MAJHURA ANZAN HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-8-58
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 16,2018

Majhura Anzan Hazarika Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 7 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.8, Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel earlier appeared for the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, but none appears for the said respondents today.
(2.) For the purpose of filling up the post of Library Assistant in Mangaldai College, a requisition was given to the District Employment Exchange and as a consequence thereof, 24 names were submitted and they were subjected to a selection process by the college authorities. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7 participated in such selection process.
(3.) The petitioner makes a further claim that she earlier served in the college on an honorary basis, but subsequently, discontinued pursuant to the Office Memorandum of the Govt. of Assam. Be that as it may, the petitioner assails the selection made by the college authorities on the ground that higher marks were given to the respondent No.7 under the criteria technical experience. The said grievance of the petitioner resulted in WP(C) No.5361/2014, which was disposed of by the order dated 31.03.2016. In the order dated 31.03.2016, the ground of assailing the selection of the respondent No.7 was recorded in detail by the learned single judge and after considering the matter in its entirety, it was directed that the Director of Higher Education, Assam after hearing the petitioner and the respondent No.7 as well as the authorities in the Mangaldai College, including its Principal and officials, shall give its due approval as regards the selection for the post of Library Assistant pursuant to the interview that was held on 26.09.2014. The meaning and purport of the order dated 31.03.2016 is that the Director of Higher Education shall give a hearing to the parties as indicated in the said order. But what was actually done was that the Director of Higher Education instead of conducting the hearing himself had delegated the hearing to be conducted by the respondent No.8 being the Inspector and upon the hearing being conducted by the Inspector of College, the order dated 26.09.2016 was passed. The fact that the hearing was conducted through the Inspector of Colleges can be ascertained from the second paragraph of the order dated 26.09.2016.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.