Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/19 vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 3 September, 2025
Author: Nelson Sailo
Bench: Nelson Sailo
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010024502024
2025:GAU-AS:11882
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/598/2024
PRAMOD MEDHI
S/O- LATE KAMALAKANTA MEDHI,
R/O- VILL.- BHOGPUR, P.O. BARAMA,
DIST. BAKSA, BTR, ASSAM,
PIN- 781346.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, EDUCATION
(HIGHER), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC)
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
3:THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
BTC
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (BTC)
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
5:BODOLAND UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
Page No.# 2/19
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
6:PRINCIPAL SELECTION COMMITTEE OF GORESWAR COLLEGE
GORESWAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (VICE CHANCELLOR BODOLAND
UNIVERSITY)
GORESWAR COLLEGE
GORESWAR
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
7:THE GOVERNING BODY OF GORESWAR COLLEGE
GORESWAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
DIST. TAMULPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 781366.
8:DR. PRATIVA PATOWARY
D/O- LATE SARD CHANDRA PATOWARY
HOUSE NO. 8-H
SHANTI VALLEY APARTMENT BLOCK-A
P.O. GATANAGAR
P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781011.
9:THE DIRECTOR
INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL
BODOLAND UNIVERSITY
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
BTR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
10:UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
35 FEROZE SHAH ROAD
NEW DELHI PIN-11000
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR. H R DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, BODOLAND UNIVERSITY,MRS R DEKA
(R-7),MR. A CHAMUAH (SC, UGC),MR S MUKTAR (R-8),SC, BTC
Page No.# 3/19
Linked Case : WP(C)/3543/2023
DR. PRATIVA PATOWARY
DAUGHTER OF LATE SARAT CH. PATOWARY
HOUSE NO. 8-H
SANTI VALLEY APARTMENT
BLOCK-A
P.O.- GOTANAGAR
P.S.- JALUKBARI
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781011.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC)
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
3:THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
BTC
BODOFA NWGWR
KOKRAJHAR
PIN- 783370.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
BTC
KOKRAJHAR
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAKSA DISTRICT
Page No.# 4/19
MUSHALPUR
PIN- 781277.
6:THE GOVERNING BODY OF GORESWAR COLLEGE
GORESWAR
DISTRICT- BAKSA
PIN- 781366
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
7:DR. PRAMOD MEDHI
THE PRINCIPAL
GORESWAR COLLEGE
GORESWAR
DIST.- BAKSA
PIN- 781366.
------------
Advocate for : MR S MUKTAR
Advocate for : SC
HIGHER EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
Date : 03-09-2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order,
since the issues involved are similar. The matters were taken up for hearing on
22.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and thereafter on 12.08.2025. I have heard Mr. B.D.
Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.R. Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner in WP(C) No.598/2024 and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Dr. P.P. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)
No.3543/2023. I have also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC for
the BTC respondents, Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, Higher
Education Department for the said Department, Mr. V.K. Barooah, learned
counsel for the Bodoland University, Mr. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, UGC and representing
Page No.# 5/19
the UGC respondents and Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the
Governing Body, Goreswar College, Goreswar.
[2.] Controversy in the instant case revolves around the filling up of the
post of Principal, Goreswar College, Goreswar on regular basis. An
advertisement was floated in the local daily dated 01.01.2023 inviting
applications from eligible candidates having the qualification for the said post
with supporting testimonials from HSLC onwards. The controversy involved can
be narrowed down for consideration on two conditions provided in the said
advertisement. The first being condition No.5, which provides that one must
have a minimum of 10(ten) research publication in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed
journals and a minimum of 110 research score as per Appendix-II at Table No.2
in order to be eligible to be considered for the post in question. The second is
condition No.10, which provides that preference shall be given to the candidates
belonging to Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR).
