree would be considered over and above other candidates, even if the other candidates got higher marks than the candidates who had a Ph.D. Degree. This court accordingly held that the petitioner in WP(C)/3058/2024 having secured higher marks than the petitioner in WP(C)/2776/2024, the selection and recommendation of the petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024 as Assistant Professor (Assamese) was arbitrary. The selection and recommendation of the petitioner in WP(C)/2776/2024 was accordingly set aside and the authorities were directed to make a fresh selection, on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates.

8. In pursuance to the order dated 13.12.2013 passed in WP(C) 6333/2022, the Selection Committee considered the cases of the candidates again and selected Smti Karabi Das for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Assamese, only on the ground that she belonged to the BTC area, even though Smti Karabi Das had secured lesser marks than both the petitioners herein.

Page No.# 7/9

9. The petitioners herein have thus put to challenge the selection and re- commendation of Smti Karabi Das for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, Department of Assamese.

10. The counsels for both the petitioners herein submit that there is nothing provided in the eligibility criteria of candidates for selecting a person belonging to BTC area, over and above other candidates who have secured higher marks and who do not belong to the BTC area.

11. The counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024 has a further argument, which is to the effect that the petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024 also belongs to the BTC area and as he secured more marks than Smti Karabi Das, the Selection Committee could not have overlooked the case of the petitioner in WP(C) /2776/2024.

12. Mr. S.Bora, learned counsel for the BTC submits that BTC will not be filing any affidavit and will abide by the decision of this court. He also submits that there is an error in the tabulation of marks in relation to Smti Karabi Das, inasmuch as, the actual marks of Smti Karabi Das should be 54.57 % ( total marks 382) instead of the marks provided in the tabulation sheet, i.e.(435) 62.14%.

13. Dr. P.Agarwal, learned counsel for the UGC submits as has been clearly stated in the paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed by the UGC, the decision of the concerned respondent authorities on 26.04.2024, to select the candidate, residing in the BTC area, by ignoring the candidates who secured higher marks, is arbitrary and malafide.

14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

15. The advertisement does not provide for giving preference to a candidate Page No.# 8/9

who has a Ph.D.Degree though preference can be given to a candidate belonging to the BTC area. However, the same would be subject to the condition that candidates belonging to the BTC area had secured equal marks as other candidates, who do not belong to the BTC area. In this respect, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Tangedco & Ors -vs- Priyadarshini, Civil Appeal No. 6470/2021, reported in 2021 (4) SCT 426 (SC), wherein it has referred to another decision in the case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission vs- Y.V.V.R.Srinivasulu & Ors reported in (2003) 5 SCC 341 and held that preference in the context of all such competitive scheme of selection would only mean that the other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred.

16. The petitioner in WP(C)/3058/2024 having secured higher marks than the petitioner in WP No.2776/2024 and Smti Karabi Das, there was no occasion to apply the preference clause in the advertisement, in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court quoted above. Consequently, the selection and re- commendation of Smti Karabi Das by the Selection Committee as Assistant Professor, Department of Assamese is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The selection and recommendation of Smti Karabi Das as Assistant Professor (Assamese Department) is accordingly set aside. It is also seen that the writ petitioner in WP(C)/3058/2024 has secured the highest marks in the selection process. The Selection Committee/ State respondents are directed to make the selection and recommendation of the successful candidate, solely on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates, inasmuch as, there is nothing to show that the candidates that are mentioned in the tabulation sheet do not have the other eligibility criteria to be appointed to the said post. The said Page No.# 9/9

exercise should be concluded within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the order dated 26.04.2024 issued by the Secretary, BTC is hereby set aside.

17. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant