Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4544/2024 on 16 October, 2025
GAHC010183592024
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH )
Principal Seat at Guwahati
WP(C)/4544/2024
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Sarma, age: 57 years,
S/o Late Debendranath Sarma,
R/o C/4, Giri Niwas, Kharguli,
P.O. - Uzan Bazar, P.S. - Latasil,
District-Kamrup(M), PIN-781004, Assam.
........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University,
Represented by the Registrar, Resham Nagar,
Khanapara, Guwahati -781022,
District - Kamrup(M), Assam.
2. The Vice-Chancellor,
Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University,
Resham Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati-781022,
District -Kamrup(M), Assam.
Page 1 of 54
3. Board of Management, Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open
University, Resham Nagar, Khanapara,
Guwahati-781022, District -Kamrup(M), Assam.
4. Deputy Registrar (Administration),
Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University,
Resham Nagar, Khanapara, Guwahati- 781022,
District -Kamrup(M), Assam.
5. The Inquiry Committee,
represented by the Chairperson,
constituted under Resolution No. BM/77/23/2024
adopted by the Board of Management,
Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University,
in its 77th Board of Management meeting.
.......Respondents
6. University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
.......Proforma Respondent
- B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate;
Mr. M. Sarma.
Advocates for the respondents : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate;
Mr. P.J. Phukan.
Date of hearing : 04.09.2025
Date of judgment : 16.10.2025
Page 2 of 54
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel; assisted
by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel; assisted by Mr. P.J.
Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1--5. None appears
for the respondent No.6, UGC.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner, namely, Jayanta Kumar Sarma, has challenged the
letter dated 21.08.2024, seeking to re-visit the credential of the
petitioner and he also prayed for setting aside and quash the
Notification, dated 11.06.2024, constituting the committee to
examine the explanation submitted by the petitioner vide Resolution
No. BM/77/23/2024 adopted in the 77th Board of Management
(herein after BoM) meeting of the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State
Open University (hereinafter referred to as the "KKHSOU").
Background Facts:-
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition are adumbrated herein below:-
Page 3 of 54―The petitioner was employed with the Indian Railways for twenty-three (23) years as a Public Relations Officers and thereafter, as a Senior Public Relations Officer, before having opted for VRS. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement No. R2/2020, dated 14.08.2020, (Annexure-A), published in the Assam Tribune, for various posts of teachers, by the "KKHSOU", the petitioner had submitted his application through an online process. Then as per Chapter VI of the First Statutes of the KKHSOU, Clause B(ii) of Chapter VI, states that the applications received against each posts are required to be sent to two outside experts, not connected with the University for assessment of their eligibility for the posts and in accordance with the rules, assistance of two outside experts, was taken in assessing the suitability of the candidates. Then the experts, upon screening of the candidates' suitability, including the petitioner's herein, had recommended the petitioner for further personal interview by a Selection Committee constituted by KKHSOU. The twin assessment sheets, pertaining to the petitioner, besides recommending his candidature had indicated that although the petitioner does not have the required teaching experience as an Assistant and Associate Professor, and had not supervised Research at the Ph.D. level, yet his prior experience in the Industry and his contribution to domain knowledge, qualifies him to be considered for the post of Page 4 of 54 Professor, under Clause 4.1.III.B of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner had been recommended by both the outside experts under the provision of Clause
4.1.III.B of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which provides that "An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D. degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions/industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/ relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided he/she has ten years' experience." Thus, the petitioner's recommendation has been as per the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations, read with the provisions of the First Statutes of the KKHSOU. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview on 21.12.2020. Then upon further assessment by the Selection Committee, held on 21.12.2020, the petitioner was issued with the appointment letter, dated 24.12.2020. Besides, the recommendation of the two outside experts, the Selection Committee had independently taken into consideration the academic credential of the petitioner, as well as his experience in ODL, Research Publication and performance in the interview.
After his appointment the petitioner was on probation period of one (1) year, and thereafter, the service of the petitioner was confirmed vide confirmation letter, dated 11.03.2022, w.e.f. 01.02.2022. The said confirmation letter Page 5 of 54 was issued by the Registrar with the approval of the Vice- Chancellor.
Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show- cause Notice dated 03.04.2023, directing him to provide his "opinion" about the decision of the 70th Board of Management meeting held on 10.03.2023, and on the report of an inquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, based on allegations by one Prof. S. Baruah. The show-cause notice served on the petitioner was purportedly on the petitioner's eligibility and procedure of selection as Professor, Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication, KKHSOU. The report of the Enquiry Committee was also enclosed therewith.
The said Enquiry Committee comprised of three members, out of which two were members of the Board of Management itself. Thus, the Board of Management sat over its own report. In response to the same, the petitioner, vide letter dated 04.04.2023, sought authenticated copies of certain documents relied on by the Enquiry Committee, prior to submitting his reply to the show-cause notice, which were furnished to him on 18.04.2023, and without affording any opportunity to present his case before the authorities, he was served with a termination order, dated 19.04.2023, terminating his services with immediate effect, which was Page 6 of 54 issued by the Registrar, with the approval of the Vice- Chancellor, KKHSOU.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by such an arbitrary action of the respondent KKHSOU, had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2214 / 2023. Then this Court, was pleased to set aside the order of termination, dated 19.04.2023, granting liberty to the respondent KKHSOU to proceed in terms with the Service Rules, 2019 of the respondent University.
Thereafter, the KKHSOU had preferred an appeal, being W.A. 102/2024 against the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2024, which was disposed off vide judgment and order dated 22.04.2024, rendered by the Division Bench of this Court holding that "the appellant University is free to proceed against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, but, after providing him sufficient opportunity of hearing to him. The appellant University is directed to provide sufficient time to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to furnish his explanation /reply and after receiving the same, the proceedings initiated against the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner can be dropped if the appellant University finds the explanation / reply filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner satisfactory. However, in case the University decides otherwise, it shall pass a speaking and reasoned order in that regard."
Page 7 of 54Thereafter, the respondent University, vide show-cause /letter dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure - Ν), had directed the petitioner to furnish his explanation/reply in response to the earlier show-cause notice, dated 03.04.2023, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the said letter.
The Petitioner then submitted his explanation/reply on 10.07.2024, stating his entire credentials for the post of Professor, Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication, KKHSOU.
Then pursuant to the reply of the petitioner, he was asked to appear for a personal hearing on 09.08.2024, vide letter dated 31.07.2024.(Annexure-O). But, on account of the petitioner's son's ill health, he could not appear and the respondent University had allowed him time, vide email, dated 07.08.2024, (Annexure-P).
