Jyotirupa Sarma vs State of Assam and Others

J.N. Sarma, J.—This writ application is a fight between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 with regard to the post of lecturer in Anthropology in the Arya Vidyapith College at Guwahati.

There was an advertisement to fill up the said post and in terms of the advertisement both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 filed applications. A Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the rules for selection of Lecturer of the College and accordingly the Selection Committee placed the Petitioner at the top of the select list and Respondent No. 5 in the second position. However, the Governing Body inspite of that selection, sent the name of Respondent No. 5 for approval to the Director of Public Instruction and it was at that stage the Petitioner''s prays for a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the authorities to quash the recommendation of the Governing Body and a direction be given to the Director of Public Instruction to adhere to the select list of the Selection Committee. The comparative chart of academic distinction of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 is available at para-9 of the writ application which is quoted herein below:

That the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has a much better academic career than the Respondent No. 5. Besides, the Petitioner has also better experience than the Respondent No. 5. A comparative table showing the academic brilliance of the Petitioner vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 5 is given below for perusal of this Hon''ble Court.

Petitioner Respondent No. 5 ----------- ---------------- H.S.L.C. 74.5% 59.3%

Higher Secondary 72.2% 68.4%

B.A. 70% 69.6%

M.A. 70.5% 66.4%

It would thus be seen that the Petitioner has a better academic career than the Respondent No. 5. Moreover, as indicated in the proceeding paragraphs the Petitioner has also undertaken numerous research activities.

It is stated herein that the Petitioner also has taken numerous research activities, we are not concerned with this aspect of the matter as the sole question before this Court is that whether the Governing Body can deviate from the decisions of the Selection Committee and can make its own independent assessment and recommend a candidate for approval deviating from the merit list. This aspect of the matter is no longer res integra in view of the decision passed by this Court on 30.6.99 in Writ Appeal No. 114/98 in the case of Smti Reema Choudhury (Chakraborty) v. State of Assam and Ors. wherein a Division Bench of this Court laid down the law as follows:

The Respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law, with the recommendation made in the first selection held on 21.3.97 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.1.9.7.

The abovementioned case was that a selection was made by the Selection Committee and the Petitioner was placed at the top of the select list, but the Governing Body did not accept that recommendation and wanted to go for a fresh advertisement and that was disallowed by the Division Bench of this Court by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge stating that the Governing Body is bound to proceed according to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee.

The next case is 1995 (2) GLT 332 (Ms Satya Sandha Das v. Sri Chintamoni Sharma) wherein this Court in Para-6 of the judgment laid down the law as follows:

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and requires no interference. The advertisement nowhere mentioned that the seat was reserved only for the scheduled caste candidate or woman candidate. The advertisement was general and thus the conditions which were put in the advertisement could not be changed by the Governing Body. Even, otherwise, the grounds which had been set out by the Governing Body for preferring the Appellant over the writ Petitioner-Respondent, in our opinion, are absolutely arbitrary and extraneous while exercising the power for making appointment in an education institution on the post of a teacher. It may be observed that in this connection definite guidelines have been issued by the Director of Higher Education and it is only after following the guidelines that the Governing Body had prepared the select list and had placed the writ Petitioner-Respondent at Sl. No. 1. Now, in our opinion, after following the guidelines and preparing the select list, if the Governing Body is allowed to have some other extraneous consideration to bye-pass that select list, the same would be absolutely arbitrary unless there are some cogent grounds which could justify bye-passing of the meritorious candidates.

The decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University and Others, is also of some help in deciding the controversy. That was with regard to selection to the post of Professor of Economics and selection was made by an expert body and the Vice-Chancellor did not accept and wanted to have his own views and the Supreme Court deprecated that approach.

That being the position of law, this writ application is disposed of with a direction that the Director of Public Instruction shall adhere to the recommendation of the Selection Committee and shall give his approval after applying his mind.

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. B.P. Kataki, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5, Mr. H.N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.