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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 734

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Dr. Runmoni Borah Phukan, D/o - Sri Mukul Borah - Petitioner
Versus
The Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/4740 OF 2020
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr S N Sarma Senior Advocate, Mr. R Phukan, Mr. K Kalita, Mr. D J Das,MR. R K Borah
For the Respondent: Sc, Higher Edu, Mr. D Goswami, Mr. S M Baruah, For Caveator,Sc, Kkhsou

Essential qualifications are mandatory for public employment eligibility, while desirable qualifications do not determine eligibility. Procedural requirements like an NOC are directory and do not invalidate the selection process if the candidate is otherwise qualified and the recruitment remains transparent and merit-based.

Headnote:(A) Public Employment - Selection process - Eligibility criteria - Essential vs. desirable qualifications - Whether a No Objection Certificate for in-service candidates is a mandatory requirement - Whether lack of desirable qualifications voids a selection - Essential qualifications are mandatory for eligibility, whereas desirable qualifications serve strictly to assess comparative merit and do not impact core eligibility - Procedural requirements, such as an NOC, are directory in nature when the candidate possesses all essential qualifications and the selection process remains merit-based and transparent. (Paras 23, 24, 31)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope and limits - The Court in exercise of judicial review cannot substitute the employer's discretion regarding prescribed qualifications or sit in appeal over a selection process unless it demonstrates manifest illegality, perversity, or lack of transparency. (Paras 15, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the selection of a candidate for a faculty position, contending that the candidate failed to provide a mandatory NOC at the time of application and lacked specific desirable work experience. The selected candidate had performed better in the interview process.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the essential qualifications were satisfied by the selected candidate. The NOC was a procedural requirement which was regularized through later resignation and acceptance by the previous employer. Desirable qualifications, if absent, do not render a candidate ineligible as they are used to compare merit rather than determine basic qualification.

Issues: Whether the submission of an NOC from a previous employer is a mandatory eligibility condition and whether the absence of desirable qualifications invalidates a candidate's selection.

Ratio Decidendi: An employer has the exclusive domain to define qualifications. Since the candidate possessed all essential requirements and the selection process was conducted reasonably without favoritism, procedural lapses regarding directory requirements do not warrant judicial interference with a merit-based appointment.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the writ petition facts and selection context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 17 , 18)
2. petitioner's arguments regarding illegal candidate selection criteria. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondents' defense on selection procedures and ugc compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. distinguishing between essential and desirable qualification criteria. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. analysis of procedural lapses, noc requirements, and precedents. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. judicial determination on selection validity and merit. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
7. final order dismissing the writ petition. (Para 34)

ORDER :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, KKHSOU for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6; Mr. A. R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for the respondent Nos. 7 & 9 and Mr. S. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8.

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the appointment of one Dr. Sanjib Borah, respondent No. 8 herein, as Assistant Professor in Assamese in Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University (hereinafter referred to as “KKHSOU”) vide order dated 20.10.2020, pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.08.2020 for filling up the posts of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Assistant Regional Director, including the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese.

3. The case in brief, is that KKHSOU published an advertisement dated 14.08.2020 inviting applications for the posts of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Assistant Regional Director, including the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese in the said University. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Assamese on 30.09.2020. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Selection Committee for interview on 09.10.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the interview along with 8 (eight) shortlisted candidates.

4. The Selection Committee, vide its meeting dated 09.10.2020, after taking into consideration the academic credentials, experience in Open and Distance Learning (ODL), knowledge of computers and performance in the interview, recommended 3 (three) candidates, namely, Dr. Sanjib Borah, respondent No. 8 herein, Dr. Runmoni Borah Phukan, the petitioner herein and one Dr. Pallabika Sarmah. Consequently, respondent No. 8 was appointed as Assistant Professor in Assamese vide order dated 20.10.2020 issued by the Registrar, KKHSOU.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 8 did not submit the required No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned authority, although respondent No. 8 was working as an Assistant Professor in Assamese at Pragjyotish College and submission of such NOC was one of the requirements in terms of the advertisement. It is contended that respondent No. 8 has no working experience in ODL, which is one of the prescribed qualifications in the advertisement; however, marks were awarded to respondent No. 8 for ODL experience. It is the further contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 8 was selected and appointed by way of favouritism, as the Vice-Chancellor of KKHSOU allegedly intervened in the selection process to award marks for ODL experience despite the fact that respondent No. 8 had no such experience.

6. Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the advertisement clearly stipulated that candidates who were already employed were required to produce an NOC from their respective employers in original at the time of the interview. It is undisputed that respondent No. 8 did not produce any such NOC either at the time of submission of the application or during the interview. He submits that as per the advertisement, one of the desirable qualifications was work experience in ODL; however, respondent No. 8 has no such experience, as is evident from his a











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