JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The instant Interlocutory Application (IA) has been filed for vacation of the interim order dtd. 8/12/2021 passed by this Court in the connected WP(C)/6604/2021.There are two applicants in this IA who are arrayed as respondent nos. 4 & 5 in the writ petition, namely, the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University (herein after KKHSOU) and its Vice-Chancellor.

2. Before going into the controversy which requires a determination to come to a finding as to whether the interim order dt. 8/12/2021 is liable to be vacated or not, the basic facts of the case may be put on record in the following manner.

3. The opposite party no.1/writ petitioner was serving as a Professor in the Department of Chemistry, Dibrugarh University with around 27 years of teaching experience. She came to know that the Hiranya Chandra Bhuyan School of Science and Technology under the KKHSOU was conducting a recruitment process for four numbers of posts in the category of professor. The writ petitioner considering herself to be eligible and qualified had applied for the said post of Professor and was duly selected and appointed for the same vide appointment letter dtd. 24/12/2020. The petitioner claims to have discharged her duties without any blemish and was entrusted with various responsibilities. The cause of action for filing the writ petition is a communication dtd. 3/12/2021 issued by the Education Department addressing the Vice-Chancellor of KKHSOU requesting to take necessary action as per the Statute with regard to the anomalies in recruitment in respect of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner contends that the impugned action is not in conformity with the settled law as well as the provisions of the KKHSOU Act, 2005 and the Statues/Rules framed thereunder. The writ petitioner further alleges violation of the constitutional and other legal rights.

4. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, vide order dtd. 8/12/2021 while issuing Notice, had given interim protection to the effect that while there is no bar for the respondent authorities to take action against the writ petitioner as per the Statute but no final order be passed until further orders. It is this interim order in respect of which the present IA has been filed.

5. I have heard Shri D Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Shri B Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants whereas the contesting opposite party/writ petitioner is represented by Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri DJ Das, learned counsel.

6. Shri Saikia, learned Advocate General, before touching the merits of the case has, however raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition itself. By drawing the attention of the Court to the order impugned, namely, the communication dtd. 3/12/2021, it is submitted that vide the aforesaid communication, only action, as per the Statute, was directed to be taken and in absence of any such action being taken, the writ petition is premature.

7. As regards the merits of the case, Shri Saikia, learned Advocate General submits that the projection made by the writ petitioner based upon which the interim order has been passed is wholly incorrect wherein many relevant facts have not been highlighted. The most important facts which is conveniently not highlighted is that the recruitment is for the post of Professor in the Subject of Chemistry and in the present controversy, the aforesaid fact of the Subject in question is of crucial importance. While the said point would be dealt with by this Court subsequently, the other important point urged is that the recruitment was with the condition that the appointment was made on promotion for the period of 1 year which may be withdrawn at any time during the probation period. In this connection, reference has been made to the appointment letter dtd. 24/12/2020 which has been annexed as Annexure D to the IA.

8. The learned Advocate Gene