IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Dr. Hemam Sunita Devi, W/o. L. Rajkumar Singha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Education Higher Deptt. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 158 Of 2017 with WP(C) 5227 Of 2017
Decided On : 07-03-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility criteria and qualifications for the post of assistant professor. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. disputed eligibility of candidates based on qualifications. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. argument on the recognition of caste status in assam. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. counterarguments regarding caste recognition and language proficiency. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. legal stance of government on scheduled caste status. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. evidence supporting or refuting claims of eligibility. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. court's observations regarding the examination of qualifications. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. prioritization of qualifications in selection process based on marks. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. guidelines for selection of assistant professors and their implications. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 10. caste recognition in relation to migration impacting employment rights. (Para 40 , 44 , 48) |
| 11. clarification on migration and caste recognition. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. court decision on remedy for candidates based on selection errors. (Para 50 , 52) |
| 13. ruling and directives regarding reconsideration for appointment. (Para 53) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 158/2017 and for the respondent No. 7 in WP(C) 5227/2017. Also heard Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 5227/2017 and for the respondent No.7 in WP(C) 158/2017 as well as Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 in both the writ petitions and Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned State counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. Having regard to the affinity of the factual background and the issues raised, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this judgement.
3. Pleaded facts, in brief, are that the present writ petition being WP(C) 158/2017 has been instituted by the petitioner, challenging the non-selection of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology Department, Cachar College, Silchar, and selection and recommendation of respondents no. 7 and 8 in the first and second positions by selection committee despite the petitioner having scored highest marks. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned speaking order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, whereby, it is held that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as she is not a scheduled caste (SC) from Assam and asked the selection committee to take fresh resolution and to consider the respondent no. 8 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology Department, Cachar College, Silchar.
4. The petitioner is B.Sc (Honours) and M.Sc in (Zoology) having State Eligibility Test (SET) with Ph.D. The petitioner belongs to Hemam Sageis of Lois Community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order, 1950.
5. An advertisement was issued vide Memo No. Advt./2015/637-A dated 23.12.2015 by the Principal (i/c) Cachar College, Silchar, inviting applications from eligible candidates having UGC norms with NET/SLET/SET (as mandatory requirement) Ph.D (in accordance with UGC regulations 2009), M. Phil (obtained on or before 10.07.2009) excluding candidates obtained M.Phil/Ph.D degree from off-campus centre for filling up of 5 (five) vacant posts of Assistant Professor including Assistant Professor, Zoology. In the advertisement, it is reflected that the post of Assistant Professor, Zoology, is reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate. It provides that the candidates must have permanent residential certificate (PRC) and must know local language. Pursuant to the said advertisement dated 23.12.2015, the petitioner being eligible and qualified for the said post of Assistant Professor in Zoology had applied by submitting all the required certificates/testimonials. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview vide call letter dated 10.08.2016, which was scheduled to
State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Bhadar Ram (dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Jassa Ram and Others
Persons classified as Scheduled Castes in one state cannot claim similar benefits in another state under the Constitution; eligibility for appointment positions must adhere to local classifications.
Candidate eligibility must be satisfied by the application cutoff date; subsequent qualifications cannot be considered in selection processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory application of 30% horizontal reservation for women candidates of Uttarakhand in the selection process for the post of Assistant Prof....
Under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction, and the exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ app....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.