Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the select list dated 15-6-2012 published by the respondent authorities recommending the respondent No. 8 for the post of Assistant Professor of Kokrajhar Government College vis-à-vis the composition of the Selection Committee as well as the pattern of marks awarded by the Interview Board.

2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition may be briefly noticed at the outset. The case of the petitioner is that she passed HSLC examination with First Division by scoring 71.33% in the year 2001, passed the HSS Examination with First Class by securing 76.8%, passed BA (Honours in Philosophy) with First Division by obtaining 61.5% and passed MA (Philosophy) as First Star in the year 2008 with 67.56%. While working as Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at Kokrajhar Government College ("the College" for short) on temporary basis, she passed the National Eligibility Test (NET) in the lectureship for the subject of Philosophy in the year 2009. On 17-11-2011, the Assam Public Service Commission ("the APSC" for short) issued the advertisement No. 10/11 in the local daily "Assam Tribune" in its issue dated 14-11-2009 inviting application from eligible candidates for various posts including the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy with the qualifications prescribed therein. Having fulfilled the criteria for the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy, she duly applied for the same by submitting the application in the prescribed form with the requisite documents/testimonials to the Commission in time. The petitioner has been favourably recommended by the Principal of the College keeping in mind the service continuously rendered by her as Assistant Professor of the College on contractual basis since 2010. She was also recommended by the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) and the Secretary of the BTC for the vacant post. The petitioner was called for, and interviewed on 11-5-2012 by the Board of interview constituted by the APSC comprising of two members, one of them Professor and Head of Department of Philosophy of Handique Girls College and the other being a Government nominated member, namely, Sri Mrigen Kalita.

3. According to the petitioner, having been satisfied with her performance in the interview, she was all along expecting her selection for the post by the Interview Board. However, when the result was declared on 15-6-2012, her name did not find a place in the select list and the respondent No. 8 was rather selected for the post. She immediately filed an application under the RTI Act on 18-6-2012 requesting a copy of the pattern of awarding marks by the Interview Board for all candidates but in vain. The recommendations made by the BTC authorities were thus completely ignored by the Interview Board. On further enquiry, she found that the respondent No. 8 is the daughter of the late Dhiren Kalita, an Assistant Teacher of Bamuni High School where the said Mrigen Kalita (respondent 9) used to be a student and was directly related to her: the respondent No. 9 was, therefore, biased and unduly favoured the respondent No. 8 which resulted in her selection. The respondent No. 8 has not been recommended by the Department till now where she has been working as a Research Scholar of Social Science and Humanities Department, IIT, Guwahati. It is contended by the petitioner that as per Section 4 of the Assam Public Service Commission's Regulation, 1951 ("the Regulation" for short), the APSC is to consist of a Chairman and such other members not exceeding six members, but in the present case, there was no Chairman in the Interview Board: there were only one expert and another member. The respondent No. 8 is an outsider, and the Commission has no power to appoint any candidate outside the purview of the BTC or who was not even recommended by the BTC authorities: the selection so made is, therefore, illegal and i