Point of Law : Selection process has not yet been concluded, this Court should not entertain the present petition so far relating to the question of allotment of mark and the Director be allowed to exercise his power under Rule, 2010.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department and Mr. D.M. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. None appears for the College.

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the selection of respondent No.6 as Assistant Professor in Physics in Guwahati College by the selection Committee of Guwahati College.

3. The respondent No. 5, i.e., Guwahati College by an advertisement dated 01.08.2019 invited applications for filing up of certain posts of Assistant Professors in the College. The post of Assistant Professor in Physics is the subject matter of the present litigation.

4. The petitioner along with other candidates including respondent No.6, participated in the selection process and the respondent No. 6 was recommended by the College on finding her to be the most eligible candidate, which is under challenge.

5. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order on the following Counts :

I. The State of Assam in Higher Education Department by Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2018 laid down guidelines for selection of Assistant Professors/Librarians in Provincialized Colleges of Assam. Such guideline has been violated while selecting the respondent No. 6. The said guide line has been violated.

II. Clause-2(iii) requires that a person is entitled for maximum two marks against Publication of Research Papers and Article having published in UGC recognized journal and the Clause 2 (iv) of the said guideline mandates for granting four marks for Publication of Research Paper, Articles in Scopus and weight of science/ waved of knowledge. But in the case in hand, the respondent No. 6 has submitted five papers out of which only two papers are UGC recognized and therefore, the respondent No. 6 ought to have been granted four marks, however, the selection committee granted her six marks and therefore, the petitioner has been deprived.

III. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while making the selection, the Selection Committee has also violated the Clause 2(vii) of the said guideline by granting full marks against teaching experience in favour of the respondent No. 6. Mr. Barbhuiya, further submits that the respondent No. 6 was admittedly teaching at Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology from 24th August 2009 and the respondent No. 6 has completed her Ph.D. during 2015 to 2017 and thus such period of doing Ph.D. must be deleted from her experience in view of Clause 2 (vii).

IV. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the experience of teaching in the Engineering Institute cannot be treated as an experience in view of the Clause 2 (vii) as teaching experience is required in the subject. He submits that the respondent No. 6 is having the subject of the Physics and he was teacher in Engineering Institute, therefore, such teaching experience cannot be counted. However, ignoring such mandate of guideline, the selection committee has wrongly granted mark to the respondent No. 6.

V. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 6 has acquired M.Phil Degree from an un recognized Institute through distance mode and against such qualification, no marks could have been granted to the respondent No. 6, in view of Clause 2 (ii) of the guideline.

VI. While concluding the argument, Mr. Barbhuiya, submits that in view of aforesaid violation of the guideline and granting of excess marks, which the respondent No. 6 was not entitled, the entire selection process has been vitiated and therefore, the selection process should be set aside and quashed and the petitioner be directed to be appointed against the post in question.

6. Countering such argument, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department and relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director of Higher Educa