The selection of the Principal of an Aided College must be made in accordance with the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 and the Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.94 passed in Civil Rule No. 1252 of 1992 praying for a writ of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause to withdraw, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the preference in the panel prepared by the Governing Body of the Tinsukia Commerce College, Tinsukia dated 22.5.92 (contained in Annexure V to the Civil Rule and also to regularise the service of the petitioner-appellant as Principal of the Tinsukia Corrimerce College, Tinsukia. The learned Single Judge rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Civil Rule under the impugned judgment which has been challenged in the present writ appeal.

2. At the admission stage, we have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N. Chaudhury for the petitioner-appellant, Mr. BC Das, Addl Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Mr. NN Saikia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Chutia appearing for the contesting respondent No.4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

3. The brief facts for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy in the present appeal are that admittedly the petitioner-appellant joined the Tinsukia Commerce College in the year 1973 and that the aforesaid Commerce College is one of the Aided Colleges by the State of Assam, to which, according to all the parties, the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 and the Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981 are applicable. In pursuance of the Assam Aided Colleges Employees Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules) and the Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Rules) admittedly in the year 1986 under Rule 6 of the 1981 Rules, a selection list as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules was prepared, published and circulated to all the Aided Colleges under Rule 10 (2) and the validity of the aforesaid list was till the next list was published. Admittedly, the next list was prepared in the year 1989 and the name of the petitioner-appellant did not find place in the aforesaid list while the name of the contesting respondent No.4 featured at SI. No.26. It may be noted that the list which has been prepared in the year 1989 under the 1981 Rules is not under challenge before us.

4. On 29.1.92 the President of the Governing Body of Commerce College, Tinsukia issued an advertisement in 'Dainik Janambhumi' inviting applications with biodata and testimonials from selected Principals. In the said advertisement it was specifically mentioned than an M.Com or and MA (in English) would be preferred. Besides other the petitioner-appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for the aforesaid post in response to the aforesaid advertisement The Governing Body thereafter prepared a peneal of 3 (three) candidates wherein the name of the respondent No. 4 appears at SI. No. 1 while the name of the .petitioner-appellant at SI. No. 3. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid selection made by the Governing Body that the respondent No.4 has been appointed as the Principal of the Tinsukia Commerce College. Hence the petitioner-appellant approached this Court with Civil Rule No. 1252 of 1992 on the grounds mentioned therein and an interim stay order was obtained from the Division Bench of this Court on 1.7.92.

5. Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that in case of a College in Commerce, the services of a Principal were regularised and in accordance with the spirit of the letter of the Director of Public Instruction contained in Annexure V to the memo of appeal, the select list prepared in the year 1989 was not operative and thus the petitioner-appellant was entitled to be regularised on the post of the Principal. It has also been urged that the College in question being a Commerce College, the petitioner-a