[3.] Pursuant to the said advertisement, interested candidates including
the petitioners in both the cases, submitted their applications. Interview was
held on 06.04.2023 and out of the three candidates, who were called for
interview, one was absent and both the petitioners in the two cases appeared
for the interview. The petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023 scored a total of 427.4
marks with an average of 61.05 while the petitioner in WP(C) No.598/2024
scored 400.58 marks with an average of 57.23 marks. The Selection Committee
therefore vide Resolution No.1, selected the petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023
for appointment against the post concerned based on the performance in the
interview held on 06.04.2023 and further resolved that the resolution of the
Selection Committee be forwarded to the Governing Body for its approval and
Page No.# 6/19
necessary action for appointment.
[4.] Thereafter, a special meeting of the Governing Body, Goreswar
College was convened on 16.04.2023, wherein the Governing Body resolved to
appoint the petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023, who was selected and placed in
the first position by the Expert Committee of Bodoland University for the post of
regular Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar. By the said resolution, it was
also mentioned that the petitioner in WP(C) No.598/2024 who has secured the
second position, is a permanent resident of BTR area. Accordingly, the Principal
in-Charge/President of Governing Body was authorized to submit the proposal to
the Director of Education, BTC for necessary action. Pursuant thereto, the
Director of Education, BTC vide order dated 10.05.2023 appointed the petitioner
in WP(C) No.598/2024, who was placed in the second position as regular
Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar w.e.f the date of his joining the said
post. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner in WP(C) No.3543/2023 submitted
a representation before the Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar, Assam as well as the
Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, Assam on 15.05.2023 praying for
reconsideration of the approval given by the Director of Education, BTC in view
of the fact that she was selected in the first position by the Selection
Committee. Since the same was not considered, the said petitioner filed WP(C)
No. 3543/2023.
[5.] The said petitioner by relying upon the marks allotted by the
Selection Committee as well as the Resolution of the Governing Body of the
Goreswar College, namely, Resolution No. 3 has claimed that the petitioner in
WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 could not have been appointed since she was found to
secure the first position scoring more marks than the latter. Further, the Clause-
Page No.# 7/19
10 of the Advertisement could not have been put into operation, given the fact
that she had secured more marks than the latter. Against the said writ petition,
the respondent Governing Body, Goreswar College as well as the private
respondent No. 7, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 filed an
affidavit-in-opposition. Likewise, the respondent No. 4, who is the Director of
Education, BTC has also filed a counter-affidavit. In all the affidavits filed, stand
taken is that the private respondent No. 7 or the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of
2024 being a local resident of BTC has been given the preference in terms of
Clause - 10 of the Advertisement and therefore, there was no irregularity in
giving him appointment.
[6.] It may be stated herein that the private respondent No. 7 in whose
favour the appointment order was issued also filed a writ petition i.e., WP(C)
No. 598 of 2024 by making the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 as
respondent No. 8. In his writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the eligibility
of the respondent No. 8/petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 to participate in
the interview for the post of Principal of Goreswar College in view of the
prescription made in the Advertisement and importantly, in view of what has
been stipulated in the Clause - 5 of the Advertisement dated 01.01.2023. In
other words, the said petitioner contends that the respondent No. 8 could not
fulfill the basic requirement of minimum of 10 (ten) research publications in
peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and she could not fulfill minimum of 110
(hundred and ten) research score as per Appendix-II at Table No. 2 (insofar as
non-fulfillment of the minimum research score as per Appendix-II at Table - 2,
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not press the same), and
therefore, the acceptance of the candidature of the respondent No. 8 for the
post of Principal in question is ex-facie arbitrary and in violation of the eligibility
Page No.# 8/19
criteria stipulated in the UGC Regulations, 2018 published in the Gazette
Notification dated 18.07.2018.
[7.] As per the said petitioner, he had submitted 20 (twenty) number of
research papers along with other research works fulfilling the requirement of
Regulation 4.1 V.A.(iii) of the UGC Guidelines, 2018. The said petitioner also
contends that in view of such shortcomings, which the petitioner detected after
applying for information through RTI, submitted his representation before the
Vice-Chancellor, Bodoland University as well as the Director of Education, BTC
on 01.02.2024 with a request to inquire into the anomalies in regard to the
selection process of the post of Principal, Goreswar College, Goreswar. Since,
there was no response from the authority concerned, the petitioner initiated his
writ petition by filing the same on 06.02.2024.
