1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the order dated 19-8-2013 issued by the University-respondent appointing the respondent No. 5 (Smt. Aparajita Dutta) for the post of Assistant Professor in the Centre for Juridical Studies, Dibrugarh University and the other show cause notices against him for the alleged acts of his misconduct.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Centre for Juridical Studies of the University-respondent in response to the advertisement dated 18-10-2012. The petitioner has LL.M. degree with specialization in Business Law and obtained National Eligibility Test (NET) for lectureship in the subject of Law. By the time the advertisement was issued, the petitioner had completed 4 years and 7 months as Lecturer in the same Centre on contract basis, which had hitherto been extended from time to time, and had also acted as the Warden for the Hostel for PNGBCN Block B for a period of three years. The respondent No. 5 also has LL.M. degree with special paper in Criminal Law, but has NET in Criminology. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were called for, and appeared in the interview. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 is not eligible for the post as she is having NET in Criminology and not in Law. However, the respondent No. 5 was selected and eventually appointed for the post. Aggrieved by this, he lodged a complaint to the University-respondents against the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 to the said post. When his complaint did not lead to in any tangible result, he filed this writ petition for appropriate reliefs. The writ petition is contested by both the University-respondent and the private respondent by filing their respective affidavits-in-opposition. The common thread running through their respective affidavits is that the requirement of the advertisement is that the candidate should have either “NET” or “Ph.D. in Law” and that there is no requirement to have NET in Law. The petitioner has LL.M. in Business Law with 59%, NET in Law with specialization in Business Law whereas the respondent No. 5 has LL.M. in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law and both are eligible for the post. The Selection Committee, after making comparative assessment of their suitability in accordance with the extant criteria so laid down, found the respondent No. 5 to be more meritorious than the petitioner and accordingly placed him in the 1st position above the petitioner who was placed in the 2nd position vide their recommendation dated 19-7-2013. Two other candidates were not recommended by the Selection Committee. The Executive Council thereafter appointed the respondent No. 5 for the post.

3. As the bone of contention of the rival parties is about the dispute relating the eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor in Juridical Studies prescribed by the advertisement, it will be apposite to refer to it, which is as follows:

“15. Juridical Studies (1) LLM with 55% marks; NET or Ph.D. in Law; Special Labour Law/Criminal Law/Business Law.

4. The question for decision is whether the expression “in Law” appearing after the term “Ph.D.” will not only qualify the term “Ph.D.” but also NET to mean “NET in Law”. According to Dr. M.L. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, NET in Law and NET in Criminology, as per the Syllabus of the University Grants Commission, are two different and distinct subjects with separate Codes, namely, Code No. 58 for the former and Code No. 68 for the latter and they cannot be equated. The qualification, among others, so advertised was NET in Law and not NET in Criminology and, so construed, possession of LL.M. degree with 55% and NET in Law is essential to be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor. As the respondent No. 5 does not have NET in Law, she is not eligible for the post and her selection and appointment to that post is illeg