Thereafter, the respondent University vide letter dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure-Q), had rescheduled the date of personal hearing on 09.09.2024 at 11.00 am, before the Committee constituted vide Notification dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-S) for the purpose of examining the petitioner's reply to the show-cause dated 11.06.2024.
In the aforesaid letter dated 21.08.2024, it is categorically stated that the concerned committee desires the petitioner to appear with all his original documents including Page 8 of 54 certificates/ mark sheets from HSLC to Ph.D. along with experience certificate, Ph.D. thesis and other relevant documents which the petitioner had enclosed with his original application at the time of applying for the post of Professor, Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication, KKHSOU.
The Committee, as referred to in the aforesaid two communications, have been constituted pursuant to the resolution of the BoM in its 77th meeting (Annexure-R), which consists of six (6) members including:-
(a) Three members of the Board of Management;
(b) One Subject matter expert;
(c) One UGC Official; and
(d) Deputy Registrar (Administration), KKHSOU.
It is also stated that it is incomprehensible that the Committee so constituted comprises of three members of the Board of Management, inasmuch as the report of the Enquiry Committee will be tabled before the Board of Management, thus, implying that the Board of Management will then sit and preside over its own report. The Board of Management has, thus, clothed itself as the judge, the jury and the executioner in this case. It is the further contention of the petitioner that this is the second instance of such arbitrary attitude on the part of the respondent authority, inasmuch as earlier, when the Committee was constituted pursuant to the Page 9 of 54 69th BoM, the said Enquiry Committee consisted of three members, out of which two (2) were members were of the BoM. The Committee as referred above had been constituted pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Management in its 77th BoM meeting to "examine the reply" of the petitioner to the show-cause notice. But, by asking for submission of all original documents, and the Ph.D. thesis, the Committee has usurped the role of a selection committee.
Then the petitioner, on 10.07.2024 had also raised concerns about the partisan attitude of the Deputy Registrar (Administration) in his capacity as the State Public Information Officer, KKHSOU disclosing information pertaining to the petitioner held in a fiduciary capacity without obtaining the consent of the petitioner in violation of the RTI Act, 2005 and said incumbent is the convenor of the Committee.
The constitution of the Enquiry Committee goes to show that the fate of the petitioner has already been sealed and pre-decided, and the respondent University is seeking to re-visit the entire process of appointment of the petitioner, taking cover of the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
Further, it is stated that the earlier subject matter experts as well as the other members of the Selection Page 10 of 54 Committee have been replaced by the respondent University, and in its place, a batch of new members have been included to gauge and opine on the subjective aspect of the petitioner's qualifications.
It is also his case that he fulfills the minimum threshold for being considered under Part B of the UGC Regulations, pertaining to appointment of Professor(s), apart and aside the fact that the petitioner had shown exemplary contribution in his line of work, which was duly considered by the then two outside experts. The fact of the minimum qualification of the petitioner finds reflection in the letter dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-T) addressed by the Registrar, KKHSOU before the Government of Assam.
The petitioner also stated that he had following contribution to the field of journalism:-
(a) The Petitioner had been invited by the Gauhati University at different points of time since 2008 to render his services as domain expert to (a) teach post-graduate students, (b) to evaluate answer scripts of post-graduate students, (c) to set question papers for post-graduate students, (d) to assist in preparation of syllabi for post-
graduate courses, (e) to evaluate post-
graduate dissertations and conduct viva-
voce, (f) to advise the Department of Communication and Journalism of Gauhati Page 11 of 54 University as Departmental Advisory Committee member.
(b) Reference/statement from Shri Samudra Gupta Kashyap, who had later become Information Commissioner in Assam Information Commission and currently serving as the Vice Chancellor of Nagaland University, vouching for the Petitioner's prominence as a Public Relations professional in the Northeast.
(c) Petitioner had been a resource person for All India Radio, as well as having been invited as resource person to various colleges and institutions to deliver talks on different topics from 2011 to 2018.
(d) The Petitioner had also been appointed as answer script evaluator by the Directorate of Public Relations, Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati in 2013, as well as an answer script evaluator for PG students of Gauhati University. However, the same are not available but can be accessed from the records of Gauhati University.
(e) Various orders issued by the Registrar of Gauhati University between 15.03.2017 to 06.02.2020 with the approval of the then Vice Chancellor appointing the Petitioner as Guest Lecturer / Part-time Lecturer in the Department of Communication and Journalism of Gauhati University.
Page 12 of 54(f) Notification (No. GU/M/AR/2017/02 dated 23.02.2017) issued with the approval of Vice Chancellor, Gauhati University received on 22.02.2017 appointing the petitioner as a member of the Committee on Course and Syllabus (PG) of the Department of Communication and Journalism.
(g) The petitioner had also uploaded 12 (twelve) scanned pages of 6 (six) PG Dissertations (Cover page & inside first page), as evidence of his guiding six PG students who had been awarded degrees.
(h) Experience certificates from Director, Gauhati University Institute of Distance and Open Learning (GU IDOL), Head of the Department of Communication and Journalism, GU and Controller of Examinations, GU respectively.
It is also stated that he had provided ample instances of his contribution to the field of journalism, which was duly considered by the two outside experts and thereafter, by the Selection Committee. In having the entire process revisited again with a premeditated design with an assured outcome of the petitioner's termination smacks of mala-fide on the part of the respondent KKHSOU.
It is also stated that the petitioner having undergone the rigors of the selection process, as mandated by the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018 as well as Page 13 of 54 the First Statutes of the KKHSOU, as well as having his services confirmed after serving the probationary period of one (1) year, was unceremoniously and unilaterally terminated from services vide Order dated 19.04.2023, without having been accorded any chance to present his case before the authorities. The same action is again going to be repeated by the respondent Authorities, in the garb of gaining legitimacy under and pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
It is also stated that the primary assertions of the respondent authorities against the petitioner are that:-
(a) The petitioner does not fulfill the
eligibility criteria as laid down under
Clause 4.1.III of the UGC Regulations,
2018;
(b) The petitioner does not meet the
eligibility of having contributed to the
field of journalism.
But, the petitioner had shown objective fulfillment of passing the minimum eligibility requirements as mandated under the UGC Regulations, as well as having his contribution to the field considered by the two outside experts and the Selection Committee. Therefore, to have the same subjective process re-visited now with an intention to arrive at a Page 14 of 54 premeditated outcome, is prima-facie illegal, arbitrary and against all known tenets of service law.
It is also stated that assuming but not conceding to the fact that the report of the Committee is not vitiated by malice, mala-fide and a pre-emptive design to arrive at a particular outcome, the petitioner already had to go through the Selection Committee dated 21.12.2020, after the recommendation by the two subject matter experts. It is worthwhile to mention that one BoM member, the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor, KKHSOU were members present when the petitioner was selected for appointment as Professor, Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication, KKHSOU.