[8.] In response to the writ petition, the private respondent No. 8, who is
the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023 filed her counter-affidavit denying the
allegations made by the petitioner contending inter-alia that she was placed in
the first position in the Selection Process and that she has secured 10 (ten) of
her research papers published in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals which she
had clearly mentioned in Part- B at Page- 3 & 4 of her application form dated
13.01.2023 and that the 10 (ten) research papers with cover page of the
journals have been submitted along with the application form mentioned at
Serial No. 20 of the contents from Page No. 37 to 155. In other words, she
having clearly fulfilling the criteria stipulated in the Advertisement as per the
UGC Regulations and also having scored more marks than the writ petitioner,
she ought to have been appointed in the post of Principal of Goreswar College.
To support her statements, the respondent No. 8 annexed the contents of the
Page No.# 9/19
application form (Part A & Part B) to the affidavit. The University Grants
Commission (UGC) who was subsequently impleaded as party respondent No.
10 to the writ petition also filed their counter-affidavit, giving comments on the
list of publications submitted by the two writ petitioners with a specific
statement that UGC refrains from making any comments on the research articles
which are claimed to be published in peer-reviewed journal because no such
record of such journals are on its database.
[9.] The Director of Education, BTC on behalf of itself as well as on
behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed counter-affidavit stating that preference
can be given to candidates belonging to BTC as per Clause- 10 of the
Advertisement and as regards the publication of research papers by the
petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 8 being peer-reviewed or UGC-listed
journals, the BTC constituted a Committee vide BTC Notification under Memo
No. BTC/Edn-133/2022-23/Pt-II/635 dated 04.04.2024 for re-verification of the
research papers published in the journals submitted by the petitioner and the
respondent No. 8 for the post in question. A meeting was conducted on
01.06.2024 and accordingly, the minutes was recorded stating that the
respondent No. 8 had submitted 10(ten) research papers and out of these, only
1 (one) paper has been published in UGC-care-listed journal and valid for
consideration. Another 4 (four) papers are neither published in the indexed nor
in peer-reviewed journals and hence, liable to be rejected. The peer-reviewed
status of validity of the remaining 5 (five) papers could not be confirmed due to
lack of pertinent information. As for the writ petitioner, he had submitted 20
(twenty) papers and out of which, 18 (eighteen) papers were valid for counting,
5 (five) papers were published in Scopus-indexed journals and 13 (thirteen) in
the peer-reviewed journals and the remaining 2 (two) papers are not published
Page No.# 10/19
in peer-reviewed journals and therefore, may be rejected. It may be stated
herein that the findings of the said committee is subsequent to the filing of the
writ petition and that no steps in terms of the findings of the committee has
been taken, since the Court is in seisin with the matter. The respondent BTC to
support their contentions annexed the meeting minutes to the counter-affidavit.
[10.] The respondent Nos. 5 & 9, which is the Bodoland University have
also filed their affidavit-in-opposition contending that the post of the Principal
was advertised in accordance with the Assam College Employees
(Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 and the Selection Committee was constituted in
terms of the relevant rules. They have also maintained that the UGC Regulations
on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic
Staff in Universities, 2018 prescribes the minimum eligibility criteria for the
appointment of college Principals in Regulation 4.1 and that the research
publications as well as qualifications of the applicants must conform to the
standards prescribed therein. The Screening Committee constituted for the
purpose inspected the research papers of all the applicants and duly verified
their authenticity prior to the awarding of research scores in accordance to the
norms prescribed by the UGC Regulations of 2018. It is, however, stated that
though the Screening Committee meticulously inspects each and every research
publications to ensure that they conform to the norms and standard prescribed,
but it is not possible for the Screening Committee to precisely determine the
quality of each and every research publications of a large number of candidates.
