Gauhati High Court
Dr. Karuna Chamaria Nee Goenka vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 17 June, 2025
Author: Nelson Sailo
Bench: Nelson Sailo
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010106492023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2821/2023
DR. KARUNA CHAMARIA NEE GOENKA
W/O- SUMIT CHAMARIA,
R/O- GNB ROAD, TINSUKIA
DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
C
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
3:THE DIBRU COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786003
4:THE GOVERNING BODY DIBRU COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
DIBRU COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
SSAM
Page No.# 2/9
PIN-786003
5:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
DIBRU COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DIBRU COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786003
6:THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-02
7:SAYANTAN GUHA MAZUMDAR
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL DIBRU COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-78600
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR N SARMA,MR. A DEKA,MS N NEWME,MS
D MAHANTA,MR A CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, U G C
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
ORDER
17.06.2025 Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department and Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel, UGC. None appears for the Dibru College, Selection Committee, Dibru College, Dibrugarh as well as the private respondent No. 7 despite service of notice.
Page No.# 3/9 [2.] The case of the petitioner is that she responded to the Advertisement published in the Assam Tribune and Dainik Janambhumi on 22.12.2022 for the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce Department. The Advertisement was followed by a corrigendum providing that the post that was advertised belong to an open category. The petitioner was thereafter called for an interview for the post in question vide communication dated 12.01.2023 wherein, the scheduled date for interview was fixed on 21.01.2023. According to the petitioner, she performed well in the interview but as no result was forthcoming, she applied for information through RTI before the Public Information Officer of Dibru College on 10.02.2023. After routing through various formalities including filing of an appeal under the RTI Act, the petitioner was given information on 29.04.2023 wherein, it was indicated that she had not scored the highest marks in the interview and it was the private respondent No. 7 who had secured the highest marks. The petitioner was also informed that the reason why she had not been selected was not only because of her not securing the highest mark but also due to her having pursued Ph.D and M.Com simultaneously, which was not permissible under the UGC guidelines resulting in non-allotment of marks for having Ph.D. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
[3.] During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted an appointment order dated 07.10.2023 by which the Page No.# 4/9 candidate who scored the highest mark in the interview has joined G.C. College, Silchar as Assistant Professor in Commerce Department. Further, this Court while issuing notice of motion on 22.05.2023 had also passed an interim order to the effect that no appointment should be made to the post of Assistant Professor in the Commerce Department in Dibru College pursuant to the selection held in terms of the Advertisement dated 22.12.2022. The interim order continues till date. [4.] Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no bar for a person to pursue two (2) degree course simultaneously as contended by the College authorities as well as the Higher Education Department. He submits that the petitioner obtained her degree in Masters of Business Administration (MBA) in the year 2009 and cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) in Management in the year 2013. Subsequently, she enrolled herself in Ph.D in year 2015 and submitted her thesis in the month of August, 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was conferred Ph.D vide notification dated 01.03.2022. The petitioner also enrolled herself for M.Com course with the Directorate of Open and Distance Learning under the Dibrugarh University in the month of September, 2019. Final examination for M.Com course was scheduled in the year 2021 but due to the prevailing Covid-19 situation, examination was conducted in April, 2022. Thereafter, the M.Com results were declared on 30.09.2022 and the petitioner was declared to have successfully cleared the Master Degree Course.
