Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 300
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Leena B. Dam - Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.(s). 5912 and 6898 of 2004
Decided On: 07.04.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: N. Dutta, S.S. Dey, M. Nath, U.R. Sikia, D.P. Borah, B.B. Narzary, P. Ahmed and A.K. Dasgupta, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.N. Choudhury, A.K. Goswami, G.K. Bhattacharyya and A.C. Borbora, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Ph.D. degree holders, who had not cleared the eligibility test, are entitled to the award of marks for the Ph.D. degree acquired by them. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of avoiding bias in the selection process.
Headnote:
Eligibility Test - Selection of Lecturers - University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2002, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 - The Court held that the respondent No. 7, having acquired his Ph.D. degree in the year 2000, is exempted from clearing the eligibility test, i.e., NET/SLET. The Court also held that Ph.D. degree holders who had not cleared the NET would still be entitled to the award of 10 marks for the Ph.D. degree acquired by them. The participation of the in-charge Principal of the College in the selection proceeding was found to have vitiated the entire proceeding on the ground of bias, leading to the setting aside of the selection and the direction for a fresh selection.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the challenge of the selection process for the posts of Lecturers in Accountancy and Commerce at Gauhati Commerce College. The petitioners contested the eligibility of the selected candidates and alleged bias in the selection process due to the participation of the in-charge Principal of the College.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent No. 7, having acquired his Ph.D. degree in the year 2000, is exempted from clearing the eligibility test, i.e., NET/SLET. The Court also found that Ph.D. degree holders who had not cleared the NET would still be entitled to the award of 10 marks for the Ph.D. degree acquired by them. Additionally, the Court found that the participation of the in-charge Principal of the College in the selection proceeding had vitiated the entire proceeding on the ground of bias.
Issues: The main issues were the eligibility of the selected candidates, the award of marks for Ph.D. degree holders, and the alleged bias in the selection process due to the participation of the in-charge Principal of the College.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the University Grants Commission Regulations and the exemption granted to Ph.D. degree holders from clearing the eligibility test. The Court also relied on the doctrine of bias and the principle that even the possibility of bias would suffice to nullify an order or action.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the selection for the posts of Lecturers in Accountancy and Commerce and directed for a fresh selection to be conducted in accordance with the directions and observations contained in the judgment.
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. Both the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less similar facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.
2. An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 14.2.2004 inviting applications for as many as seven posts of Lecturers in different subjects in the Gauhati Commerce College (in short "the College"). The selection held pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, in so far as the posts of Lecturer in Accountancy is concerned, has been assailed in W.P.(C) No. 5912/2004 whereas the selection held in respect of the post of Lecturer in g Commerce has been assailed in W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004. While the specific details of the challenge made will be noticed a little later what has to be recorded at this stage of recital of facts is that the petitioner in both the cases claim to have submitted their applications pursuant to the advertisement issued and to have participated in the separate selections held for the two posts in question. In the selection held on 13.8.2004 for the post of Lecturer in Accountancy the respondent No. 7 in W.R(C) No. 5912/2004, Dr. Pranjit Kumar Nath, was selected and placed at Serial No. 1 whereas the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 of the select list. Similarly, in the selection held on 11.8.2004 for the post of Lecturer in Commerce, which is assailed in W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004, Dr. Pranjit Kumar Nath was placed at serial No. 1 of the select list whereas one Smt. Angana Bora, respondent No. 9, was placed at serial No. 2 and the petitioner Dr. a Monalisha Choudhury was placed at serial No. 3 of the select list. In the aforesaid writ petition, Le., WP.(C) No. 6898/2004 the person who had been placed at serial No. 1 of the select list, viz. Dr. Pranjit Kumar Nath is not impleaded as a party respondent on the basis of the contention advanced that the said person had opted for appointment in the post of Lecturer in , Accountancy. It must also be noticed at the stage that the recommendations of the selection committee having been approved by the Governing Body of the College, the matter was required to be sent to the Director of Higher Education for accord of prior approval. It is at this stage that both the writ petitions were filed calling into question the selections made.
3.I have heard Sri S. S. Dey and Sri M. Nath, learned Counsels appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5912/2004, Sri G. K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the Governing Body of the College and Sri A. C. Borbora, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7.1 have also heard Sri B. B. Narzari, learned senior counsel for the writ j petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004 and Sri B. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Governing Body of the College in the aforesaid case. Sri K. N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Sri A. K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education were heard in both the cases on behalf of the official respondents.
4. Having broadly noticed the common features of the two cases, this Court may now proceed to put on record the submissions advanced on behalf of the contesting parties in the two cases under consideration separately:
WJP.(C)No. 5912 of 2004:
5. Three contentions have been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner in the above case. Firstly, it has been contended that clearance of the National Eligibility Test (NET) or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) are mandatory conditions of eligibility for appointment of a Lecturer in a Government aided College and the respondent No. 7, Dr. Pranjit Kumar Nath, who has been placed at serial No. 1 of the merit list, admittedly, has not cleared either of the aforesaid tests. On the aforesaid basis, the respondent No. 7 is contended to be not eligible for being selected, recommended and/or appointed in the post of Lecturer. In this regard reliance has been placed on a Government Notification dated h 26th February, 2003, which