In the instant case, the Screening Committee evaluated all applications
received, in accordance with the provisions of UGC Regulations, 2018 and that
there is no irregularity and biasness in such evaluation.
Page No.# 11/19
[11.] The University has further contended that the 4 (four) disputed
research publications of respondent No.8, have been published in the journals
that are peer-reviewed/refereed journals and research course to these
publications were allotted in accordance with the criteria prescribed in Appendix-
II Table- 2 of UGC Regulations, 2018 after due verification. In support thereof, a
chart indicating the manner in which the same are accepted as peer-reviewed
etc., has also been demonstrated in the affidavit-in-opposition.
[12.] To respond to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 2,
3 and 4, the private respondent No.8 filed an affidavit-in-reply on 25.07.2025,
questioning the validity of the Committee constituted on 04.04.2024 in view of
the fact that the members of the Committee were said to be involved and
instrumental in the illegal appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of
Principal in Goreswar College. That the Chairman of the Re-verification
Committee who is also the Secretary, Education, BTC had influenced the
Director of Education, BTC to appoint the writ petitioner and therefore the re-
verification is not acceptable.
[13.] Over and above, the aforesaid pleadings of the parties concerned,
the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective petitioners as well as
the departmental counsels have made their respective submissions.
[14.] Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the
appointment of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598/2024 as Principal of Goreswar
College, Goreswar cannot be sustained, in view of the fact that the petitioner
whom he represents was declared to have secured the first position by the
constituted Selection Committee as he scored 427.4 marks over 400.58 marks
scored by the latter. Referring to the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition of
Page No.# 12/19
the respondents, the learned Senior Counsel submits that invocation of Clause-
10 of the Advertisement dated 01.01.2023 can be done only when all things are
equal. Since the petitioner, whom he represents has clearly scored more than
the private respondent, Clause-10 cannot be attracted. In support of his
submission, the learned Senior Counsel has referred to the order dated
22.01.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 2776/2024
(Dr. Madhab Sutradhar Vs. State of Assam & 6 Ors.), the case of G. Jayalal Vs.
Union of India & Ors, reported in 2013 7 SCC 150 and the case of Secretary,
A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R.Srinivasulu & Ors. reported in 2003 5
SCC 341.
[15.] The learned Senior Counsel in response to the challenge made by
the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 insofar as the requirement of having a
minimum of 10 (ten) research publications of peer-reviewed or UGC-listed
journals is concerned submits that the petitioners he represents has got her 10
(ten) research papers published in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals which
she has clearly mentioned in her application form dated 13.01.2023 and she has
also submitted the cover page of the journals in support thereof. He submits
that the cover page of the journals clearly show whether the journal is peer-
reviewed or UGC-listed and its impact factor. The total research score of the
deponent comes to 434.5. The learned Senior Counsel submits that at any rate,
it is not open for the private respondent to make a challenge to the assessment
made by the Selection Committee by filing the writ petition belatedly, since
recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner he represents as far back
as on 06.04.2013. He submits that the writ petition filed by the private
respondent No. 7 is only to counterblast the legitimate claim made by the
petitioner and not for any other reason. He submits that the recommendation
Page No.# 13/19
made by the constituted Selection Committee having held the petitioner to have
secured first position supported by appropriate marks, the appointment of
respondent No. 7 should be set aside and the petitioner he represents be
appointed to the post in question.
[16.] Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand submits
that the petitioner, he represents submitted an application for information with
regard to the research papers submitted by the respondent No. 8 [petitioner in
WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023] through RTI and it is revealed that she could not fulfill
the basic requirements of minimum of 10 (ten) research publications in peer-
reviewed or UGC-listed journals and she could not fulfill minimum of 110
(hundred and ten) research score as per Appendix- II at Table No. 2 and
therefore, the acceptance of candidature of respondent No. 8 for the selection
of Principal of the College in question is ex-facie arbitrarily and in violation of the
eligibility criteria stipulated in the UGC Regulation of 2018. He further submits
that the petitioner had also submitted representations dated 01.02.2024 before
the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar and to Vice-Chancellor, Bodoland
University, Kokrajhar praying for an inquiry into the entire process of interview
but since no steps have been taken, the petitioner has filed writ petition before
this Court.
