IMPORTANT POINT
The eligibility criteria for academic positions include teaching, research, and administrative experience, not limited to direct teaching roles.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with regard to a recruitment process for the post of Principal of the Golaghat Commerce College. It is the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 which has been put to challenge mainly on the basis that the said respondent no. 6 did not meet the eligibility criteria, more specifically, the one relating to experience of 15 years.

2. As per the facts projected in the petition, pursuant to an advertisement dated 18.06.2020, the petitioners, who are two in numbers, had participated in the selection process for the aforesaid post of Principal along with the respondent no. 6. It is averred that amongst others, one of the eligibility condition was that the candidate must have 15 years of total experience in teaching/research/administration in Universities/Colleges and other institution of higher education as Professor/Associate Professor. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 6 did not meet the said requirement in his previous service in the Joya Gogoi College in the Department of Mathematics. As per the petitioners, information was extracted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from where it has been learnt that there was no student in the aforesaid Joya Gogoi College in the Department of Mathematics from 1998 to 2000 and from 2002 to 2021. It is accordingly the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 6 did not have any teaching experience for the aforesaid period and therefore, was not eligible.

3. I have heard Shri RM Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam. I have also heard Shri R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4; Ms. R Devi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 & 7; Shri TJ Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Dr. (Ms.) P Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.

4. Shri Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pursuant to their participation in the recruitment, the respondent no. 6 was wrongfully selected and was appointed on 08.12.2020. However, after the said appointment, the petitioners had sought information under the Right to Information Act and vide a reply dated 19.01.2021, it could be learn that there were no students in the Joya Gogoi College in Mathematics as a Major/Core/GE in the Under Graduate Course since 2011. Vide another reply dated 22.04.2021 obtained under the RTI Act, it has been learnt that there were no students in Mathematics in the said college from the year 1998 to 2000 in Major or General Course; in the year 2001, four students appeared and in the year 2002, one student appeared; from the year 2003 to 2010, no student opted for Mathematics (Major or General Course) in the said College.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to two numbers of Experience Certificates dated 14.12.2021 and 21.05.2022 which have been annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 6. It is averred that when the recruitment process was of the year 2020, such Certificates of a subsequent period cannot be taken into consideration. It is submitted that the eligibility criteria has to be met by a candidate before the last date of submission of candidatures.

6. In respect of the aspect of teaching experience, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in VB Prasad Vs. Manager PMD Upper Primary School & Anr., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 269. In the aforesaid case, the difference between teaching experience and deemed teaching experience has been laid down. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned appointment order of the respondent no.6 dated 08.12.2020 is liable to be interfered with.

7. Per contra, Ms. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5