It is also stated that the entire selection process pertaining to the selection and appointment of the petitioner, were undertaken by the authorities of the KKHSOU, as well as on-boarding of two subject matter experts, and the petitioner being an outsider at that relevant point in time, could not be a perpetrator of the same. It is further stated that the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor, KKHSOU were members present when the petitioner was selected for appointment as Professor, Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication (BHSMC hereinafter), and it is unclear as to why and how, the respondent University is bent upon re- visiting the entire selection procedure of the petitioner.
Page 15 of 54It is also stated that the Enquiry Report reveals that the entire investigation had been carried out by the Enquiry Committee at the petitioner's back and the initial show-cause dated 03.04.2023, as well as the show-cause dated 11.06.2024, clearly indicates that the authorities had already arrived at a conclusion to terminate the services of the petitioner, prior to the petitioner being directed to provide his "opinion" and/or explanation/reply. The petitioner contends that this a quintessential case of placing the cart before the horse.
It is also that the show-cause notice, dated 11.06.2024, issued in compliance of the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court is merely an eye wash, inasmuch as the authorities have already arrived at their conclusion as indicated by the constitution of the Enquiry Committee in the 77th BoM meeting. And that the conduct of the KKHSOU authorities smacks of mala-fide as well as malice in law against the petitioner.
Further, it is stated that by constituting an Enquiry Committee consisting of the BoM members themselves as well as seeking to revisit the entire selection process pursuant to the letter dated 21.08.2024, the petitioner has been meted out with hostile discrimination and mala-fide which also smacks of colourable exercise of power. If the Page 16 of 54 exercise by way of the personal hearing scheduled for 09.09.2024, is allowed to culminate, this instant petition will be rendered infructuous and thereby causing the petitioner immense irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, it is contended to interfere in this matter and issue appropriate directions upon the KKHSOU authorities to refrain from acting upon the personal hearing of the petitioner scheduled on 09.09.2024.
4. The respondent No. 1, 2, 3, & 4 had filed their affidavit-in- opposition. It is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as the vital parties, including the Government of Assam, the complainant, the members of the "Committee" (by their respective names) have not been arrayed as respondent, though the allegation of biasness has been made in the petition. It is also stated that the chronology of events clearly shows that the petitioner has been dilly-dallying the entire matter for his own vested interest.
It is also stated that vide Advt. No. R2/2020, the KKHSOU had invited applications for 1 (one) post of Professor, under Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication (ANNEXURE-A to the petition). As per provisions in CHAPTER-VI of the KKHSOU First Statute, 2009 (framed under Section 22(1) of the KKHSOU Act, 2005) are as regards the "Teachers of the University" and Clause B (1) provides that "The University shall advertise the posts with such qualifications as has been prescribed in the ordinance", while Clause 1 of the Ordinance No. 8 deals with "the requirements" which are Page 17 of 54 "Essential" and "Desirable" as regards inter alia the post of "Professor". Also, the said CHAPTER-VI in Clause A, while dealing with the "Qualifications" provides for "the recommendations of the Academic Council" from time to time in consistence with "the recommendations of the appropriate Commissions/Committees."
The relevant clauses of the UGC Regulations, 2018 provides as under:-
4.1(III.B)- "An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D. degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (not included in A above) / industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided he/she has ten years' experience".
6.0(V)- "In the case of selection who are from the outside of Academic field and are considered under Clause 4.1 (III.Β), 4.2 (Ι.Β.IIB.IIIB), 4.3 (Ι.Β. ΙΙ.Β. III.B) and 4.4 (III.B) of these Regulations, the university's statutory bodies must lay down clear and transparent criteria and procedure so that only outstanding professionals who can contribute substantially to the university knowledge system are selected".
It is also stated that the petitioner's candidature is not as per the provisions of the existing relevant laws of the land including the KKHSOU Act, 2005 and the Statutes/Ordinances framed there under as well as the UGC Regulations of 2018.
Page 18 of 54It is also stated that by a communication dated 24.12.2020, (ANNEXURE-F to the petition) issued by the then Registrar of KKHSOU, by which the petitioner was informed that he was "selected for appointment to the post of Professor in Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication under the general terms and conditions to be regulated by the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Act, 2005 as amended upto date, the Statutes/Ordinances and Rules of the University in force from time to time" along with certain "terms and conditions" incorporated in the said communication. It is stated in this context that in the "terms and conditions" incorporated regarding "service condition", it was also stated inter alia that on confirmation the Writ Petitioner would "be retained in service up to the age of 65 years or as per provisions of the UGC Regulations adopted by the Govt. of Assam from time to time."
It is also stated that the Board of Management (BoM) of the University constituted a "Committee‖ in connection with the anomalies in the selection process of the petitioner, and the said Committee, after going through the relevant records as well as the provisions of the aforesaid UGC Regulations, 2018 submitted its report, which was deliberated upon by the BoM, in its 70th meeting held on 10.03.2023, resolving inter alia for taking "action‖ as per the said Report.
Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice, dated 03.04.2023, (ANNEXURE-H to the petition) was issued by the then Registrar of Page 19 of 54 the KKHSOU, to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to submit his "opinion about the decision of the Committee and the Board of Management within 10 days from the date of issue of‖ the said communication, while enclosing the "Report of the Committee"
and also stating inter alia that in response to a communication from the UGC, dated 22.12.2022, "a Committee was constituted to examine" the petitioner's eligibility as Professor. And the said Committee concluded in its Report (ANNEXURE-I to the petition) inter-alia, based on certain "observations" that the petitioner "did not fulfill the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Professor at the time of selection." But, the petitioner, even long after "10 days from the date of" issue of the Show Cause Notice dated 03.04.2023, did not respond to the decision of the Committee and the Board of Management; and subsequently by an Office Order dated 19.04.2023 (ANNEXURE-L to the petition), the service of the petitioner in the KKHSOU was "terminated with immediate effect" in pursuance to the decision of the 71st meeting of the BoM held on 19.04.2023 and on the basis of the Report submitted by the Committee.
It is also stated that glaring anomalies, clear on the face of the relevant records, have been pointed out particularly in paragraph-28 and "Conclusion" in the Report of the Committee constituted by the BoM, the principal executive body/authority of the University as per Section-16/17 of the KKHSOU Act, 2005 (ANNEXURE-I to the petition), which are quoted below:Page 20 of 54
"28. While going through the overall process of selection as well as the credentials mentioned in this application, the Committee also tried to explore if the appointment of Dr. Jayanta Kumar Sarma was considered or could be considered in clause 4.I.III.B of the UGC Regulations 2018.
