The court upheld the fairness and transparency of the selection process, emphasizing compliance with UGC Regulations and the absence of apparent flaws in the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. A notification dated 05.11.2022 whereby the results of a selection process were declared for appointment to the post of Principal, Kokrajhar Government College, Kokrajhar in which the respondent no. 6 has been selected, is the subject matter of this writ petition.

2. The petitioner, who was serving as the In-charge Principal, claims that he was more suitable than the respondent no. 6 and also alleges violation of the Rules and Regulations in making such selection.

3. Before going to the issue which has arisen for adjudication, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief in the following manner.

4. The petitioner had been serving as the In-charge Principal of the Kokrajhar Government College, Kokrajhar (hereinafter referred to as the College) since 31.03.2018. On 03.11.2021, an advertisement was issued by the APSC inviting applications for selection to the post of Principal of the College. The petitioner along with other candidates had participated in the said selection process. According to the petitioner, in the list of eligible candidates published in the official website of the APSC, the petitioner claims to be at Sl. No. 1 and the respondent no. 6 at Sl. No. 2. The petitioner alleges illegality in the constitution of the Interview Board with regard to the Expert members. He has alleged bias in the said selection with the further allegation that the academic statements, API score etc. of the petitioner were not placed before the members of the Interview Board. It is alleged that on 05.11.2022 itself, the results were published whereby, the respondent no. 6 was selected for the said post of Principal. The petitioner further submits that he apprehends that the aforesaid action was because of certain false and frivolous allegations made against him prior to the interview. The petitioner has, accordingly prayed for intervention with the selection process with a further direction to appoint him as the Principal of the College.

5. On the other hand, the respondents contend that there is no basis of the present challenge which has been made only on certain assumptions. It is submitted that the selection process was done in a fair and transparent manner whereby, the most meritorious and suitable candidate was selected and appointed. It is, accordingly contended that the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

6. I have heard Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri HR Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri PP Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, APSC. Also heard Shri K Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam as well as Shri SR Rabha, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. Shri P Bhardwaj, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 6, who has also raised the issue on the maintainability of the writ petition.

7. The records pertaining to the selection process have also been handed over to the Court and those have been carefully perused.

8. Shri Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement dated 03.11.2021 was followed by a Corrigendum dated 15.06.2022 wherein, it was clarified that the OM dated 25.02.2019 would be followed. The said OM of the State Government refers to the UGC Regulations. By referring to the pleadings in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the constitution of the Interview Board is in violation of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Department, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations).

9. The learned Senior counsel, Shri Das has referred to the Regulation concerning College Principal against S. No. VIII wherein, the constitution of the Selection Committee is stated. Under Clause VIII A (a) (v), it has been stated that such Committee shall be constituted, amon