Page No.# 5/9 [5.] The learned counsel submits that the guidelines for pursuing two (2) academic programs simultaneously issued by the UGC in the month of April, 2022 cannot be applicable to the case of the petitioner as she had completed the Ph.D course in terms of the UGC guidelines and had also already enrolled herself for the M.Com course awaiting for the outcome of the result. The learned counsel further submits that by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent UGC also submits that in so far as the overlapping of M.Com degree course under ODL mode and regular Ph.D course is concerned, the UGC has opined that if the Ph.D degree was obtained in strict compliance of the UGC norms and regulations, the Ph.D degree would be valid. The UGC guidelines of April, 2022 would also be applicable only to students pursuing academic programs other than Ph.D program. He submits that under the circumstance, the petitioner ought to have been given 13 marks for having Ph.D degree in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2022. In the event of adding 13 marks with 62.75 marks secured by her, she would have got the highest mark. Moreover, the respondent No. 7 who secured the highest mark has already joined a different college and under the circumstance, the respondent authorities should be directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in Commerce Department in Dibru college by awarding her 13 marks for the Ph.D degree that she possesses. [6.] Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department Page No.# 6/9 on the other hand by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Department submits that the policy of pursuing two or more programs simultaneously issued by the Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University in 2012 clearly mentions that two degree programmes cannot be pursued simultaneously. However, as per policy, a student can pursue two programmes simultaneously through distance mode or combination of distance and regular mode from the same or different Universities/Institutions in various disciplines for degree and diploma course. The said policy does not cover pursuing Masters Degree and Ph.D at the same time. Such being the position, the respondent authorities concerned had rightly not allotted marks to the petitioner for having a Ph.D degree since she had simultaneously pursued Ph.D as well as M.Com at the relevant time. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed.
[7.] Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent UGC submits that Ph.D degree secured by the petitioner by strict compliance of the UGC norms and regulations will only be acceptable in the absence of any materials to the contrary. The University can devise mechanism through statutory bodies allowing the student to pursue two academic programs simultaneously as was issued in the form of guidelines in the instant case in the month of April, 2022. That no retrospective effect can be claimed for those who have enrolled in Page No.# 7/9 academic programs simultaneously prior to the notification of the said guidelines. Moreover, the guidelines is applicable only to students pursuing academic programs other than Ph.D program. He also submits that the Distance Education Council (DEC) of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) has been dissolved vide Office Memorandum dated 16.05.2013 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India. [8.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. As may be noticed, the petitioner obtained her MBA degree in the year 2009, cleared NET in Management in the year 2013 and secured her Ph.D on 01.03.2022. She enrolled herself for the M.Com degree in September, 2019 and thereafter, secured the Masters degree in September, 2022. The guidelines for pursuing two (2) academic programs simultaneously speaks about student pursuing academic program other than Ph.D program and the same is said to come into force on the date of its publication in the Gazette and the same was said to have been Gazetted on 30.09.2022. [9.] The issue to be considered and decided is as to whether the petitioner's enrollment for the two (2) degree courses can debar her from participating for the post in question and whether the degrees have been obtained validly or not. As regard to the second issue, no objection has been raised from any quarter by challenging the validity of the degrees obtained by the petitioner and therefore, Page No.# 8/9 this issue goes in favour of the petitioner. As for the second issue, when the petitioner had enrolled herself to the Ph.D degree course as well as the M.Com degree course, there was no such bar for simultaneously pursuing two (2) degree programs. As submitted by Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel, DEC of the IGNOU had already been dissolved vide Office Memorandum dated 16.05.2013. Also, the guidelines made by the UGC in April, 2022 and thereafter published on 30.09.2022 in the considered view of this Court cannot be the basis for depriving the petitioner the benefit of allotting marks for having the Ph.D degree in terms of the guidelines for selection of Assistant Professor/Librarian in provincialised Government and Government model colleges of the State of Assam notified vide Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2022 particularly, when she had already enrolled herself for the courses before the guidelines came into picture and the validity of her having successfully completed the two (2) degree course not questioned. Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefit of marks as stipulated by the said Office Memorandum. The post in view of the interim order has not been filled up till date and the respondent No. 7 has also secured appointment elsewhere. Under the circumstance, the respondent authorities concerned more particularly the official respondents i.e., respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 shall re-evaluate the marks by giving the petitioner the benefit of 13 marks in terms of the guidelines concerned and thereafter, undertake the remaining consequential steps. The exercise of re-evaluation of marks and the Page No.# 9/9 undertaking of all the consequential steps as directed above should be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within the outer limit of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
[10.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of as allowed. Interim order passed earlier stands merged with this Order.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant