[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 6 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010284652025
2026:GAU-AS:133-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/2/2026
DR ANAMYA ROY
DAUGHTER OF SRI ABHIJIT ROY, RESIDENT OF BANAMALI ROAD, WARD
NO. 16, SRIBHUMI TOWN, POST OFFICE SRIBHUMI - 788710, POLICE
STATION- SRIBHUMI, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1: STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ASSAM.
3:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE OF PANDIT DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYA
ADARSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA ERSTWHILE KARIMGANJ DISTRICT
FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF THE ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF IN
THE DEPARTMENT BENGALI LANGUAGEOF SAID COLLEGE.
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ERSTWHILE
KARIMGANJ DISTRICT AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE SAID COLLEGE) P.O. SRIBHUMI 788710 DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM.
4:THE GOVERNING BODY PANDIT DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYA ADARSHA
MAHAVIDYALAYA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ERSTWHILE KARIMGANJ AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE SAID COLLEGE POST OFFICE SRIBHUMI-788710 DISTRICT
SRIBHUMI ASSAM.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ DISTRICT THE
CHAIRPERSON OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE PANDIT DEEN DAYAL
UPADHAYA ADARSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA ERALIGOOL ASSAM P.O.
SRIBHUMI 788710 ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/5
6:THE PRINCIPAL CUM SECRETARY PANDIT DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYA
ADARSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA AT ERALIGOOL P.O. ERALIGOOL-788723
DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM
7:SRI SATINATH PAUL,
VICE-PRINCIPAL PANDIT DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYA ADARSHA
MAHAVIDYALAYA P.O. ERALIGOOL-788723 DISTRICT SRIBHUMI
MEMBER-SECRETARY SELECTION COMMITTEE PANDIT DEEN DAYAL
UPADHAYA ADARSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA ERALIGOOL ASSAM
8:SMTI JAYANTI CHOUDHURY
DAUGHTER OF LATE NARENDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY
SOUTH GOLAGHAT BASTI HOJAI P.O. HOJAI- 782435 DISTRICT NAGOAN
ASSAM PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE ASSISTANT TEACHER NAIRGRAM
SENIOR BASIC SCHOOL P.O. CHARGOLA BAZAR-788713 DISTRICT
SRIBHUMI ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.K. Sen, Advocate.
: Mr. A. Hussain, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Tahbilder, Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
06.01.2026
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. B.K. Sen, learned Advocate for the appellant
and Mr. A.R. Tahbilder, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education
Department.
The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 10.12.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6475/2024,
whereby no interference has been made with the appointment of the
respondent No.8 as a Lecturer in the Department of Bengali in Pandit
Deen Dayal Upadhaya Adarsha Mahavidyalaya at Eraligool, Sribhumi.
It appears that the Principal of the said College had issued an
Page No.# 3/5
advertisement on 20.07.2023 for appointment on the post of Assistant
Professor of Bengali language. Pursuant to the advertisement, the
appellant and others, including the respondent No.8, had applied. The
appellant had appeared in the interview on 29.08.2023 but her
candidature was not considered on the ground that she did not have
the minimum requisite qualification for being appointed as a Lecturer in
the Bengali language Department as she did not have NET/SLET/SET
certificate, which was one of the mandatory requirements of eligibility.
The appellant claimed that she had a Ph.D. Degree and,
therefore, her candidature had to be exempted from the requirement of
NET/SLET/SET.
The experts had found that the Ph.D. Degree of the appellant
was not in the concerned subject of Bengali literature but it was obtained
under the Department of Cultural Studies (Centre for Interdisciplinary
Studies) and the thesis topic of the appellant was "Cuisine of Sylhet : A
Socio-Cultural Study on Barak Valley of Assam".
Nonetheless, the appellant persisted that the title of her thesis
was about cuisines but in fact the contents were replete with research
work on the evolution of Bengali language.
In the first instance, a Bench of this Court had directed the
Departmental Authorities to look into the matter and pass a speaking
order. Pursuant to such a direction, a speaking order also was passed on
the contentions of the appellant, which order was challenged before the
learned Single Judge.
The candidature of the appellant was not accepted for
consideration for lack of essential eligibility qualification.
Page No.# 4/5
The learned Single Judge, on finding that the appellant did not
have the NET/SLET/SET certificate at the time of interview and that her
Ph.D. Degree was not in the subject, which fact was certified by 2(two)
subject experts, refused to interfere with the decision making of the
authorities in rejecting the claim of the appellant.
The appellant had also questioned the appointment of the
respondent No.8 on the post of Lecturer on the ground that she did not
have good academic record and, therefore, she should not have been
appointed. The candidature of the respondent No.8 was also stated to
have had many other anomalies, which actually disentitled her for
consideration.
For the present, we have examined the eligibility qualification
and the Ph.D. thesis of the appellant and are of the considered view that
the appellant lacked the eligibility qualification for being considered. At
the time of interview, she did not have the requisite NET/SLET/SET
certification, which could have been exempted if she had a Ph.D.
Degree in the concerned subject. The opinion of the experts that the
Ph.D. thesis of the appellant was not in the concerned subject, has to be
given precedence to the tall claim of the appellant that though the
thesis talked about culinary specifics in the Sylhet region but the thesis
dealt with the evolution of Bengali language.
Out of curiosity, we have also cursorily gone through the content
profile of the thesis and have found that it is primarily with respect to the
evolution of culinary habits and the food prevalent in the Sylhet region,
especially with reference to Barak Valley in the State of Assam.
Mr. Sen, learned Advocate for the appellant has also cited a
Page No.# 5/5
judgment of Supreme Court, namely, Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh
Rajput -Vs- Gulbarga University :: (2014) 3 SCC 767 in support of his
contention that the assessment of the subject expert regarding the thesis
is not to be taken as sacrosanct and that it is subject to judicial review.
There can be no quarrel with that proposition but in the present
case, it is absolutely clear that the appellant did not have the Ph.D.
Degree in the concerned subject, namely, Bengali language, which is
self-evident from the thesis topic and the content profile, about which we
have already referred to earlier.
Thus, finding that the appellant did not have the requisite
qualification at the time of interview, we do not think it appropriate to
interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal has no merits and accordingly the same stands
dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
