Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3825/2024 on 16 October, 2025
GAHC010151352024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Principal Seat at Guwahati
WP(C) No. 3825/2024
Mrs. Uttara Roy,
W/o Mr. Yagneswar Deb,
R/o Dakbunglow Road, Ward No. 09,
Hailakandi Town, District- Hailakandi,
P.S. Hailakandi, Assam,
PIN- 788151.
...............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of Assam,
Dispur, Guwahati- 781006.
2. Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara,
Guwahati- 781019.
3. Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara,
Guwahati- 781019.
Page 1 of 51
4. The Governing Body, Srikishan Sarda College, Hailakandi-
788151, represented by its President.
5. The Principal, Srikishan Sarda College, Hailakandi- 788151.
..............Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Advocate for the petitioner :- Mr. B.D. Das (Sr. Adv.),
Mrs. R. Deka.
Advocate for the respondents :- Mr. S. Das, SC, Higher Education;
Mr. R.A. Choudhury (R- 4 & 5).
Date of Hearing & Judgment :- 16.10.2025
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mrs. R.
Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das,
learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department,
being respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; and Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the Resolution No. 5 (b), dated
Page 2 of 51
07.06.2022, (Annexure - 6), adopted by the Governing Body of S.S.
College, Hailakandi and the letter vide E Comp No. 405617/2024/1,
dated 15.07.2024, issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure - 8),
and also to direct the respondent No. 4 and 5 to complete the
process of interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the
Department of Political Science (SC reserved & Roster point 36) of
Srikishan Sarda College, Hailakandi
Background Facts:-
3. An advertisement (Annexure-1), was issued by respondent No. 4, dated 21.03.2022, and published in the daily newspaper "Jugasankha", and others, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science department, against 2 (Two) Sanction vacant posts; out of the said 2 (Two) posts, one is reserved for SC and the remaining one is unreserved. In the said advertisement, applications were also invited for the posts of Assistant Professor in Botany, English, Statistics and Persian. Prior to issuance of the advertisement dated 21.03.2022, the respondent No. 2 had earlier issued an advertisement for the same posts on 28.12.2020, but the said advertisement was cancelled due to certain reasons without holding any interview. And accordingly, the candidates who had applied in response to earlier advertisement, dated 28.12.2020, were directed not to apply afresh. The petitioner, having passed NET in the year 2016, securing marks at par with the qualifying cut off for SC category in the Page 3 of 51 subject Political Science and being duly qualified for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science in Government/Provincialized Colleges in the state Assam and also belonging to scheduled caste community, applied for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (SC reserved). And accordingly, the respondent No. 5, by a letter dated 30.04.2022 (Annexure-2), informed the petitioner to appear before the interview board for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Srikishan Sarda College (S.S. College) on 19.05.2022 at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner had appeared in the interview as per letter dated 30.04.2022, on 19.05.2022, and did well. Against the said advertised post of Assistant Professor, Political Science (SC reserved & Roster point 36), total 13 candidates had applied for, but only 4 candidates, including the petitioner had appeared in the interview held on 19.05.2022 and remaining 9 candidates did not appear, as per attendance sheet of the candidates (Annexure-3). Then, during the process of interview the President of the Governing Body, SS College, by a letter dated 19.05.2022 (Annexure-5), inter- alia informed that the interview for the selection process of Assistant Professor (SC reserved & Roster point 36) in the department of Political Science dated 19.05.2022, remained inconclusive owing to the sudden flood havoc in the adjoining areas of Hailakandi and accordingly, decided to hold the same interview after the restoration of normalcy observing all necessary formalities at a convenient time. Then the petitioner was waiting for completion of the interview Page 4 of 51 process, that was held on 19.05.2022, for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (SC reserved & Roaster point 36). But, without concluding the said interview, the respondent No. 4, the Governing Body of SS College took a resolution vide No. 5 (b) on 07.06.2022, whereby, it was resolved to hold a fresh interview for the said post of Assistant Professor (SC reserved & Roaster point 36) in the department of Political Science, by cancelling the earlier interview held on 19.05.2022 and the said resolution was issued by the Principal/Secretary, Governing body of SS College, Hailakandi on 28.07.2022 (Annexure-6).
Thereafter, the respondent No.5, by a letter dated 30.05.2023, submitted the status report of the said interview of Assistant Professor Department of Political Science (SC reserved & Roaster point 36), before the respondent No. 2 wherein, it was stated that the interview for the said post took place on 19.05.2022 and out of 13 candidates, 4 candidates had appeared before the selection committee and keeping in view of the screening committee report and after verifying the academic records and other necessary testimonials, the selection committee duly recorded the marks of each candidates in the prescribed format. It was also stated that two applicants namely, Diksha Das, and Ms. Anupama Das lacked proficiency in local language and Shri Saibal Das did not submit the PRC in proper format and therefore, the petitioner was the only bona-fide candidate, fulfilling all the criteria in submitting records and other testimonials. In the said letter, it was specifically Page 5 of 51 mentioned that the selection process was almost completed and while the process of selection was almost completed and recommendation of the name of the candidates was to be made, all of a sudden, the process was stopped due to flood havoc and accordingly, the interview was postponed with a note of the Chairman, Selection Committee, wherein it has been clearly stated that the interview remained inconclusive and the same interview will be held when normalcy will be restored.
But, instead of holding the interview, the Governing Body of the College has decided to cancel the interview held on 19.05.2022, and it had resolved to arrange a fresh interview for the said post of Assistant Professor, but the same was not held till date and accordingly, respondent No. 5 had requested respondent No. 2 to dispose of the entire matter with necessary instruction.
Thereafter, the respondent no. 3, Deputy Director, Higher Education, Assam by a letter dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure-8), informed the respondent No. 5, that in pursuant to the resolution No. 5 (b), dated 07.06.2022, adopted by the Governing Body of SS College, Hailakandi, a request was made to take necessary initiative to conduct a fresh advertisement and interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Political Science (SC reserved & Roaster point 36) by cancelling the interview dated 19.05.2022.
It is also states that pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.03.2022, all other post in respect for subjects mentioned therein, Page 6 of 51 the selection process have already been completed and the selected candidates were appointed in their respective posts, except however, the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (SC reserved & Roaster point 36) wherein the petitioner has applied for and appeared before the interview board.
It is also stated that the said interview, dated 19.05.2022, was completed, but due to flood the interview was postponed and it remained inconclusive and as per the noting of the Chairman of the Selection Committee, the interview will be held when normalcy is restored. But, the respondent No. 3, vide impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, had directed the respondent No. 5 to take necessary initiative for fresh advertisement and interview for the said post of Assistant Professor (SC reserved & Roaster point 36) in the department of Political Science by cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022, without considering the fact that the interview process was completed and the recommendation of the name of the selected candidates is required to be made, and as such the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure - 8) is liable to be set aside and quashed and that the respondent authorities are liable for a direction to complete the interview process held on 19.05.2022 and appoint these selected candidate for the post in question.
It is also stated that in respect of post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (General) total application were 23 and interview was held on 18.05.2022, wherein also only 4 persons appeared and wherein Ms. Annanya Paul was selected and Page 7 of 51 appointed, but in respect of the Assistant Professor in Political Science (SC reserved post) where only 13 applicants submitted and only 4 candidates appeared interview held on 19.05.2022, but result of interview was not declared and there was no complaints from any of the applicants expressing difficulties in appearing in the interview on that day.
It is also stated that the action, on the part of the respondent No. 4, in taking a resolution vide no 5 (b) dated 07.06.2022, for holding a fresh interview for the post of Assistant Professor (SC reserved & Roaster point 36) in the department of Political Science and cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2024 for the said post in question is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and in violation of law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.
It is also stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation before the respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 on 20.07.2024 (Annexure-9), requesting inter-alia to complete the interview process which was held of 19.05.2022 and finalized the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (SC reserved & Roaster point 36) in the department of Political Science in SS College, Hailakandi and also to withdraw the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, issued by the respondent No. 3, but the same failed to evoke any response till date. It is also stated that no advertisement has been issued by the respondent authorities after issuance of the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, for the Post of Assistant Page 8 of 51 Professor (SC reserved) in Srikishan Sarda College, Hailakandi till date.
4. The petitioner had also filed one additional affidavit, bringing on record certain vital information supported by requisite documents, (Annexure - 13 and 14) pertaining to her case, which she had received through RTI application after filing of the Writ Petition. She also stated that pursuant to the advertisement, dated 21.03.2022, the selection process for all other posts in respect of the subjects mentioned therein have already been completed and the selected candidates were appointed in their respective posts barring the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (SC reserved & Roaster point 36). In the Post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (General), though the numbers of total applicants were 23, only 4 applicants/candidates had appeared in the interview, which was held on 18.05.2022, and in the said selection process, one Ms. Annanya Paul was selected, and subsequently, appointed to the post. It is further stated by the petitioner that for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (SC reserved post), there were all total 13 applicants/candidates, out of which only 4 candidates appeared, including the petitioner, in the said interview held on 19.05.2022. But, unlike the Post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (General), result of interview held for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (SC reserved post) was not declared. Moreover, there was not a single complaint from any of the applicants expressing difficulties in appearing in the Page 9 of 51 interview. Further, it is stated that she had submitted a representation before the respondent No. 2, on 13.03.2023 (Annexure - 15) praying for issuance of necessary direction to the respondent No. 5 to cancel the G.B. Resolution No. 5 (b), dated 07.06.2022, as regards interview for the post of Assistant Professor (SC reserved & Roaster point 36) in the department of Political Science in SS College, Hailakandi. Then the respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 10.04.2023, requested the respondent No. 5 to submit status report on the matter to him and accordingly, the respondent No.5 had submitted a status report (Annexure-7, page- 27 of the instant writ petition) on 30.05.2023. Surprisingly, even after taking into consideration the facts regarding completion of selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (SC reserved post) as reflected in the Status Report submitted by the respondent No.5, the respondent No.2, in a most arbitrary manner, regretted the petitioner's representation dated 13.03.2023, vide order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure- 16).
5. The respondent No. 2, the Director of Higher Education, Assam also filed an affidavit-in-opposition, stating that the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Political Science (Reserved for SC, R.P. No.36) of the College fell vacant on 01.04.2019, due to retirement of Dr. B.C. Pradhan. After obtaining due permission from the competent authority, the College authority had advertised for filling up the post on 29.12.2020, but, due to unavoidable circumstances, the interview was not held. Again, advertisement Page 10 of 51 was made on 21.03.2022, wherein all together 13 number of candidates applied for the post. It is also stated that from the record received from the Principal, S.S. College, it is found that while the process of screening was done and selection was going on, all of a sudden the process was stopped due to outbreak of flood havoc and the interview was postponed with a notice of the Chairman, Selection Committee stating that the interview remained inconclusive and the same interview would be held when normalcy would be restored. And pursuant thereto, instead of holding the same interview, the Governing Body of the S.S. College adopted Resolution No. 5(b), dated 07.06.2022 to hold a fresh interview for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (Reserved for SC, R.P. No.36) cancelling the interview, that was on 19.05.2022, as the said interview remained inconclusive, owing to the sudden suspension of all activities in the Assam University, Silchar and its affiliated Colleges, across all the districts within the jurisdiction of Assam University vide the Notice F. No. AUR/21-1/2020/109, dated 18.05.2022, due to flood havoc of the adjoining localities of Hailakandi Town, as well as nearby Sribhumi and Cachar Districts. Further, it is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner had filed a representation before him for cancelling the aforesaid impugned Governing Body's Resolution No. 5(b) dated 07.06.2022. On receipt of the same, a report was called from the Principal of the college by the Directorate. Subsequently, the Principal of the College, vide letter dated 30.05.2023, submitted a report to the Director of the Page 11 of 51 Higher Education. Consequently, a hearing of the petitioner and the Principal was held on 15.03.2024. After hearing the parties and scrutiny of the report received from the Principal, S.S. College, Hailakandi it was found that the selection process was stopped in pursuance of the Notice F. No. AUR/21-1/2020/109, dated 18.05.2022, issued by the Registrar, Assam University informing that all activities of the Assam University, Silchar and its affiliated colleges across all the districts within the jurisdiction of Assam University shall remain close till 20.05.2022. The suspension of all activities of the Assam University, Silchar and its affiliated Colleges, across all the districts, was notified due to the sudden flood havoc of the adjoining localities of Hailakandi Town as well as nearby Sribhumi and Cachar Districts. It is also stated that since the selection process was not completed because of the natural calamities at the time of the interview, and the GB had adopted a resolution No.5(b) dated 07.06.2022 resolving "............. that a fresh interview to be held for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (Reserved Sc, R.P. No.
36) cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022", and thereafter, the Directorate had issued a letter to the Principal, S.S College, requesting to take necessary initiative to issue a fresh advertisement and interview to the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Political Science, against Roaster Point No.36 cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022. It is also stated that at no point of time, the Directorate had acted in discriminatory, unfair, Page 12 of 51 injudicious, arbitrary and unreasonable manner in requesting the Principal, S. S. College to take necessary initiative to issue a fresh advertisement and interview to the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Political Science against point No.36. It is also stated that cancellation of the interview dated 19.05.2022, was done taking into consideration of the sudden suspension of all activities of the Assam University, Silchar and its affiliated colleges across all the districts within the jurisdiction of Assam University, because of the flood havoc, as well as GB resolution No.5(b) dated 07.06.2022.
6. The Respondent No. 5, the Principal, S.S. College, Hailakandi had filed an affidavit-in-opposition raising preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in its present form and for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also stated that a total of 13 candidates had applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Political Science (SC Reserved), but only 4 candidates, including the petitioner, turned up for interview dated 19-05-2022. The remaining 9 candidates did not appear. It is also stated that the process of the interview dated 19-05-2022, for the post of Assistant Professor, Political Science (SC Reserved and Roster Point No. 36) remained inconclusive owing to sudden flood havoc in the adjoining areas of Hailakandi and also because of the suspension of all activities under Assam University, Silchar and its affiliated Colleges, across all the districts within the jurisdiction of Assam University, Silchar as per notice/letter, dated 18-05-2022. Further, it is stated that the situation was such that all the members of the Selection Committee Page 13 of 51 had to leave the College instantly, owing to the reported disruption of road communication. In this regard, the President of the Governing Body, S.S. College, Hailakandi, by a notice/letter dated 19-05-2022, while notifying the reason thereof regarding the inconclusive interview, also provided that the interview will be held after the restoration of normalcy, observing all necessary formalities at a convenient time. Thereafter, the Governing Body of S.S. College, Hailakandi, after a threadbare discussion, vide resolution No. 5(b) dated 07-06-2022, resolved to hold a fresh interview for the said post of Assistant Professor (SC reserved and Roster Point No. 36) in the Department of Political Science, cancelling the interview dated 19-05-2022, as the said interview remained inconclusive owing to the sudden suspension of all activities under Assam University and its affiliated Colleges, across all the districts within the jurisdiction of Assam University till 20-05-2022, corresponding to Notice vide F. No. AUR/21-1/2020/109, dated 18- 05-2022, issued for flood havoc of the adjoining localities of Hailakandi town. It is also stated that in the meantime, the petitioner had filed one representation dated 13-03-2023, against cancellation of the aforesaid impugned Governing Body resolution No. 5 (b), dated 07-06-2022. Thereafter, pursuant to a letter vide No. DHE/CE/Misc/36/2023/19, dated 10-04-2023, issued from the office of the respondent No. 2, he had submitted a status report, vide letter dated 30-05-2023, to the Director of Higher Education, Assam. Consequently, respondent No. 3 had conducted a hearing on Page 14 of 51 14-03-2024, in the Office Chamber of the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam, Kahilipara, wherein both respondents (through video conference) and petitioner were present. In the report of the hearing dated 14-03-2024, it was decided to request respondent No. 5 to take the necessary initiative to conduct a fresh advertisement and interview for the said post cancelling the interview, dated 19- 05-2022, and accordingly, the representation/petition dated 13-03- 2023 (Annexure-15 to the additional affidavit dated 24-09-2024 at page No. 52) filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 was regretted. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 had issued the impugned communication dated 15-07-2024, whereby the respondent No. 5 was requested to take the necessary initiative to conduct a fresh advertisement and interview for the said post by cancelling the interview dated 19-05-2022. It is also stated that considering the pending process of selection for the said post and the complaint/petition filed by the petitioner to the Director of Higher Education, Assam (in short DSE) regarding the incomplete process of selection, amongst others, the Governing Body resolution No. 14 dated 04-11-2023, unanimously resolved to send another letter to the DSE for instruction to sort out the matter and in the event of no response from DSE, it was decided that revoking the earlier resolution for conducting fresh interview, a fresh advertisement will be made as earlier advertisement was made more than one year back. Accordingly, the same was communicated vide letter dated 20-03-2024, to the respondent No. 2. In view of Page 15 of 51 the above, the action on the part of the respondent No. 4 was just and proper, and there was no arbitrary, discriminatory or illegal action or violation of law on the part of the respondent. Further it is stated that as the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (General) is concerned, the interview for that post was held on 18- 05-2022, and not on 19-05-2022 and accordingly, after completion of all the formalities, one Ms. Annanya Paul was selected and appointed. It is also stated that this Court vide order dated 31-07- 2024, passed in the instant writ petition whereby pleased to suspend the impugned communication dated 15-07-2024, which provided for issuance of a fresh advertisement.
7. The petitioner had filed an affidavit in reply reiterating and reaffirming the statements made in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the additional affidavit filed by her. It is also stated that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent No.5 had submitted a detail report, dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure-17), before the respondent No.2 in response to the letter bearing No. DHE/CE/Misc. 36/2023/81, dated 20.02.2025, issued by the respondent No.2 in respect of the recruitment process and in the said report dated 24-3-2025, respondent No.5 had clearly stated that after formation of duly constituted selection committee, the interview was successfully conducted by the said committee on 19.05.2022. Further, the respondent No. 5, in his report dated 24- Page 16 of 51 03-2025, also specifically mentioned that following documents are available at the College at in respect of the interview process:-
(i) Copies of the advertisement dated (29.12.2020 and 21.03.2023);
(ii) Letter regarding formation of the Selection Committee;
(iii) Communication from the Vice Chancellor for the nomination of subject experts and VC Nominee;
(iv) Copies of call letter issued to candidates;
(v) Individual marking statements prepared and signed by the members of the Selection Committee.
7.1. And it is also stated that from the contents of the report dated 24-3-2025, submitted by the respondent No.5, it is crystal clear that the interview process, which was held on 19.05.2022, for the post of Assistant Professor (SC Reserved & Roster Point 36) in Political Science Department in S.S. College, as per Advertisement, dated 21.03.2022, was duly completed with individual marking statements prepared and duly signed by all members of the Selection Committee. It is also stated that pursuant to the same advertisement, dated 21.03.2022, for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany, ST (P) category, though four numbers of candidates had applied for the said post, only one candidate, namely, Ms. Rimi Barman appeared before the Selection Committee on 11-5-2022. Then, after due recruitment process, Ms. Rimi Barman was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor in Botany. And this information, with regards to the selection and appointment of Assistant Professor in Botany, has been furnished to her in response Page 17 of 51 to her RTI application, dated 11-4-2025, by the respondent No.5, vide Annexure-18, 19 and 20.
Sbumissions:-
8. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the pursuant to the advertisement, dated 21.03.2022, for filling up of two posts of Assistant Professor of Political Science, out of which one post is reserved for SC and the other for General category, and also for filling up of posts of Assistant Professors in Botany, English, Statistics and Persian in Srikishan Sarda College, Hailakandi, the petitioner being qualified, had applied for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science in the reserved category of post as she belongs to SC category, and interview for the said post was held on 19.05.2022, and out of thirteen applicants, only four applicants had appeared in the interview and after the interview, marks were recorded by the member of the selection committee, but, the interview remained inconclusive on account of sudden flood. Mr. Das also submits that thereafter, the Governing Body of the College, vide letter dated 19.05.2022, informed that the interview would be held after restoration of normalcy, but while normalcy returned, the Governing Body of the college, vide resolution dated 07.06.2022, resolved to cancel the interview and accordingly, the same was cancelled, vide impugned resolution dated 07.06.2022, issued by the respondent No. 4 without any reason.
Page 18 of 518.1. Mr. Das, further submits that on the other hand, the interview process for other posts was also held and the candidates were appointed after selection, but in case of the petitioner, the same was cancelled, thereby violated the right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the petitioner had filed one representation to the respondent No. 2, then the respondent No. 2 had conducted a hearing of the petitioner and also the college authority and thereafter, it had approved the resolution of the Governing Body dated 07.06.2022, and directed the Principal of S.S. College to conduct a fresh advertisement process and interview for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (SC reserved Roster Point-36) cancelling the earlier interview held on 19.05.2022. Mr. Das also submits that having participated in the selection process the petitioner does have a legitimate expectation of completion of the recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner, and that the action of the Governing Body and also of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are illegally and arbitrary and the same are liable to be interfered with.
8.2. In support of his submission, Mr. Das has referred to the following decisions:-
(i) East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678,
(ii) Partha Das and Others vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844;Page 19 of 51
(iii) The State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Arunabha Saha & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 4470 of 2023;
(iv) Shaik Mahaboob John Vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar General, Amaravathi and 2 others, in W.P.No.6648 of 2019.
9. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, has supported the impugned resolution of the Governing Body. He submits that the interview was not completed on 19.05.2022, and out of thirteen applicants, only four applicants appeared in the interview on account of flood and bandh declared by the Assam University in the colleges under its jurisdiction and since then as sufficient time elapsed and therefore, the Governing Body had decided to cancel the interview held on 19.05.2022, and sent a letter to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for fresh advertisement for filling up the posts. Mr. Choudhury also submits that thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one representation, based on which one hearing was conducted by the Director of Higher Education, Assam and after conducting the hearing, the Director had approved the proposal of the Governing Body to cancel the interview and to go for fresh advertisement. Mr. Choudhury further submits that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the resolution of the Governing Body and the same was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, and the same requires no interference of this Court. Mr. Choudhury has also produced the relevant file concerning the selection process before the Court. Mr. Page 20 of 51 Choudhury also submits that by appearing in the interview and participating in the selection process, the petitioner had acquired no indefeasible right to get appointment.
9.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Choudhury has referred following decision of Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1.
10. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has supported the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024. He submits that the Governing Body had already resolved to cancel the interview held on 19.05.2022 and to go for a fresh advertisement and interview, and that on the representation filed by the petitioner, the Director of Higher Education had conducted a hearing and thereafter, the Director had approved the proposal of the Governing Body for cancellation of the interview and to go for fresh advertisement. Mr. Das also submits that there is no arbitrariness and illegality in the aforementioned impugned letter and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.
11. In reply, Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Governing Body as well as the Director of Higher Education, Assam have not assigned any reason for cancellation of the interview, which was almost completed and that there remains to declare the result only. Mr. Das also submits that the petitioner is a candidate of SC category and she performed well in the interview and therefore, the impugned resolution of the Governing Body and Page 21 of 51 the impugned letter of the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam, respondent No. 3, may be set aside and quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to take the selection process to its logical end.
Discussions and Findings:-
12. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the decisions referred by Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
13. The basic facts, herein this case, are not in dispute. The petitioner, being qualified for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science, that has arisen in S.S. College, Hailakandi, had applied for the same pursuant to the advertisement, dated 21.03.2022, and interview for the same was held on 19.05.2022, and out of thirteen applicants, only four applicants had appeared in the same. But, the interview remained inconclusive due to sudden flood and thereafter, the Governing Body of the college, vide letter dated 19.05.2022, informed that the interview would be held only after restoration of normalcy. However, it appears that the Governing Body of the college, instead of completing the process, vide impugned resolution, dated 07.06.2022, had cancelled the same. The impugned resolution dated 07.06.2022, adopted by the respondent No. 4, i.e. the Governing Body of the college, is extracted herein below:
Page 22 of 51‚Extract Copy of GB resolution No 5(b) dated 07-06-2022 After a thread bear discussion, the G.B. resolved that a fresh interview be held for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (SC Roster Point-36) cancelling the interview held on 19-05-2022 as the said interview (dated 19-05- 2022) remained inconclusive owing to the sudden suspension of all activities under Assam University, Silchar Jurisdiction vide letter AUR/21-1/2020/109 Dated 18-05-2022 and flood havoc of the adjoining localities of Hailakandi town.
Sd-
S. B. Paul President G.B. S. S. College, Hailakandi Amalendu Bhattacharjee Principal/Secretary G.B S. S. College, Hailakandi‛
14. Further, the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, of the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam addressed to the Principal (respondent No. 5), S.S. College, Hailakandi, is extracted herein below:
‚GOVT. OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI 19 E Comp No 405617/2024/1 From :-Smti Sumitra Dev, AES Page 23 of 51 Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam Kahillpara, Guwahat-10 To, The Principal, S.S. College, Hailakandi Dist. Hailakandi Sub :- Regarding interview for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science Ref :- 1. Your letter vide No. SS/Estd/02/2023/ dated 05-12-2023.
2. Petition dated 13-03-2023 of Uttara Roy.
Sir, With reference to the subject cited above and in pursuance to the Resolution No.5(B) dated 07-06- 2022 adopted by the Governing Body of S.S. College, Hailakandi, I am directed to request you to take necessary initiatives to conduct a fresh advertisement and interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Political Science, Roster Point No-36 cancelling the interview held on 19-05-2022.
This is for your kind information and necessary action.
Yours faithfully,
Deputy Director of
Higher Education, Assam,
Kahilipara, Guwahati-19‛
Page 24 of 51
15. A cursory perusal of the aforesaid impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, indicates that the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam had issued the said letter on the strength of the Resolution No. 5(B), dated 07.06.2022, adopted by the Governing Body of S.S. College, Hailakandi and directed to take necessary initiative to conduct a fresh advertisement and interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Roster Point No. 36, cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022.
15.1. Thus, it appears from the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024 and also from the report of hearing dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure-
16), conducted by the respondent No.2, pursuant to the representation, filed by the petitioner on 13.03.2023, that the respondent No.2 and the respondent No. 3 had acted like a Post Office and without application of mind, it had affirmed the impugned Resolution, being G.B. Resolution No. 5(b) dated 07.06.2022. It appears from the Annexure-16, that the respondent No.2 had made following observation:-
‚That while the process of selection was almost completed and recommendation of the name of the selected candidate was to be made all of the sudden the process was stopped due to outbreak of flood havoc interview as postponed with a notice of the Chairman Selection Committee where it was stated clearly that the interview remained inconclusive and the same interview would be held while normalcy would be restored.Page 25 of 51
That instead of holding the same interview the Governing Body of S.S. College, Hailakandi decided to cancel the interview held on 19.05.2022 and resolved to arrange a fresh interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Reserved for SC) but, this was not held till the date.
Further the Governing Body of the college has adopted Resolution No. 5(b) dated 07-06-2022, that a fresh interview to be held for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (Reserved for SC, R.P. No.
36) cancelling the interview held on 19-05-
2022 as the said interview dated 19-05-2022 remained inconclusive owing to the sudden suspension of all activities under Assam University, Silchar Jurisdiction vide letter AUR/21-1/2020/109, dated 18-05-2022 and flood havoc of the adjoining localities of Hailakandi town. On scrutiny of the above report received from the Principal S.S. College, Hailakandi and in pursuance to the Resolution No. 5(B), dated 07-06-2022 adopted by the Governing Body of S.S. College, Hailakandi, it is decided to request the Principal, S.S. College, Hailakandi to take necessary initiative to conduct a fresh advertisement and interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science reserved for SC as per Roster Point No. 36 cancelling the interview held on 19-05-2022.
Page 26 of 51Hence, petition of Uttara Roy dated 13- 03-2023 is hereby regretted.‛ 15.2. This hearing report, as well as the impugned letter, dated 15.07.2024, appears to be the outcome of sheer non application of mind by the respondent Nos. 3 & 2 respectively. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 both had failed to perceive that no apparent reason was assigned by the G.B. while cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022. Inspite of making an observation that the process of selection was almost completed and recommendation of the name of the selected candidate was to be made, by the respondent No. 2 in the hearing report he had chosen to regret the prayer of the petitioner, in her representation dated 13.03.2023. He had also failed to consider the report of the Principal, S.S. College, dated 30.05.2023, that was called by him, which also reveals that the process of selection was almost completed and recommendation of the name of the selected candidate was to be made. He has also failed to take note of the Notice (Annexure-5) issued by the President, Governing Body, S.S. College, Hailakandi on 19.05.2022, notifying that ‚as all the members of Selection Committee had to leave the College instantly owing to reported disruption of road communication, it is decided to hold the same interview after the restoration of normalcy observing all necessary formalities at a convenient time.‛ Moreover, Page 27 of 51 Annexure - 1 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition of the respondent No. 5, indicates that the Assam University had declared the University and its affiliated Colleges close till 20.05.2022, only. Said Notice was issued by the Registrar of the University on 18.05.2022, and that too on the basis of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar dated 18.05.2022. If the Colleges were declared closed till 20.05.2022, the circumstances, compelling the Governing Body, S.S. College, to cancel the interview held on 19.05.2022, immediately on 07.06.2022, are not indicated in the impugned resolution of the G.B., dated 07.06.2022. Indisputably, no complaint was also received from any quarter regarding the interview held on 19.05.2022.
15.3. All these aspects eschewed consideration of the respondent No.2, while preparing the hearing report dated 14.03.2024, and the respondent No. 3 while issuing the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, which are not expected from an authority of their statures. Instead of taking appropriate remedial action, on the apparent prejudice caused to the petitioner, by cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022, by the G.B. of S.S. College, Hailakandi the respondent No.3 had acted like a Post Office and thereby abdicated the responsibility vested upon her and by the respondent No. 2 while issuing the hearing report. And on such count, the action of the respondent No.3, and the letter dated 15.07.2024, is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be interfered with.
Page 28 of 5116. Now, moving forward to examine the impugned Governing Body resolution, dated 07.06.2022, Annexure- 6 of the petition, which has already been extracted herein above, it has already been held that no apparent reason is assigned by the Governing Body of the College for cancellation of the interview held on 19.05.2022. But, it is discernible that the interview dated 19.05.2022, remained inconclusive owing to the sudden suspension of all activities under Assam University, Silchar jurisdiction, in view of the letter dated 18.05.2022, issued by the Registrar, Assam University suspending all activities under Assam University and its affiliating colleges till 20.05.2022, for the flood havoc in the adjoining localities of Hailakandi town.
16.1. As discussed herein above, the President, Governing Body, S.S. College, Hailakandi had issued one Notice (Annexure-5) on 19.05.2022, notifying that ‚as all the members of Selection Committee had to leave the College instantly owing to reported disruption of road communication, it is decided to hold the same interview after the restoration of normalcy observing all necessary formalities at a convenient time.‛ But, thereafter, the Governing Body, on 07.06.2022, had resolved to hold fresh interview for the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (SC Roster Point- 36), cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022. And apparently without assigning any reason for the same, except however mentioning the letter of Registrar, Assam University dated Page 29 of 51 18.05.2022, and flood havoc and thereby, flouted its own notice, Annexure - 5, dated 19.05.2022.
16.2. As discussed herein above the Assam University had declared the University and its affiliated Colleges close till 20.05.2022, only. There is no explanation as to why the interview could not be held after 20.05.2022, till its cancellation on 07.06.2022, vide impugned resolution, while it is no body's case that after 20.05.2022, normally did not return to S.S. College, Hailakandi. in absence of any apparent reason in the impugned resolution of the governing body dated 07.06.2022, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the given factual matrix, is that the decision of the Governing Body was actuated by mala-fide. Notably, nothing is mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No.5.
16.3. To a pointed query of this Court, during the course of hearing, Mr. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, as to the reason for cacellation of the interview held on 19.05.2022, while the interview was almost completed and there remains to declare the name of the selected candidate only, he submits that due to flood havoc and also due to elapse of sufficient time, and also due to difficulties in assembling the members of the selection committee, to complete the selection process, the Governing Body had taken the decision to cancel the interview. But, this submission also left this Court unimpressed in as much as the interview was cancelled just after 17 days, on 07.06.2022, while the interview was held on 19.05.2022. As discussed herein above, on Page 30 of 51 account of flood the Colleges under Assam University were declared close till 20.05.2022 only. Moreover, the President, Governing Body, S.S. College, Hailakandi had issued the Notice (Annexure-5) dated 19.05.2022, notifying that to hold the same interview after the restoration of normalcy observing all necessary formalities at a convenient time. Unfortunately, this normalcy never came for the Governing Body of the College, for which it had hurriedly cancelled the interview, just after 17 days.
17. If on account of the sudden flood, in view of the notice of President, Governing Body, S.S. College, Hailakandi (Annexure-5) dated 19.05.2022, the interview could not be completed on 19.05.2022, then there was no bar for the Governing Body to complete the process after 20.05.2022. But, instead of making any such effort to complete the said process, the Governing Body, the respondent No. 4, on 07.06.2022, had chosen to cancel the interview held on 19.05.2022, while, indisputably and as discussed herein above, there was no complain from any quarter, regarding the interview, held on 19.05.2022.
18. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that no apparent reason, not to speak of a plausible one, has been assigned for cancellation of the interview held on 19.05.2022, for the post of Assistant Professor (SC Reserved & Roster Point 36) in Political Science Department in S.S. College, as per Advertisement, dated 21.03.2022, and whatever the reason is assigned, the same also found to be unsustainable.
Page 31 of 5118.1. In the given factual matrix, what left to be seen is whether the impugned Resolution, being G.B. Resolution No. 5(b), dated 07.06.2022, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, while the petitioner having appeared in the interview had the legitimate expectation of completion of the recruitment process, although, she has no indefeasible right in seeking appointment.
19. While dealing with what is 'arbitrariness' Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of East Coast Railway(supra) has held that -
19. Black's Law Dictionary describes the term ‚arbitrary‛ in the following words:-
‚Arbitrary.--1. Depending on individual discretion; specif., determined by a judge rather than by fixed rules, procedures, or law. 2. (Of a judicial decision) founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason or fact. This type of decision is often termed arbitrary and capricious.‛
20. To the same effect is the meaning given to the expression ‚arbitrary‛ by Corpus Juris Secundum which explains the term in the following words:
‚Arbitrary.--Based alone upon one's will, and not upon any course of reasoning and exercise of judgment; bound by no law; capricious; exercised according to one's own will or caprice and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse Page 32 of 51 possession of power; fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, non- rational, or not done or acting according to reason or judgment; not based upon actuality but beyond a reasonable extent; not founded in the nature of things; not governed by any fixed rules or standard;
also, in a somewhat different sense, absolute in power, despotic, or tyrannical; harsh and unforbearing. When applied to acts, 'arbitrary' has been held to connote a disregard of evidence or of the proper weight thereof; to express an idea opposed to administrative, executive, judicial, or legislative discretion; and to imply at least an element of bad faith, and has been compared with 'willful'.‛
21. There is no precise statutory or other definition of the term ‚arbitrary‛. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 212 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 742 : AIR 1991 SC 537] this Court explained that the true import of the expression ‚arbitrariness‛ is more easily visualised than precisely stated or defined and that whether or not an act is arbitrary would be determined on the facts and circumstances of a given case. This Court observed: (SCC p. 243, para 36) ‚36. The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than precisely stated or defined. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be Page 33 of 51 answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. The rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is trite that 'be you ever so high, the laws are above you'. This is what men in power must remember, always.‛
22. Dealing with the principle governing exercise of official power Prof. De Smith, Woolf and Jowell in their celebrated book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action emphasised how the decision-maker invested with the wide discretion is expected to exercise that discretion in accordance with the general principles governing exercise of power in a constitutional democracy unless of course the statute under which such power is exercisable indicates otherwise. One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law recognised in all Page 34 of 51 democratic systems is that the power vested in any competent authority shall not be exercised arbitrarily and that the power is exercised that it does not lead to any unfair discrimination.
The following passage from the above is in this regard apposite:-
‚We have seen in a number of situations how the scope of an official power cannot be interpreted in isolation from general principles governing the exercise of power in a constitutional democracy. The courts presume that these principles apply to the exercise of all powers and that even where the decision-maker is invested with wide discretion, that discretion is to be exercised in accordance with those principles unless Parliament clearly indicates otherwise. One such principle, the rule of law, contains within it a number of requirements such as the right of the individual to access to the law and that power should not be arbitrarily exercised. The rule of law above all rests upon the principle of legal certainty, which will be considered here, along with a principle which is partly but not wholly contained within the rule of law, namely, the principle of equality, or equal treatment without unfair discrimination.‛
23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every Page 35 of 51 order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.
20. Then, in the same case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of legitimate expectation and prerogative of State authority in cancellation of recruitment process as under:-
‚14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter.Page 36 of 51
15. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in UT of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh [(1993) 1 SCC 154 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 144 :
(1993) 23 ATC 431] where again this Court reiterated that while a candidate who finds a place in the select list may have no vested right to be appointed to any post, in the absence of any specific rules entitling him to the same, he may still be aggrieved of his non-
appointment if the authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a mala fide manner. That was also a case where the selection process had been cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration upon receipt of complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which the select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board. An inquiry got conducted into the said complaint proved the allegations made in the complaint to be true. It was in that backdrop that action taken by the Chandigarh Administration was held to be neither discriminatory nor unjustified as the same was duly supported by valid reasons for cancelling what was described by this Court to be as a ‚dubious selection‛.
16. Applying these principles to the case at hand there is no gainsaying that while the candidates who appeared in the typewriting test had no indefeasible or absolute right to seek an appointment, yet the same did not give a licence to the competent authority to cancel the examination and the result thereof in an arbitrary manner. The least which the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment and Page 37 of 51 who had appeared in the examination that constituted a step-in-aid of a possible appointment in their favour, were entitled to is to ensure that the selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for mala fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner.
17. It is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness which is an antithesis of the guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary is a question which the Court shall have to examine once a challenge is mounted to any such action, no matter the candidates do not have an indefeasible right to claim an appointment against the advertised posts.‛
21. It is also to be noted here that in the case of Partha Das(supra), one of the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was:-
(3) Whether in the context of this case, the principle of legitimate expectation is attracted; and in the facts, what relief can be granted?
21.1. And then Hon'ble Supreme Court had answered the issue as under:-
‚60. From the discussion made hereinabove and in the facts of this case, the appellants have participated in the process of recruitment conducted in furtherance to the provisions of TSR Act and TSR Rules. Undisputedly, they found Page 38 of 51 place in the panel of selection. It was only at the stage of character verification, the process was kept in abeyance, later cancelled, in terms of NRP which could not have been made applicable to the ongoing recruitment process. The application of the NRP to the ongoing recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers in Tripura State Rifles was not in public interest. Therefore, the appellants do have a legitimate expectation of completion of recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. The recruitment process should be concluded fairly as per TSR Act and TSR Rules and the candidates may be appointed if they are found to be meritorious. As such, Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly."
22. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunabha Saha & Anr.(supra), has again dealt with the issue of legitimate expectation as under:-
‚19. As such, we are not inclined to deal with all the similar issues separately in the present case. The candidates participated in the recruitment process carried out under the Boilers Act read with the Central Rules and State Rules. After issuance of advertisement, a written screening test was conducted on 21.08.2017, pursuant to which selected candidates, including respondent no. interview on 07.12.2017. Thus, only the result of the interview was left to be declared. As such the Page 39 of 51 recruitment process for the post of 'Inspector of Boilers was at a significantly advanced stage when the recruitment process was kept in abeyance, later cancelled by the Cancellation Memorandum and TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018. The application of the NRP to the ongoing recruitment process was arbitrary and unjust and candidates do have a legitimate expectation of completion of the recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. It is pointed out by the appellant State that in the facts of this case, in the Boilers Act, Central Rules or the State Rules or even in the Advertisement, there is no prescription of marks to be obtained in the written test or the interview, but the fact remains that the written test was already conducted out of 100 marks and the interview was also conducted out of 100 marks. As such, the subsequent decision to apply NRP to the said recruitment process cannot be sustained. The recruitment should be completed as per the Boilers Act, Central Rules and State Rules, and the candidates may be appointed, if found to be meritorious, subject to fulfilling all other criteria.‛
23. Dealing with similar issue in the case of Shaik Mahaboob John (supra), a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has also held as under:-
‚10. Law with regard to the rights of candidates who participate in a selection process and may even find their names in the selection list based upon such a selection process is no longer Page 40 of 51 res integra. It is settled that mere participation in the selection process does not give any indefeasible right to a candidate to get appointed and while the authorities have the right to abandon the selection process, yet the same can be done by giving proper reasons and justification and not arbitrarily.
11. Since the reasons for cancellation of the selection process initiated pursuant to notification Nos.2, 3 & 4, dated 22.10.2011, were not forthcoming from the reply-affidavit filed by the District Judge, Guntur, and since the orders of cancellation had emanated from the High Court, we summoned the relevant record from the High Court. From the record, it can be seen that there was no inquiry conducted in the allegations made in the written complaint by a group of five advocates questioning the fairness and sanctity of the selection process. It can also be seen that there is nothing on record, which would suggest that the complaint had been got inquired by the High Court much less is there anything on record, which would suggest that even a prima facie view has been expressed on the subject before ordering cancellation of the selection process. No reasons at all are forthcoming from the record except the complaint, which was received on 27.06.2016. The High Court in its reply-affidavit also has been unable to support its decision regarding cancellation of the selection process in question and has only reiterated the principle of law that the petitioners based upon their participation in the selection process alone did not have any indefeasible right to claim appointment.Page 41 of 51
12. The Apex Court in Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Others (1986) 4 SCC 268 first laid down the principle that pursuant to the completion of a process of selection, it would be open to the Government not to fill up all (1986) 4 SCC 268 7 HCJ & RRR, J W.P.No.8648 of 2019 & batch the vacancies for a valid reason. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India & Others2, the Apex Court held that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed but the decision not to fill up the vacancies had to be taken up bona fide for appropriate reasons. What was stated by the Apex Court was thus:
"7......Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted."
13. In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh and Others (1993) 1 SCC 154, while following the principle of law laid down in Neelima Shangla (supra), the Apex Court Page 42 of 51 upheld the decision of the Chandigarh administration ordering cancellation of the selection process for the post of conductors in Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) based upon primarily the fact that there was an inquiry conducted by the Chandigarh administration regarding the select list of 32 candidates prepared by the selection board, revealed that the members of the selection board has made use of interview marks awardable by them at interview to eliminate meritorious candidates from the list and had diverted demerit into merit.
