The main legal point established is the requirement for a fair and consistent selection process in accordance with prescribed procedures and norms, and the right of the petitioner to address alleged irregularities through a detailed representation and hearing.

1,Jor the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department representing the respondents no. 1 & 2.

2. In view of the nature of the order being passed in the present proceeding today, notices upon the respondents no. 3 to 15 is deemed to be not necessary.

3. The petitioner herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding has assailed the selection of the respondent no. 15 Smti Jayanti Choudhury, by the Selection Committee as constituted for the Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhaya Adarsha Mahavidyalaya, Eraligooi, Assam for appointment as Assistant Professor in the Department of Bengali under PwD category on 30.08.2023. The petitioner has also assailed the approval as granted by the Governing Body of the said institution to the said selection as made in respect of the respondent no. 15, vide the resolution no. 13 adopted in its meeting held on 30.08.2023.

4. In pursuance to an advertisement dated 20.07.2023, issued by the authorities of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhaya Adarsha Mahavidyalaya, Eraligooi, Assam inviting applications from eligible candidates of direct recruitment to sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor in different subjects including the subject of Bengali, the petitioner along with other eligible candidates, including the respondent no. 15 had submitted their respective applications. It is to be mentioned that in terms of the said advertisement dated 20.07.2023, the post of Assistant Professor, Bengali as advertised was reserved for persons with bench mark disability.

The applications of the petitioner and the respondent no. 15 being found to be satisfying the eligibility criterias as prescribed in the matter were issued with call letters to appear before the Selection Committee on 29.08.2023. It is contended that the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 29.08.2023. Thereafter, the matter not been taken forward, led the petitioner to submit an RTI application on 16.09.2023, seeking information, as well as the documents, pertaining to the selection process as held for the posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Bengali as advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2023. The said information not being furnished, the petitioner instituted WP(C)/6369/2023 and this Court, vide order dated 18.09.2023, proceeded to dispose of the writ petition directing the Director of Higher Education, Assam to provide to the petitioner, the information as sought for. It is the contention of the petitioner that in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, the Principal of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhaya Adarsha Mahavidyalaya, Eraligooi, Assam on 16.02.2023, proceeded to furnish to the petitioner the requisite information and documents.

5. On perusal of the said documents and information as furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner contends to have discovered that the respondent no. 15 was so recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Bengali as advertised vide the advertisement dated 20.07.2023, clearly in violation of the procedure prescribed in this connection under the guidelines holding the field.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 15 did not have a uniformly good academic career. The petitioner also contends that the M.A. degree in Bengali as obtained by the respondent no. 15 was so obtained as an off-campus candidate, which was contended to be not in terms of the norms as laid down by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The Ph.D as obtained by the respondent no. 15 was also questioned by the writ petitioner.

7. In the above premises, the petitioner assails the selection of the respondent no. 15 against the post in question and requires this Court to interfere with the same.

8. Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department on a query raised by this Court has received instructions from the Director of Higher Ed