Point of Law : Court also has a corresponding duty to examine what is the nature of the change sought to be brought and simply, by the jargon "Rules of the game cannot be changed", this Court cannot be swayed away with.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ Petition - Power of High court to issue writs - Issue involved pertains to a recruitment process for post of Assistant Professor in various subjects in different Colleges across State of Assam - Primary contention is that mode of selection has been changed midway which is not permissible in law - However, before adverting to issue which has arisen for determination in present cases, facts of each case are required to be stated in brief - Whether Department is justified in holding selection as per new Office Memorandum which came into existence after publication of advertisement for recruitment - whether any illegality has been committed by Department in not relying upon earlier Office Memorandum which was existing at time of publication of advertisement.
Finding of the Court: Court in present cases is that though admittedly, there is a change in marking pattern from Office Memorandum existing at time of publication of advertisement and new Office Memorandum which came in operation at time of interview, change is only of reduction / doing away with marks to be given in viva-voce - Court finds force in submissions made by Departmental counsel that such change has been brought in to remove scope of bias and nepotism and to make selection process more transparent and fair - Court is of view that apart from fact that no prejudice, whatsoever would be suffered by petitioners, said change would be in interest of public service and to usher in a sense of trust in selection process which is wholly in objective basis.
Result: Writ petitions are dismissed

JUDGMENT :

I have heard Shri T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri D Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.5576/2020, 5578/2020, 50/2021, 57/2021, 58/2021, 69/2021, 952/2021, 989/2021 and 1022/2021 and Shri K Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/159/2021. The Higher Education Department, Assam is represented by its Standing Counsel, Shri K Gogoi. Also heard Shri UK Nair, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri MP Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 in WP(C)/5576/2020; Shri PD Nair, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 in WP(C)/159/2021; Shri SP Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in WP(C) Nos. 5576/2020, 952/2021 and 989/2021; Shri R Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 in WP(C)/58/2021 and respondent no. 6 in WP(C)/57/2021; Ms. L Devi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 in WP(C)/58/2021.

2. The issue involved pertains to a recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects in different Colleges across the State of Assam. The primary contention is that the mode of selection has been changed midway which is not permissible in law. However, before adverting to the issue which has arisen for determination in the present cases, the facts of each case are required to be stated in brief.

WP(C)/58/2021 (Dr. Pranab Prasad Bora)

3. An advertisement dated 18.02.2020 was published by the Bikali College, Dhupdhara for filling up of various posts of Assistant Processor, including that of Assamese. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible and qualified, submitted his application whereafter the interview was scheduled on 23.12.2020. While appearing in the said interview, the petitioner could realize that the procedure for conducting the interview was not as per the Government OM dated 08.11.2018 which was prevalent at the time of initiation of the recruitment process but in accordance with a new OM dated 25.11.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the said move is, per se illegal and accordingly not sustainable in law.

WP(C)/5576/2020 (Dr. Nirmala Devi)

4. An advertisement dated 13.08.2020 was published by the Suren Das College, Hajo for filling up of various posts of Assistant Processor, including that of Economics. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible and qualified, submitted her application whereafter the interview was scheduled on 10.12.2020. While appearing in the said interview, the petitioner could learn that the procedure for conducting the interview will be as per OM dated 25.11.2020 which was not contemplated in the advertisement. It is the case of the petitioner that the said move is, per se illegal.

WP(C)/50/2021 (Dr. Dhanjit Barman and Ors.)

5. An advertisement dated 01.01.2020 was published by the Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Adharsha Mahavidyalaya, Amjonga for filling up of various posts of Assistant Processor, including that of Mathematics. The petitioners, who claim to be eligible and qualified, submitted their applications whereafter the interview was scheduled on 22.12.2020. While appearing in the said interview, the petitioners could realize that the procedure for conducting the interview was not as per the Government OM dated 08.11.2018 which was prevalent at the time of initiation of the recruitment process but in accordance with a new OM dated 25.11.2020. It is the case of the petitioners that the said move is, perse illegal.

WP(C)/57/2021 (Dr. Anuradha Das)

6. An advertisement dated 13.02.2020 was published by the Mangaldai College for filling up of various posts of Assistant Processor, including that of Botany. The petitioner, who claims to be eligible and qualified, submitted her application whereafter the interview was scheduled on 16.12.2020. While appearing in the said interview, the petitioner could realize that the procedure for conducting the int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Gau) 126

Point of Law : Court also has a corresponding duty to examine what is the nature of the change sought to be brought and simply, by the jargon "Rules of the game cannot be changed", this Court cannot be swayed away with.

Cases Referred (14)