Point of Law : Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner has no legal or fundamental right to hold the post for more than what was prescribed in the employment advertisement.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Education (Higher) Department, Respondent no.1 and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned standing counsel for Gauhati University, respondent nos. 2 to 4.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside resolution dated 26.02.2021, passed by the Executive Council of the Gauhati University (respondent no. 4) as well as the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 issued by the Registrar, Gauhati University (respondent no. 3), thereby releasing the petitioner from service as Director, College Development Council, Gauhati University and for consequential relief.

3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in the month of March, 2013 the Gauhati University had issued an advertisement to fill up the post of Director, College Development Council. Pursuant to his application, the petitioner was selected and appointed to the said post by order dated 11.06.2015 and accordingly, the petitioner had joined in the said post on 27.06.2015. The petitioner claims that he was appointed in a permanent post. However, by the impugned resolution and order, the petitioner was released from service without giving him any opportunity of hearing, treating that the post to which the petitioner was appointed was a tenure post.

4) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 had surreptitiously and behind the back of the petitioner had formed a 5 (five) man committee to look into the matter of the tenure of service and terms of appointment of the petitioner in the post of Director, College Development Council and that three out of five members were heavily biased against the petitioner and the proceeding was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without subjecting him to any notice and without hearing him. It was also submitted that the finding in the report are based on presumption, surmises and conjectures and therefore, not tenable. By referring to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2021, it is submitted that the respondents had to practice deception by creating a subsequently prepared appointment letter dated 11.06.2015 and by projecting as if the said second/rectified letter was misplaced and showing it to be obtained from the office of the respondent no.1, projected as if the terms of appointment was made a tenure post. It was submitted that although selective documents from the file of the Gauhati University was purportedly missing, no FIR was lodged and no steps was taken to reconstruct the file and resultantly, owing to the loss of documents, at this stage, only the petitioner alone is prejudiced. It is submitted that falsity of deceptive second appointment letter gone missing has been exposed by finding of the committee because the committee had recorded that they had perused both the appointment letters, wherein the first letter reflects that the post is permanent and the second/rectified letter projects that the post was for a 5 year tenure. Moreover, it was submitted that the letters/documents available after page 219 of the Government record could not have been considered for the purpose of decision of the Government on the question of lien of the petitioner. By referring to the resolution no. 2006/14/127 of the Executive Council of the Gauhati University, it was submitted that the post of Director, College Development Council was not a tenure post. It is also submitted that on absorption in a permanent post, the lien of the petitioner to his previous post of Assistant Professor in Geology Department in Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat was terminated and therefore, it was submitted that if the petitioner is illegally ousted from service, he would be put out of employment. Accordingly,