SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 185

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. S.B. Choudhury, Mr. A.D. Das.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Kakoti, Ms. S.B. Choudhury, Mr. A.T. Sarkar, Mr. S. Bhuyan.

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Scheduled Caste Order, 1950 - Appointment eligibility criteria - Petitioner challenged rejection for Assistant Professor position despite highest marks due to alleged non-eligibility as SC in Assam; replacement of petitioner with lower-scoring candidates deemed arbitrary - Court emphasizes reservation must align with state-specific SC classifications. (Paras 40-44)

(B) Selection criteria - Applicant must fulfill eligibility by the application deadline, with proper weight given to qualifications attained by that date. (Paras 36-38)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged the decision rejecting her for Assistant Professor despite scoring highest marks due to local language proficiency and SC status not recognized in Assam. Respondent candidates scored lower but were recommended. (Paras 3-7)

Findings of Court:
Court found the Director of Higher Education’s findings on both petitioners factually incorrect, particularly regarding SC status and eligibility. The petitioner for WP

(C) 5227/2017 entitled to reconsideration for appointment. (Paras 51-52)

Issues: 1) Eligibility based on state-specific SC classification; 2) Weight given to qualifications beyond the application deadline.

Ratio Decidendi: Court reaffirmed that SC classification is state-specific, rejecting non-local SC claims for employment benefits in Assam; the eligibility for M.Phil holders was misinterpreted.

Result: Rejected petition by one petitioner; Allowed petition of second petitioner for reconsideration.

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top