[17.] The learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions has relied
upon the following decisions:-
(I) Dr. Thoudam Rajen Singh & Anr. Vs. Manipur Public Service
Commission & Ors., reported in 2015 SCC Online Mani 128,
(ii) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S Vs. Dr. Rajasree MS & Ors., reported in
Page No.# 14/19
2022 SCC Online SC 1473,
(iii) Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 27 of
2019 (Shehnaz Begum Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) and
(iv) Banashree Bharaddash @ Banashree Bhardwaj Vs. State of Assam &
Ors., reported in 2015 5 GLR 56.
[18.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the
rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The issue to
be decided is as to whether the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598/2024 has been
rightly appointed as the Principal of Goreswar College, Goreswar instead of the
petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023 despite having secured lesser marks and
having found to have secured second position in the selection conducted by the
Selection Committee concerned. Secondly, whether the petitioner in WP(C) No.
3543/2023 could have been considered and allowed to participate in the
interview process of the post in question.
[19.] As already stated earlier, dispute has been raised in respect of the
contention provided under the Clause - 5 and Clause - 10 of the Advertisement
dated 01.01.2023. Clause - 5 of the Advertisement provides that the applicant
for the post in question should have a minimum of 10 (ten) research
publications in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a minimum of 110
(hundred and ten) research score as per Appendix - II at Table No. - 2. Clause
- 10 of the Advertisement provides that preference shall be given to the
candidates belonging to BTR. The selection for the post of Principal of Goreswar
College, Goreswar was made in terms of the relevant provisions of the Assam
College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010. The constituted Selection
Page No.# 15/19
Committee conducted the interview of the eligible candidates for the post in
question on 06.04.2023 and allotted 427.4 marks to the petitioner in WP(C) No.
3543 of 2023 while allotted 400.58 marks to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of
2024. Accordingly, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023 was selected for
appointment against the post in question and the result of the Selection
Committee was sent to the Governing Body of the College for approval and
necessary action. The Governing Body of the College held its meeting on
16.04.2023 and authorized the Principal In-Charge/President of the Governing
Body to submit the proposal to the Director for necessary action. It was
observed that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 had secured the first
position while the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 secured the second
position and is a permanent resident of BTR area. Thereafter, vide impugned
Order dated 10.05.2023, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 who secured
the second position was appointed as the Principal of Goreswar College,
Goreswar apparently on the ground that he belongs to the BTR area and
therefore preference was given in terms of Clause - 10 of the Advertisement.
[20.] The stand taken is common as can be seen in the affidavit filed by
the Governing Body, Goreswar College, the Affidavit of the petitioner in WP(C)
No. 598 of 2024 and in the affidavit of the Director of Education, BTC. However,
the preference for candidates belonging to BTR can be invoked when the parties
concerned are at par in other aspects stipulated by the Advertisement. The
Apex Court in case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R.
Srinivasulu & Ors. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 341 held that preference in the
context of such competitive scheme of selection could only be made when all
other things are qualitatively and quantitatively equal. This finding was also
adopted by the Apex Court in a subsequent decision in G. Jayalal (supra). It
Page No.# 16/19
therefore appears that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 could not have
been given the preference as per Clause - 10 of the Advertisement dated
01.01.2023 despite having scored lower marks than the petitioner in WP(C) No.
3543 of 2023.
[21.] It may be seen that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 has
questioned the eligibility of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 to be
considered for appointment to the post in question on the ground that she did
not fulfill the criteria as provided in Clause - 5 of the Advertisement dated
01.01.2023, which is in terms of the UGC Regulations of 2018. It may be seen
that although, the said petitioner was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No.