The UGC under this clause had specified:-
"An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (not included in 'A' above) / industry, who has make significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided she/he has ten years' experience".
In the instant case, this criteria has not been considered in the selection of Dr. Jayanta Kumar Sarma by the Selection Committee or by the University as is evident from the Minutes of the Selection committee and records of the University. However, the two experts in their assessment report had mentioned for considering the application under this criteria. Although the assessment reports in itself are faulty and not based on the verifiable criteria of the UGC, the Committee observes that the application of Dr. Jayanta Kumar Sarma could not have been and cannot be considered under this criteria since except having a PhD Degree, there is nothing in record to prove that he was an outstanding professional who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the Page 21 of 54 concerned/allied/relevant discipline. He had only one research paper to his credit and there is no documentary evidence to support that he made significant contribution to the knowledge in the area of Mass Communication. He was working as a PRO and as PRO his job profile in the Railways was different than the job profile of a researcher working in a research Institute or a professional developing policy documents or bringing new inventions or adding to the knowledge of the discipline. There is no evidence to prove that he has obtained any research projects or developed any new teaching learning pedagogy or produced any policy documents etc. so as to be considered as an outstanding professional. Moreover, the UGC vide clause 6.0.V has mentioned, the criteria for selection of faculty members under 4.I.III.B according to which "the statutory authority of the University must lay down clear and transparent criteria and procedures so that only outstanding professional who can contribute substantially to the University knowledge system are selected". In the instant case, no such criteria or procedure has been laid down by the KKHSOU, and accordingly, neither it could select Dr. Jayanta Kumar under these criteria nor it has selected him under these criteria.
Conclusion:-
Based on the above observations, the Committee is of the opinion that Dr. Jayanta Kumar Sarma did not fulfill the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Page 22 of 54 Professor during the time of selection the Committee also observes that there were deviations in the selection procedure and lacked transparency which require enough checks and balances so that such instances do not occur in future."
It is also stated that the said termination order has been issued in tune with the existing laws of the land including the UGC Regulations, 2018 as well as the KKHSOU Act of 2005 and the Statutes/Ordinances, etc. there under. And that the petitioner could not find "time" even after 16 (sixteen) days from the issuance of the Show Cause Notice to respond as well as prepare his "submission" (even requiring further two weeks' time to submit his reply, as per his "another representation on 19.04.2023").
Further, it is stated that the petitioner purportedly being aggrieved with the said termination order from the post of Professor, had moved before this Court by filing a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No.-2214/2023, challenging inter alia the aforesaid termination order dated 19.04.2023. In the said petition, the respondent KKHSOU authorities filed Affidavit-in-Opposition whereto the petitioner also filed his affidavit-in-reply.
Then this Court, vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2024, set aside and quashed the said termination order, dated 19.04.2023, and directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as Professor of BHSMC, KKHSOU with all consequential benefits.
Further, the University has been given the liberty to proceed with Page 23 of 54 the departmental proceedings against the petitioner strictly in terms of the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Employees (Academic and Non-academic) Service Conditions, Conduct and Appeal Rules, 2019.
Then being aggrieved with the said judgment & order dated 15.03.2024, in W.P.(C) No.- 2214/2023 the KKHSOU authorities preferred a Writ Appeal, being WA No.-102/2024, and this Court by a Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2024 (ANNEXURE- M to the petition), while disposing of the Writ Appeal held that "the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in setting aside the termination order, dated 19.04.2023, issued by the Registrar of KKHSOU terminating the service of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner as Professor in Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication and has rightly ordered for reinstating the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in service forthwith on the said post with all consequential benefits. However, the appellant University can very well proceed against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner by providing him sufficient opportunity of hearing without adhering to the procedure laid down under the Service Rules of 2019."
In the aforesaid judgment and order, dated 22.04.2024, it has also been held that "The appellant University is free to proceed against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, but after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to him. The appellant University is directed to provide sufficient time to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to furnish his explanation/reply and after receiving the Page 24 of 54 same, the proceedings initiated against the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner can be dropped if the appellant University finds the explanation/reply filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner satisfactory. However, in case the University decides otherwise, it shall pass a speaking and reasoned order in that regard."
In pursuance to the aforesaid Judgment and Order, dated 22.04.2024, a communication dated 11.06.2024 (ANNEXURE-N to the petition) has been sent to the petitioner to furnish his explanation/reply (in response to the above- mentioned Show Cause Notice dated 03.04.2023) and the petitioner has submitted his explanation/reply thereto, dated 10.07.2024. It would be relevant to point out here that as regards the instant matter, a "Committee‖ has been duly constituted on 11.06.2024, as per Resolution passed in 77th meeting of the Board of Management (ANNEXURE-R and ANNEXURE-S to the petition) and that the "hearing" of the instant matter scheduled to be held on 09.08.2024, in view of communication dated 31.07.2024, but the same has been postponed in view of the application dated 07.08.2024, filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, by another communication dated 21.08.2024, (ANNEXURE-Q of the petition) the petitioner was asked to appear for the aforesaid postponed "hearing" on 09.09.2024, with all the original documents relevant to the instant matter (also arranging for video-recording of the hearing).
It is also stated that the "Committee" in question has been constituted in a proper manner, as per the aforementioned Page 25 of 54 Judgment & Order dated 22.04.2024, the KKHSOU Act, 2005 and the Statutes/Ordinances framed there under, relevant laws including the UGC Regulations, 2018 as well as the laws as laid down by the Apex Court and the Courts there under, in this regard. Further, there is no legal bar/restriction for the BoM member(s) to be part of the committee constituted by it; and the purported "concerns" raised by the petitioner against "the convenor of the Committee" as well as the far-fetched apprehension that "the Committee has usurped the role of a selection committee' are also not acceptable in the context of the instant matter. The petitioner had made wild allegations that "the fate of the petitioner has already been sealed and pre-decided", purportedly seeking "to re-visit" the entire process of appointment, that too by "taking cover of" this Court's aforesaid Judgment & Order, dated 22.04.2024. It is stated that on 02.09.2024, the petitioner had submitted a communication of the same date, on certain aspects of this matter, which has been adequately responded through a communication of KKHSOU, dated 03.09.2024. The petitioner has also requested by his communication dated 07.08.2024, to grant him "one last chance" for appearing before the Committee and even after that he has been raising questions regarding constitution of the Committee and its functioning; and if one accepts the petitioner's logic, revolving around the biasness aspect, then the University authorities could not be able to take any decision of the University in the days to come Page 26 of 54 relegating its functioning to a standstill position, which is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
The petitioner has craftily sought to project the factual background again (in having "the entire process revisited again with a premeditated design", as per the phrase used by the petitioner himself in different context). Further, the instant matter could not be termed as "a quintessential case of placing the cart before the horse" as contended by the petitioner; and the entire (academic matter is in the administrate law sphere. That the BoM in its 77th meeting has sought to constitute a "Committee" in pursuance to this Court's aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 22.04.2024, in WA No.- 102/2024.‖ Under the facts and circumstances above, the petitioner has contended to dismiss this petition.
5. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, during argument, has raised following points for consideration of this Court:-
(i) That, the petitioner has fulfilled the requisite criteria of for the post of Professor, as laid down under the Clause 4.1.III.B of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and that two Subject Expert, from outside the State of Assam also opined in favour of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is eligible under category ‗B' to be called for interview. And accordingly, after a due selection process he was appointed as Professor.Page 27 of 54
(ii) Mr. Choudhury also submits that besides having Ph.D. Degree on the relevant subject, he had contributed a lot in the field of journalism and list of his contribution to the field of journalism has duly been mentioned in the petition itself.
(iii) That, after the joining of the petitioner, some complaints alleging anomalies regarding selection of the petitioner has been received by the Chancellor of the University, including a letter of Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Education forwarded by the Deputy Secretary, UGC and thereafter, the matter was placed before the BoM of KKHSOU and the BoM in its meeting held on 19.01.2023, had decided to constitute a committee to examine the selection procedure and accordingly a committee, comprising of Dr. Mridul Hazarika, Member BoM, Professor Muneesh Kumar, Member BOM, and Director, (ACD) IGNOU, New Delhi, and the said committee, after verification of relevant documents, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility condition for being appointed to the post of Professor and there was deviation in the selection procedure and lack of transparency and thereafter, based upon the said report the petitioner's service was terminated vide order dated 19.04.2023 and the said order was successfully challenged in the WP(C) No. 2214/2023, but while setting aside the termination order dated 19.04.2023, vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2024, this Court had granted liberty to the KKHSOU to proceed with departmental proceeding strictly adhering to the Service Rules, 2019.Page 28 of 54
(iv) Mr. Choudhury also submits that thereafter, the respondent KKHSOU had unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024, passed by this Court in WA No.102 of 2024. But, while disposing of the appeal, the Division Bench had observed that the appellant University can very well proceed against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, by providing him sufficient opportunity of hearing without adhering to the procedure laid down under the Service Rules of 2019. It is also held that the appellant University is free to proceed against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, but after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to him. The appellant University is directed to provide sufficient time to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to furnish his explanation/reply and after receiving the same, the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner can be dropped, if the appellant University finds the explanation/reply filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner satisfactory. However, in case the University decides otherwise, it shall pass a speaking and reasoned order in that regard.
(v) Mr. Choudhury further submits that the petitioner then preferred one interlocutory application being IA(C) No. 2628/2024, for review of the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024, passed in WA No.102/2024, but vide order dated 24-09-2024, the same was dismissed. And the order dated 24-09-2024, passed in IA(C) No. 2628/2024, and judgment and order dated 15.03.2024, passed by this Court in WA No.102 of 2024, is being challenged by the Page 29 of 54 petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 53620/2024, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(vi) Further contention of Mr. Choudhury is that as no stay has been granted in the said Special Leave Petition, the respondent University, had issued show-cause/letter, dated 11.06.2024, directing the petitioner to furnish his explanation/reply in response to the earlier show-cause notice, dated 03.04.2023, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the said letter. And accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 10.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear for a personal hearing on 09.08.2024, vide letter dated 31.07.2024, but he could not appear on that day on account of the petitioner's son's health, and thereafter, the respondent University vide letter dated 21.08.2024, had rescheduled the date on 09.09.2024, at 11.00 am before the Committee constituted vide Notification dated 11.06.2024, for the purpose of examining the petitioner's reply to the show-cause dated 11.06.2024.
(vii) Mr. Choudhury also submits that in the letter dated 21.08.2024, it is categorically states that the concerned committee desires the petitioner to appear with all his original documents, including certificates/mark sheets from HSLC to Ph.D., along with experience certificate, Ph.D. thesis and other relevant documents which the petitioner had enclosed with his original application at the time of applying for the post of Professor.
Page 30 of 54(viii) Further contention of Mr. Choudhury is that it is incomprehensible that the Committee so constituted comprises of three members of the Board of Management, and the report of the Enquiry Committee will be tabled before the Board of Management, which will then sit and preside over its own report and act as the judge, the jury and the executioner in this case. And the Committee, so constituted, will examine the reply of the petitioner to the show- cause notice. But, by asking for submission of all original documents, and the Ph.D. thesis, the Committee has usurped the role of a selection committee.
(ix) It is also being pointed out by Mr. Choudhury that constitution of the Enquiry Committee goes to show that the fate of the petitioner has already been pre-decided, and the respondent University, is seeking to re-visit the entire process of appointment of the petitioner, pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court and that the earlier subject matter experts as well as the other members of the Selection Committee, have been replaced by the respondent University, and in its place a batch of new members have been included to gauge and opine on the subjective aspect of the petitioner's qualifications.
(x) It is also the submission of Mr. Choudhury that the petitioner fulfills the minimum threshold, for being considered under Part ‗B' of the UGC Regulations, pertaining to appointment of Page 31 of 54 Professor(s), and he had made exemplary contribution in his line of work, which was duly considered by the then two outside subject experts. And under such circumstances, the conduct of the respondent University is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition by setting aside constitution of the committee vide resolution of the BoM adopted in 77th meeting of BoM and also to quash the letter dated 21.08.2024, by which the respondent University seeks to revisit the credential of the petitioner.
(xi) Mr. Choudhury has also referred following decision to strengthen his submission:-
(i) Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Narendra Kumar Chowdhary and Another, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 293;
(ii) Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 661;
6. Per contra, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the respondent University has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Choudhury has pointed out that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, as prescribed by the UGC in its Regulation for being selected to the post of Professor of Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication of KKHSOU. Referring to Regulation 4.1(III.B), Mr. Choudhury submits that as per said criteria, for being selected to the post of Professor, a candidate should be ‚an outstanding Page 32 of 54 professional, having a Ph.D. degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (Not included in A above) industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided he/she has ten years' experience‛. Referring to the Selection Procedure, as prescribed in Regulation 6.0.V., Mr. Choudhury submits that said regulation provides that ‚In the case of selection of faculty members who are from outside the academic field and are considered under Clause 4.1 (III.B), 4.2 (IB, II.В. III. В), 4.3 (I.B., IIB, IIIB) and 4.4 (III.B) of these Regulations, the University's statutory bodies must lay down clear and transparent criteria and procedure so that only outstanding professional who can contribute substantially to the university knowledge system are selected.‛ 6.1. However, referring to para No.28 of the report of the Committee constituted for examination of the selection procedure and eligibility of the petitioner, by the BoM, in its 69th meeting held on 19.01.2023, in paragraph No.28, had concluded that the Committee is of the opinion that Dr. Jayanta Kumar Sarma did not fulfill the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Professor at the time of selection and that there were deviations in the selection procedure and it lacks transparency.
