GOVERNING BODY OF BURHINAGAR JUNIOR COLLEGE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Governing Body Of Burhinagar Junior College
STATE OF ASSAM
Click here to view full judgement.
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. -
(1.) Heard Ms. N Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department and Mr. DK Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 as well as Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.5.
(2.) An advertisement dated 19.06.2014 was issued by the Governing Body of Burhinagar Junior College, Mahaliapara, in the district of Darrang inviting applications from candidates having 10 years of teaching experience in a Junior College or a Provincialised College for the post of Principal of the College. In the said advertisement, it was stated that local qualified candidates will get preference in the appointment. Pursuant to the advertisement, both the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted their candidature. Prior to that the respondent No.4 had preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No.3183/2014 with the grievance that the authorities are not proceeding with the regular selection process for appointment to the post of Principal of the Junior College. The said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 25.06.2014 by providing that the respondent authorities may expedite the process of selection. Accordingly a selection process was held and the statement of marks of the selection committee finds place at page 29 of the writ petition. From the statement of marks, it is noticed that the respondent No.5, Diganta Rajbonshi was awarded a total marks of 211.3 and was placed in the first position, whereas the respondent No.4 was awarded 203.8 marks and was placed in the second position. The statement of marks also indicates that in the selection, the authorities had taken into consideration, the marks obtained by the respective candidates in the qualifying examination i.e. HSLC, PU/HS, Degree and in the MA examination. Marks were also allotted for other qualifications, where the respondent No.4 was given 10 marks and the respondent No.5 was not given any mark for the said category. Marks were also allotted for administrative experience, where the respondent No.4 was given 0.1 marks where the respondent No.5 was not given any mark.
(3.) Apart from the aforesaid consideration, the Selection Committee had not taken into consideration any other aspect for the purpose of the selection. Based upon such statement of marks, the Selection Committee had taken a resolution that in the interview, 8 numbers of candidates have taken part and in order of merit, the respondent No.5 is at Sl. No.1, whereas the respondent No.4 is at Sl.2.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.