3543 of 2023 but no objection was made in this regard except for stating that
he was given the preference and appointed as the Principal of the College in
terms of Clause - 10 of the Advertisement. It may be further to be seen that
the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in
WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 and he received the notice issued to him by registered
post with A/D on 26.06.2023 and returned the A/D card. As already stated, no
objection in respect of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 for not having
fulfilled the criteria stipulated in Clause - 5 of the Advertisement has been
raised and it was only on 06.02.2024 that he raised the issue by filing WP(C)
No. 598 of 2024. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 being arrayed as
respondent No. 8 by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 in her counter-
affidavit contended that she had duly filled up Part - A and Part - B of the
application form containing total 9 (nine) pages along with all the required
documents. She also contended that she fulfills condition No. 5 of the
Advertisement. She secured 10 (ten) of her research papers published in peer-
reviewed or UGC-listed journals.
Page No.# 17/19
[22.] The respondent Bodoland University in their counter-affidavit has
stated that out of 10 (ten) research publications submitted by the respondent
No. 8 [petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023], the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of
2024 has disputed 4 (four) research publications for non-fulfillment of the
minimum criteria prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2018 on the ground that
there were not published in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals. Therefore, the
University confined its response only to the 4 (four) research publications of
respondent No. 8. The Paragraph- 16 of the counter-affidavit may be extracted
hereunder for perusal:-
"16. Having made the submissions as above, the deponent begs to submit that the
following disputed 4 (four) research publications of respondent no. 8 have been
published in journals that are peer-reviewed/refereed journals and research scores
to these publications were allotted in accordance with the criteria prescribed in
Appendix II Table 2 of the UGC Regulations 2018 after due verification:
Sl. Research Title Journal of Comments on Availability of
Publication Journal format
i. Ensuring Quality in Edu World A In print
Higher Education in Rural multidisciplinary medium
Areas. international
peer-
Special Issue April, 2018 ISSN 2319- reviewed/refere
7129 ed journal.
ii. Environment Study at the Education A In print
Undergraduate Level with Today multidisciplinary medium
Special Reference to international
Baksa District of Assam. peer-
reviewed/refere
Special Issue January- ISSN 2229- ed journal.
December, 2021/2022 5755
iii. A Study on the Education A In print
Page No.# 18/19
Satisfaction of Today multidisciplinary medium
Undergraduate Students international
Towards Online peer-
Education. reviewed/refere
ISSN 2229- ed journal.
Special Issue January- 5755
December, 2021/2022
iv. A Study on Reading Thoughts on A peer- In print
Habits of College Education reviewed medium
Students. journal.
Issue January-December, An international
2022, Vol XI No. 1 ISSN 2320- journal of
4710 education &
humanities.
Copies of the cover pages of the aforesaid journals
are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-
series, Annexure B-series and Annexure C-series."
[23.] Therefore, having regard to the manner in which the post of
Principal has been processed to be filled up in accordance with Assam College
Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 and the requirement in terms of the
UGC Regulations, 2018, the dispute raised by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of
2024 cannot be accepted and it also appears to be an afterthought. The
respondent authorities concerned could not have appointed the petitioner in
WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 despite having found him to be in the second position
and securing lesser marks than the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 on the
ground that preference should be given as per Clause - 10 of the
Advertisement. The said preference as already stated earlier, can only be
applied in a case where all other things are qualitatively and quantitatively
equal.
Page No.# 19/19
[24.] In the result, the Order dated 10.05.2023, the appointment of the
petitioner in WP(C) No. 598 of 2024 as the Principal of Goreswar College,
Goreswar is hereby set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to
proceed in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee by
appointing the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 as the Principal of
Goreswar College, Goreswar.
[25.] The WP(C) No. 3543 of 2023 is accordingly allowed and WP(C) No.
598 of 2024 is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. Parties are
directed to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