Page 33 of 546.2. Mr. Choudhury also pointed it out that based upon the said report the petitioner's service was terminated vide order, dated 19.04.2023, and the said order was challenged in the WP(C) No. 2214/2023, wherein the termination order dated 19.04.2023, was set aside vide judgment and order, dated 15.03.2024, but this Court had granted liberty to the University to proceed with departmental proceeding strictly adhering to the service Rules, 2019. Thereafter, the respondent University had challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge in WA No.102 of 2024, wherein the Division Bench had observed that the appellant University can very well proceed against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner by providing him sufficient opportunity of hearing without adhering to the procedure laid down under the Service Rules of 2019. It is also provided that the University is free to proceed against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner but after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to him to furnish his explanation/reply and after receiving the same, the proceedings initiated against the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, can be dropped, if the appellant University finds the explanation/reply filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner satisfactory, and in case the University decides otherwise, it shall pass a speaking and reasoned order in that regard.
6.3. Mr. Choudhury further pointed out that the petitioner then preferred one interlocutory application being IA(C) No. 2628/2024, for review of the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024, passed in Page 34 of 54 WA No.102/2024, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2024 and then the petitioner against the said order has preferred one Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).53620/2024, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein no stay has been granted. And only thereafter, the respondent University, had issued show-cause/letter, dated 11.06.2024, directing the petitioner to furnish his explanation/reply in response to the earlier show-cause notice, dated 03.04.2023, within a period of thirty (30) days, pursuant to which the petitioner had submitted his reply and then the petitioner was asked to appear for a personal hearing on 09.08.2024, but he could not appear on that day and the date is rescheduled on 09.09.2024 before the Committee constituted vide Notification dated 11.06.2024, for the purpose of examining the petitioner's reply to the show-cause dated 11.06.2024. But, he did not appear on that day and instead he approached this Court by filing the present petition and that his conduct is nothing but a serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
6.4. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum requirement for being considered to the post of Professor, under Part B of the UGC Regulations 4.1(III.B.) of the UGC Regulations, and that the University has the right to revisit its earlier decision of selection and appointment of the petitioner as professor. And on these counts, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Referring to the decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Choudhury submits that the ratio laid Page 35 of 54 down in the said cases are not applicable in the case in hand. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the authority has the power to review its earlier order, and that when there is illegality in selection process, the same would be void and a nullity and would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and such person cannot approach the Court for any relief and such appointment can be terminated without any need of a departmental enquiry.
6.5. In support of his submission, Mr. Choudhury has referred following decisions:-
(i) R. R. Verma and others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 402;
(ii) Kime Boby & Anr. vs. Gauhati High Court & Anr., reported in 2021 (3) GLT 33;
7. In reply to above submission of Mr. Choudhury, Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent University had subjectively assessed the suitability of the petitioner and now they cannot re-asses the same again.
8. However, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the respondents in reply to above, submits that objective materials are not placed to adjudge his suitability. Further, Mr. Choudhury submits that if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the constitution of the committee, then the respondent may consider constitution of a fresh committee.
Page 36 of 549. Having heard the submission of learned Counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record and the impugned letter dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure-Q), and the Notification, dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-S), issued by the Registrar (I/C) of KKHSOU regarding constitution of the Committee to examine the explanations submitted by the petitioner herein. Also this Court has gone through the decisions, referred by learned counsel for both the parties.
10. In view of the case so projected by the respective parties, in their pleadings, and also as projected by their respective counsel, in their submissions, the issues, to be addressed by this Court are :-
(a) Whether the respondent KKHSOU can revisit the suitability of the petitioner to the post of Professor, Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication of KKHSOU, after his service being confirmed on successful completion of the probation period, and once his suitability has already been adjudged by the Selection Committee, as is apparent from the letter dated 21.08.2024 ?
(b) Whether the committee comprising of three members of the BoM can sit and presided over its own report and as such can act as a Judge, the Jury and the Executioner?
11. The basic facts, herein this case, are not in dispute. The petitioner had applied for the post of Professor, in Bhupen Hazarika Page 37 of 54 School of Mass Communication of KKHSOU, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent KKHSOU. He was appointed in December, 2020 following all the relevant provisions of the UGC, and in accordance with the First Statutes of the respondent KKHSOU. His service was confirmed vide order dated 11.03.2022.
11.1. However, he was terminated from service on 19.04.2023, without giving an opportunity of being heard to him. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court by way of WP(C) 2214/2023, where this Court vide order dated 19.04.2023, directed the authorities to reinstate him with all back wages. However, this Court had granted liberty to the respondent KKHSOU to proceed, if need be, in accordance with the Service Rules of the respondent KKHSOU. Then the respondent KKHSOU had preferred an appeal being W.A. No. 102 / 2024, which was disposed off vide Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2024, holding that - the appellant University is free to proceed against the petitioner, but after providing him sufficient opportunity of hearing to him. It was also directed that the appellant University is directed to provide sufficient time to the petitioner to furnish his explanation / reply and after receiving the same, the proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner can be dropped if the appellant University finds the explanation / reply filed by the petitioner satisfactory. However, in case the University decides otherwise, it shall pass a speaking and reasoned order in that regard.
Page 38 of 5411.2. It also appears that based upon the said judgment, the respondent KKHSOU now decided to re-visit the entire aspect of his selection process and also his suitability to the post by examining his qualification and experience and his contribution to the field, which appears to be an entirely a subjective assessment.
12. It is to be noted here that the impugned letter, dated 21.08.2024, by which the respondent KKHSOU has asked the petitioner to appear before the committee with all the original documents including certificates/mark sheets from HSLC to Ph.D. along with experience certificate, original Ph.D. Thesis and other relevant documents which he had enclosed with his application for the post of Professor, and by which, as alleged by the petitioner, the respondent KKSHOU proceeds to revisit the suitability of the petitioner to the post of Professor, Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication of KKHSOU, after his service being confirmed, is read as under:-
Office of the Registrar Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Head Office: Patgaon :: Rani: Guwahati-17, City Office:
NH-37:: Resham Nagar:: Khanapara: Guwahati-22 Ref. No. KKHSOU/PF/08/2021/PART Date: 21-08-2024 To.
