GAHC010008132026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/38/2026 SMTI CHANDANA DEKA WIFE OF SACHINDRA KUMAR KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO BORKURIHA DISTRICT NALBARI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI

781006

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019

3:THE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNING BODY NALBARI COLLEGE NALBARI ASSAM 781335 ASSAM

4:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NALBARI COLLEGE NALBARI ASSAM

781335

5:THE PRINCIPAL CUM SECRETARY NALBARI COLLEGE NALBARI ASSAM 781335

6:DR SUBHRA SABHAPANDIT WIFE OF DR RANJAN CHAKRABORTY RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 10 OPPOSIT BAKUL PATH NH 37 PS JALUKBARI DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

7:MAHENDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY BALIKA MAHAVIDYALAYA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OF GOVERNING BODY NALBARI

781335 ASSAM

8:THE PRINCIPAL MAHENDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHURY BALIKA MAHAVIDYALAYA NALBARI

781335 ASSA For the appellant(s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. R.M. Deka, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. Indraneel Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Hazarika, Advocate Mr. K. Gogoi, SC, Higher Education BEFORE –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

20.02.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Indraneel Choudhury, learned senior Advocate for the respondent No. 6/Subhra Sabhapandit; Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education, Assam.

2. The challenge in this writ appeal is to the judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 2988/2022, whereby 1 (one) mark allotted to the appellant on the count of “experience” has been found to be faulty and a direction has been given to the respondent authorities, especially, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, to proceed with the selection process in accordance with law and take it to its logical conclusion, thereby directing that out of the 4 (four) marks that the appellant had obtained for her experience, should be assessed at 1 (one) mark less, i.e. only 3 (three) marks for experience.

3. It may be clarified that there is no dispute with respect to the appellant having obtained 3 marks for her experience. The respondent No. 6 herein would otherwise benefit if the appellant is not awarded 4 marks but gets only 3 marks for her experience, which will make the respondent steal the show at the level of the decision of the Selection Committee.

4. It would be apposite to cull out a few paragraphs of the impugned judgment containing the directions for a proper discussion over the issue.

“19. Thus, from the aforesaid discussions, the following findings could be arrived at, herein this case:

(i) There is absence of materials/pleaded facts to suggest that the respondent No. 6 was engaged as adhoc Lecturer in MNC Valika Mahavidalaya, Nalbari for the period 2009-2010, following the Rules of appointment i.e. the University Grant Commission Regulations, 2010.

(ii) In fact, for the period 2009-2010, which the respondent No.6 claimed to have served as adhoc Lecturer in MNC Valika Mahavidalaya, Nalbari one O.M. dated 12.10.2004, was holding the field, which put a ban on appointment/engagement against any non sanctioned post.

(iii) There is no material to suggest that the respondent No.6 was appointed against a sanctioned post, rather the affidavit of respondent No.7 and 8 clearly indicates absence of any sanctioned post of Lecturer in Sanskrit in the said College, at the relevant point of time i.e. 2009-2010.

(iv) Though a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgment and order dated 14.6.2016, in W.P.(C) No. 3245/2015, held that the experience certificate, obtained by the respondent No. 6 from the respondent No.8, is a document based on original records which can be acted upon for the purpose of giving award of marks