14. In East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 the Apex Court emphasized the need to record a prima facie satisfaction before proceeding to order cancellation of a selection process. This was a case where the competent authority had ordered cancellation of a type test conducted for making selection to the post of Chief Typists based upon the allegation that to some of the unsuccessful candidates, defective typewriting machines were provided which had placed them at a disadvantage as against the candidates, who were declared successful. The Apex Court, in those circumstances, held:
"29. There may be cases where an enquiry may be called for into the allegations, but there may also be cases, where even on admitted facts or facts verified from record or an enquiry howsoever summary the same maybe, it is possible for the competent authority to take a decision, that there are good reasons for making the order which the authority eventually makes. But we find it difficult to sustain Page 43 of 51 an order that is neither based on an enquiry nor even a prima facie view taken upon a due and proper application of mind to the relevant facts. Judged by that standard the order of cancellation passed by the competent authority falls short of the legal requirements and was rightly quashed by the High Court."
15. In our opinion, while it may be true that the process of selection can be abandoned, yet the same can be done only for valid reasons.
Following the principles of law as held in the cases of Neelima Shangla, Shankarsan Dash and East Coast Railway, we don't find any basis for sustaining the order of cancellation of the selection process in question. The order impugned, dated 25.04.2019, being unsustainable in law, is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to take the process of selection to its logical conclusion and issue orders of appointment in accordance with merit within a period of two months......‛
24. Again in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak(supra), while dealing with similar issues, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
64. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Dash [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800] , a candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Page 44 of 51 Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the select list.
65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit.
Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] lays down good law Page 45 of 51 and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] . Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies.
However, if vacancies exist, the State or Page 46 of 51 its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.‛
25. Now, reverting to the factual matrix of the case in hand, this Court finds that from the Annexure-7, the letter of the Principal of S.S. College, Hailakandi, dated 30.05.2023, and the Hearing Report, dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure 16), that the interview for the said post took place on 19.05.2022, and out of 13 Nos. of candidates four (04) candidates had appeared before the Selection Committee. This Court also finds that keeping in view of the Screening Committee Report and after verifying the academic records and other necessary testimonials, the selection committee had duly recorded the marks of each candidate in the prescribed format. Also it appears from that two applicants namely, Ms. Diksha Das and Ms. Anupama Das lacked proficiency in local language and Sri Shaibal Das did not submit the PRC in proper format and as such, the present petitioner was the only bona-fide candidate, fulfilling all the criteria in submitting records and other testimonials. Notably, these are un- disputed facts.
26. Thus, as submitted by Mr. Das, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and also as held in the case laws referred by him, especially in the case of Partha Das and Others (supra), the petitioner do have a legitimate expectation of completion of recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. And as Page 47 of 51 discussed herein above, while cancelling the interview held on 19.05.2022, the Governing Body had failed to assign any reason not to speak of a plausible one, in the impugned resolution dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure-6).
27. It is, however, true that as submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 that by appearing in the selection process, the petitioner has acquired no indefeasible right to get appointed. The said proposition is well settled in catena of decisions and also in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), referred by him. But, in the said decision, at para No. 65.6., Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list. Thus, this Court afraid the decision in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), referred by Mr. Choudhury would not advance his case.
28. Another aspect of the matter, which should not eschew consideration of this Court, is that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, vide same advertisement had initiated the process of filling up the post of Assistant Professor in Botany and Political Science (General) and the said processes were completed and one Rimi Barman was selected and appointed in Botany Department of the same college and one Ananya Paul was also selected and appointed in Political Science (General). For the post of Botany Department, only four candidates applied for and only Rimi Barman appeared in the interview and she was selected and appointed. And for the post in Page 48 of 51 Political Science (General), 23 candidates applied for and only 4 candidates appeared in the interview and out of them Ananya Pual was selected and appointed. Interview for the aforesaid posts was held on 11.05.2022 and 18.05.2022. While the said processes, initiated pursuant to same advertisement, were taken to logical conclusion and appointments were made, there is no apparent reason for non-conclusion of the process, initiated in respect of the post of Political Science (SC reserved). If sudden flood was the reason for failing to complete the interview on 19.05.2022, the same could have been completed on returning normalcy, as per the Notice (Annexure - 5) dated 19.05.2022, issued by the President of the Governing Body. Notably, the Assam University has declared the University and the Colleges under its jurisdiction only on 20.05.2022. There is no reason as to why the interview could not be completed as per terms of the Notice dated 19.05.2022, from 20.05.2022, till its cancellation on 07.06.2022.
28.1. Thus, the right of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India stands violated. Reference in this context can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Government Branch Press and Another vs. D.B. Belliappa, reported in (1979) 1 SCC 477, wherein it is held that the expression 'matters relating to employment' under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India is not confined to initial matters prior to the act of employment, but comprehends all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent, to the employment which Page 49 of 51 are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment, such as provisions as to salary, increments, leave, gratuity, pension, age of superannuation, promotion and even termination of employment. It is further well established that Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1) of the Constitution of India form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other and if any authority is needed for the above enunciation. In this regard reference may also be made to the observations made in the case of General Manager Southern Railway vs. Rangachari, reported in (1962) 2 SCR 586. On this count also the impugned resolution dated 07.06.2022, of the Governing Body of the S.S. College, Hailakandi, is liable to be interfered with.
29. Thus, in view of the given factual and legal matrix, the impugned resolution of the Governing Body of the College, dated 07.06.2022, appears to be arbitrary and illegal and on such count, the same warrants interference of this Court. And accordingly, the same is interfered with. Since, the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, was issued based on the resolution of the Governing Body of the college, dated 07.06.2022, and since the said resolution is interfered with, the impugned letter dated 15.07.2024, is also liable to be interfered with, and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed.
30. Further, by a mandamus of this Court, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to take the selection process initiated to fill up Page 50 of 51 the post of Assistant Professor of Political Science (SC reserve) and Roaster Point 36 in S.S. College, Hilakandi, vide advertisement dated 21.03.2022, to its logical conclusion, and if at the end of the process, the petitioner is found to be suitable, then she shall be appointed forthwith.
31. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 within a period of two weeks from today.
32. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. Leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page 51 of 51