Prof. Jayanta Kumar Sarma, Professor & Director, Page 39 of 54 Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication KKHSOU Sub:- Re-scheduling of Hearing before the Committee as per your request vide letter dated 7th August, 2024 Ref.: 1. Judgment & Order dated 22/04/2024 in Writ Appeal No. 102 of 2024
2. Your Explanation/reply dated 10/07/2024 to the communication dated 11/06/2024
3. Ref No. KKHSOU/PF/08/2021/129/3341 dated 31-07- 2024.
4 Your letter dated 07-08-2024, requesting for extension of date for hearing.
Sir, With due reference to the above, and as per directives of the Committee meeting held on 9th & 10th August, 2024, I am directed to inform you that the Committee has rescheduled the hearing on 9th September, 2024 from 11.00 A.M. onwards as per your request dated 07-08-2024. The Committee desires you to appear for the hearing with all the original documents including certificates/mark sheets from HSLC to Ph.D. along with experience certificate, original Ph.D. Thesis and other relevant documents which you had enclosed with your application for the post of Professor.
The Committee has also decided that video recording of the hearing will be done.
Page 40 of 54With regards S/d.
Registrar i/c.
13. Further, the Notification, dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-S), issued by the Registrar(I/C) of KKHSOU, regarding constitution of the Committee to examine the explanation, so submitted by the petitioner herein, is read as under:-
Office of the Registrar Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Resham Nagar :: Khanapar :: Guwahati-22 Ref:- KKHSOU/PF/08/2021/105 Dated 11 June, 2024 Notification This is for information to all concerned that as per Resolution No. BM/77/23/2024 of the 77th meeting of the Board of Management held on 10.06 2024, the following Committee has been constituted to examine the explanations to be submitted by Prof. Jayanta Kumar Sarma in response to the Show Cause Notice issued to him:
1. Prof. B.L. Choudhury, Hon'ble Member, BOM, KKHSOU
2. Prof. L.K. Nath, Hon'ble Member, BOM, KKHSOU
3. Prof. Pralhad R. Joshi, Hon'ble Member, BOM, KKHSOU
4. One UGC Official (existing or retired)
5. One Subject Expert Page 41 of 54
6. Deputy Registrar (Admin) This is issued with the approval of the Vice Chancellor.
Sd./ Registrar (i/c) Dated 11 June, 2024
14. It is worth mentioning in this context that, Clause 4.1(III.B), of the UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribes the criteria which are required to be fulfilled by a candidate for being selected to the post of Professor. As discussed herein above, a candidate should be:-
‚An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D. degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (Not included in A above)/ industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/ allied/relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided he/she has ten years' experience‛.
14.1. It also appears that Clause- 6.0.V., of the UGC Regulations, 2018, prescribed the Selection Procedure, which read as under:-
‚In the case of selection of faculty members who are from outside the academic field and are considered under Clause 4.1 (III.B), 4.2 (IB, II.В. III. В), 4.3 (I.B., IIB, IIIB) and 4.4 (III.B) of these Regulations, the University's statutory bodies must lay down Page 42 of 54 clear and transparent criteria and procedure so that only outstanding professional who can contribute substantially to the university knowledge system are selected.‛ 14.2. And indisputably, no such criteria or procedure, so mentioned in Clause- 6.0.V., has been laid down by the KKHSOU.
This fact is apparent from para No.28 of the Report of the Committee on Examination of the Selection Procedure and Eligibility of Professor Jayanta Kumar Sarma, dated 06.03.2023. The relevant portion of the report is reproduced herein below:-
‚Moreover, the UGC vide clause 6.0.V has mentioned the criteria for selection of faculty members under 4.1.III.B according to which "the statutory authority of the University must lay down clear and transparent criteria and procedures so that only outstanding professional who can contribute substantially to the University knowledge system are selected. In the instant case, no such criteria or procedure has been laid down by the KKHSOU and accordingly neither it could select Dr. Jayanta Kumar Sarma under these criteria nor it has selected him under these criteria.‛
15. It is also not in dispute that before selection of the petitioner, the respondent KKHSOU, had obtained assessment reports from two of its subject experts, namely, Prof Ram Mohan Pathak, Vice Chancellor, Nehru Gram Bharti, Deemed to be University and Prof. Page 43 of 54 V. Krishna Ananth, Department of History, Sikkim University (Annexure 9). And also indisputably, both are part of the Panel of Experts for Bhupen Hazarika School of Mass Communication approved by the Board of Management in its 59th meeting, vide resolution No. BM/59/6/2020, dated 19.10.2020. And both the experts had mentioned that the two candidates are eligible to be considered for the post of Professor under clause 4.1.III.B of the UGC Regulations, 2018. And based upon the said opinion of two subjects' experts, the petitioner was called to appear before the Selection Committee and ultimately, he was found suitable and selected and appointed accordingly.
16. And now the respondent KKHSOU has raised question about the opinion of its own Panel of Experts, who had awarded the petitioner either excellent or very good in the parameters. Further, from a cursory perusal of the letter, dated 21-08-2024, indicates that the Committee, so constituted vide Notification dated 11th June 2024, desires the petitioner to appear for the hearing with all the original documents, including certificates/mark sheets from HSLC to Ph.D. along with experience certificate, original Ph.D. Thesis and other relevant documents which he had enclosed with his application for the post of Professor.
17. Thus, from the language employed in the impugned letter, it becomes loud and clear that the Committee, so constituted vide Notification, Dated 11th June, 2024, desires to revisit the suitability Page 44 of 54 of the petitioner again by stepping into the shoes of the Selection Committee, which to the considered opinion of this Court is impermissible. The respondent KKHSOU cannot be allowed to take the advantage of its own wrong.
18. As is apparent from the observation made by the committee so constituted by the respondent KKHSOU in para No.28, the statutory authority of the University, in view of Clause 6.0.V. of the UGC Regulations, 2018, must lay down clear and transparent criteria and procedures so that only outstanding professional, who can contribute substantially to the University knowledge system are selected, under Clause 4.1.III.B of the said Regulation, but, as mandated by said Clauses, no such criteria or procedure has been laid down by the KKHSOU, for which the petitioner could not be selected under the said criteria.
19. Further, from the impugned Notification, dated 11 June, 2024, it becomes apparent that a Committee has been constituted as per Resolution No. BM/77/23/2024 of the 77th meeting of the Board of Management held on 10.06.2024, to examine the explanations submitted by the petitioner, comprises of three members of BoM namely, Prof. B.L. Choudhury, Member, Prof. L.K. Nath, Member, and Prof. Pralhad R. Joshi, Member. Besides, it also comprises of one UGC Official (existing or retired), one Subject Expert and Deputy Registrar (Admin). And under this circumstances, Mr. M.K. Page 45 of 54 Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is incomprehensible that the Committee, so constituted comprises of three members of the Board of Management, inasmuch as the report of the Enquiry Committee will be tabled before the Board of Management, thus implying that the Board of Management will then sit and preside over its own report and that the Board of Management has, thus, clothed itself as the judge, the jury and the executioner in this case.
