Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petitioners, who are serving at Lala Rural College, Hailakandi as Teachers and as Members of the Governing Body have brought to challenge the aforesaid letter/order dated 20.7.2013.

5. The facts unfolding is that on 29.11.2011, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Principal at Lala Rural College, Lala, Hailakandi, under the hand of the President of the Governing Body of the said College. Pursuant thereto, a Selection Committee was constituted and the case of the lone aspirant, i.e. Respondent No.5 was taken up for consideration. According to the Report of the Selection Committee, the said Respondent No.5 failed to fulfill the minimum requirement of API score of 160. In fact, by Resolution No.1 of 23.1.2012, the Governing Body of the College, on the basis of the Report of the Selection Committee, did not accept the candidature of the Respondent No.5 and unanimously resolved to accept the Report of the Selection Committee. What followed thereafter is nothing but persistent interference by the DHE, Assam towards selection and appointment of the Respondent No.5. By a letter dated 1.2.2012, addressed to the President of the Governing Body, the DHE indicated that although Respondent No.5 had secured an API score of 147, however, after verification it appeared that the said Respondent No.5 had secured an API score of 167. The said letter of 1.2.2012, according to the writ petitioner and as categorically stated at paragraph 11 of the writ petition, having been delivered to the College administration by hand by the Respondent No.5, a further Resolution was adopted on 23.8.2012 with regard to ascertaining the authenticity of the said letter dated 1.2.2012.

6. The persistent effort of the Directorate towards appointment of Respondent No.5 also figured in the letter dated 18.10.2012, issued under the hand of the Deputy Director of Higher Education, Assam. By the said letter, the Principal In-charge of Lala Rural College was informed that the calculation with regard to API score of Respondent No.5 had been re-assessed by appointing one Dr. Santanu Kr. Baishya, Associate Professor of Cotton College and Sri Jagannath Patgiri, Associate Professor of Pragjyotish College, Guwahati and the said experts had submitted a Report on 12.10.2012 indicating that API score in respect of the Respondent No.5 is 160.

7. The confusion arising with regard to API score in respect of the Respondent No.5, which according to the Director is 167 and according to the letter of the Deputy Director of Higher Education is 160 and that of the Selection Committee being 147, the Governing Body of the College adopted another Resolution on 6.4.2013 resolving to refer the two API scores received from the DHE and the Dy DHE respectively to the Selection Committee, earlier constituted for appointment of Principal at Lala Rural College, for the purpose of undertaking scrutiny and for seeking valued opinion in order that a meeting of the Governing Body can be held on the findings of the Committee and the entire matter disposed of finally. The Principal In-charge was requested to arrange the meeting of the Selection Committee accordingly. Each of the members of the Selection Committee were apprised of the fact situation vide letter dated 16.4.2013 with request to suggest a date, as per their availability, in order that a meeting of the Selection Committee could be held. Pursuant thereof, the Selection Committee met on 4.5.2013 for scrutiny of API score of Respondent No.5 and on a detailed consideration held that the API score to which the Respondent No.5 is entitled, stands at 147. Two letters followed thereafter - one from the Director, Higher Education Assam alleging willful negligence on the part of the President of the Governing Body with regard to appointment of regular Principal at Lala Rural College, the other being the impugned letter dated 20.7.2013 whereby the Govt. of Assam in the Higher Education Deptt. had indicated its approval as a one-time measure towards selection made by the concerned Governing Bodies in respect of the five Colleges mentioned therein. At serial No.5 of the said impugned letter dated 20.7.2013, the name of Respondent No.5 figured as against Lala Rural College, Lala. The petitioners have also brought on record the orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings and the interpretation rendered by the DHE in respect of the Court's order dated 2.3.2015 which, according to the petitioners, is wholly incorrect and is only an attempt to pressurize the Governing Body of the College to act in favour of Respondent No.5. By once such communication dated 6.4.2015, the DHE has also indicated that steps would be taken which may lead to dissolution of the Governing Body.

Mr. Dhar on the basis of the provisions under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules 2010, further submits that the impugned order of 20.7.2013 cannot stand the scrutiny of law, inasmuch as, Respondent No.5 was neither selected by the Selection Committee nor recommended by the Governing Body of the College. As such, the said order/letter dated 20.7.2013, in so far as Respondent No.5 is concerned, is wholly void and non est in law, being rendered without any legal basis.

9. Mr. AR Bhuiyan, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 as well as Mr. MK Misra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioners are without locus to institute the present proceeding, inasmuch as, they are not aggrieved parties. Mr. Bhuiyan further submits that since the case involves ascertainment of the correct API score, as such the Selection Committee ought to have been arrayed as a party Respondent so that Respondent No.5 could have got an opportunity to understand the yardstick adopted by the Selection Committee in determining the API score.