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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Gitali Saikia D/o Late Prafulla Chandra Saikia - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Others - Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 2653, 3298 of 2023
Decided On : 21-05-2025 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : P.C. Dey, A. Ullah, M.B.U. Ahmed
For the Respondents: P.P. Das, P. Sarma, P.P. Dutta, M. Das

The composition of selection committees for academic positions must meet statutory requirements; violations permit candidates to challenge the process, regardless of their participation.

Headnote:(A) Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 - Rules of 2010 - UGC Regulations, 2018 - Appointment of Principal - Challenge to selection process and composition of the selection committee. The petitioner contested the appointment of the Principal, claiming constitutional violations regarding the selection process and the qualifications of the selection committee members. The court examined whether the appointment adhered to the statutory requirements and determined that the inclusion of a member lacking the requisite qualifications rendered the process illegal. (Paras 3.1, 26, 34)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - A candidate participating in a selection process can challenge its legality if statutory rules have been violated; mere participation does not bar the challenge when fundamental rules are at stake. (Paras 28.1, 28.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a qualified candidate, challenged the appointment of the Principal of H.C.D.G. College based on irregularities in the selection process, particularly the qualifications of a selection committee member who was not an academic expert. (Paras 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the selection committee’s composition, specifically regarding the member's qualifications, not compliant with statutory requirements, resulting in the appointment being declared illegal. (Paras 34)

Issues: Whether the selection committee conformed to the established rules, and if a candidate can challenge a selection after participating in the process. (Paras 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the member's qualifications did not meet the standards for an 'expert' in academic administration, rendering the committee’s composition illegal and justifying the challenge despite the petitioner’s participation. (Paras 26, 28.4)

Result: The appointment was set aside with directions for a fresh selection process within two months.

Table of Content
1. hearing of multiple parties in joint petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenge to selection process for principal based on alleged illegalities. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments for and against legality of selection process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. legal standards for judicial review of selection processes. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. analysis of qualifications of selection committee members. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. judgment emphasizes legality of selection committees. (Para 26 , 34)
7. discussion on estoppel in relation to selection challenges. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
8. final determination of legality regarding ugc guidelines. (Para 31 , 32)
9. order to initiate fresh selection process. (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. By this common Judgment and Order, it is proposed to dispose of these two writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 2653/2023 and WP(C) No. 3298/2023, filed by the same petitioner, namely, Dr. Gitali Saikia, as the issues involved in both the petitions are same and the parties are also identical.

3. In WP(C) No. 2653/2023, the petitioner, namely, Dr. Gitali Saikia, has challenged the selection of the respondent No. 6, namely, Dr. Birinchi Kumar Bora to the post of Principal, H.C.D.G. College, Nitaipukhuri, Sivasagar and to set aside and quash the selection list, so prepared, pursuant to the interview held on 18.04.2023, and also to hold fresh selection process for the abovementioned post as per relevant Rules and guidelines.

3.1. And in WP(C) No. 3298/2023, the petitioner, Dr. Gitali Saikia has prayed for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2023, passed by the respondent No. 2, being Memo No. DHE/CE/AC/PI/259/23/141-A, whereby the respondent No. 6 has been appointed as Principal of H.C.D.G. College, Nitaipukhuri, Sivasagar, and also to declare and adjudge the selection as unconstitutional and violative of Rules and procedure laid down in the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010, and also to set aside the select list prepared pursuant to interview held on 18.04.2023, and also to hold fresh selection for the post of Principal.

Background facts:-

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petitions, are briefly stated as under:

“The petitioner, Dr. Gitali Saikia was appointed as Lecturer in the English Department in H.C.D.G. College, Nitaipukhuri and accordingly, she joined on 01.12.1995. During the course of her service in the said department, she was promoted to the post of Head of the Department in English on 01.12.2009 and she has a teaching experience of 27 years with many published books and research papers. Thereafter, an advertisement was published on 07.03.2023, for filling up the post of Principal in H.C.D.G. College, Nitaipukhuri and accordingly, having fulfilled the requisite qualification and experience, she applied for the post and appeared in the interview on 18.04.2023 and altogether, three candidates applied for the said post and she faired well in the interview. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the selection committee was not constituted as per Rules by obtaining reply in RTI application and then, she had submitted an application before the Vice-chancellor, Dibrugarh University highlighting the defects and malpractices adopted in the said process and requested to take necessary action, but the same failed to evoke any response.

Thereafter, she preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2653/2023, before this Court wherein, vide order dated 17.05.2023, a direction was issued to the counsel for the Higher Education Department as to whether any guardian member was included in the selection committee, fixing the matter on 19.06.2023. The

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