20. It is well settled proposition of law that nobody should be the judge of its own cause "Nemo Judex in Causa Sua," This principle mandates that decision-makers must remain unbiased, ensuring justice is not only done, but also seems to be done. It addresses various forms of bias, including personal, pecuniary, and subject-matter bias, which can compromise the integrity of decisions. This principle embodied the following:-
Impartiality :- Decision-makers must have no personal interest in the outcome.
Absence of Bias :- There should be no reasonable suspicion of bias.
Fair Procedure :- The process must ensure that justice is administered without prejudice.
20.1. It is to be mentioned here that in the case of Union of India vs. B. N. Jha, reported in AIR 1957 SC 425, Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that any interest, pecuniary Page 46 of 54 or otherwise, in the subject matter disqualifies a person from acting as a judge in that case, reinforcing the importance of impartiality.
20.2. In the case of A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the said principle as under:-
20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely:
(1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice.
Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If Page 47 of 54 the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-
judicial enquiry. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [1968 SCC OnLine SC 9] the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
Page 48 of 5420.3. Again in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398, this aspect was dealt with as under:-
‚86. The two rules ‚nemo judex in causa sua‛ and ‚audi alteram partem‛ and their corollary that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done have been recognized from early days in English courts. References to them are to be found in the Year Books--a title preferred to the alternative one of ‚Books of Years and Terms‛ -- which were a regular series, with a few gaps, of law reports in Anglo-Norman or Norman-French or a mixture of English, Norman-French and French, which had then become the court language, from the 1270s to 1535 or, as printed after the invention of the printing press, from 1290 to 1535, that is, from the time of Edward II to Henry VIII. The above principles of natural justice came to be firmly established over the course of centuries and have become a part of the law of the land. Both in England and in India they apply to civil as well as to criminal cases and to the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative powers. The expression ‚natural justice‛ is now so well understood in England that it has been used without any definition in statutes of Parliament, for example, in Section 3(10) of the Foreign Compensation Act, 1969, and Section 6(13) of the Trade Union and Labour Reforms Act, 1974, which was later repealed by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act, 1976. These rules of natural justice have been recognized and given effect to in many countries and different systems of law. They have now received international recognition by being enshrined in Article 10 of the Universal Page 49 of 54 Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations by Resolution 217-A(iii) of December 10, 1948, Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which came into force on September 3, 1953, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 2200-A(XXI) of December 16, 1966, which came into force on March 23, 1976.‛
21. In the instant case, the petitioner had already expressed his apprehension that because of the presence of three members of the BoM in the committee constituted for examination of his show cause reply, who will now consider his reply and also consider the report of the Enquiry Committee(Annexure-I), which was conducted by a three members committee, out of which two were members of the then Board of Management will now sit and preside over its own report and that the Board of Management has, thus, clothed itself as the judge, the jury and the executioner in this case.
21.1. Since allegation is made by the petitioner that the principle of natural justice had been contravened, this Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case, as held in the case of A.K. Kraipak (supra). And having examined the same in given factual backdrop and in the light of submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that observance of that rule is necessary not only for a just decision on the facts of the present Page 50 of 54 case and to maintain impartiality, but also to demonstrate absence of biasness on the part of the decision-makers.
21.2. And applying the aforesaid proposition to the facts herein this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the constitution of the Committee by the respondent KKHSOU, to examine the explanation furnished by the petitioner appears to be not in conformity with the principles of natural justice as enshrined in the maxim "Nemo Judex in Causa Sua", application of which to administrative power, has already been settled in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra).
22. This Court has also gone through the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties. There is no quarrel at the Bar about the proposition laid down in the said cases, which proceeds on their own facts. But, the decision referred by Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner appears to be not applicable in all force, to the given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, reference to all those cases, is found to be not necessary to decide the issue here in this case.
22.1. There is, however, no doubt about the power and authority of the government to review its earlier order. And the same has authoritatively been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.R. Verma and Others (supra). Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent KKHSOU has rightly pointed this out during argument. But, it is equally well settled that in doing so, Page 51 of 54 the authority cannot ignore the principles of natural justice as discussed in the forgoing para. In the other case referred by Mr. Choudhury, i.e. Kime Boby & Anr. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has relied upon some decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, to set aside the appointment of one candidate, who, on the last date of filing of application had not acquired the requisite qualification for the post and directed to appoint the second in the merit list. But, in the case in hand, the issue is quite different and as such, the said decision would not advance the case of the respondents herein.
23. In the result, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed with the following direction and order:-
(i) The impugned letter dated 21.08.2024, so far it relates to asking the petitioner to bring all the original documents including certificates/marksheets from HSLC to Ph.D. along with experience certificate, original Ph.D. thesis and other relevant documents which he had enclosed with his application for the post of Professor and thereby intending to re-visit the credential of the petitioner, stands set aside and quashed;
(ii) The impugned Notification, dated 11 June 2024, in respect of constitution of committee, as per Resolution No. BM/77/23/2024 of the 77th meeting of the Board of Management held on 10.06 2024, to examine the explanations submitted by the Page 52 of 54 petitioner, comprising of three members of BoM namely, Prof. B.L. Choudhury, Hon'ble Member, Prof. L.K. Nath, Hon'ble Member, and Prof. Pralhad R. Joshi, Hon'ble Member, besides, one UGC Official (existing or retired), one Subject Expert and Deputy Registrar (Admin), stands set aside and quashed;
(iii) Since the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted by a committee comprising of two members of the BoM, with another member outside the BoM and since the report of the said enquiry committee, with the show cause reply/explanation of the petitioner, now be placed before a committee comprising of three members of BoM and other three members, the same appears to be in contravention of the principles of natural justice, i.e."Nemo Judex in Causa Sua‛, as the members of the BoM cannot act as Judge and Jury and the Executioner and as such, the respondent KKHSOU is directed to re-
constitute the Committee without there being any members of the BoM.
(iv) The Committee, so constituted, shall fix a new date and inform the petitioner and thereafter, proceed to examine the explanation/show cause reply of the petitioner strictly adhering to the directions, so issued by the Division Bench in WA No. 102 of 2024 including certificates/mark sheets from HSLC to Ph.D. Page 53 of 54 along with experience certificate, original Ph.D. Thesis and other relevant documents which he had enclosed with his application for the post of Professor.
24. The parties have to bear their own cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page 54 of 54