Advocates Appeared:
P.K.Tiwari, N.Saikia, N.Ahmed , D.R.Gogoi, B.K.Sharma, A.Bora, A.M.Bujar Barua, R.Goswami

The legal document establishes that private colleges receiving aid from the State are subject to writ jurisdiction for ensuring fairness in the appointment of teachers. The court emphasized that such institutions, when discharging public duties or regulated by the government, cannot act arbitrarily in their selection processes (!) (!) .

The jurisdiction of the court to intervene in the appointment process is based on the principle that these institutions, despite being private, are connected to public functions and are therefore amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution (!) (!) (!) .

In the specific case, the court found that the private college, which receives government aid and is regulated by the government, must adhere to principles of fairness in its selection process. The selection was conducted by an expert committee, and the court held that interference is permissible only if there are palpable anomalies or irregularities (!) .

The court further clarified that the appointment of teachers should be based on merit, and when a candidate declared first in merit is deprived of appointment without justifiable reasons, the court has a duty to intervene (!) (!) .

Ultimately, the court ruled that the appointment of the respondent was unlawful and ordered the college to appoint the petitioner, who was found to be the most meritorious candidate. The ruling underscores that even private institutions receiving aid and regulated by the state are bound to follow principles of fairness and transparency in their appointment procedures (!) (!) (!) .

The decision also highlights that the court's jurisdiction is rooted in ensuring public interest and fairness, especially when the institution discharges functions with public significance, such as the appointment of teachers in an educational setting (!) (!) (!) .