LAWS(GAU)-2003-6-33

AMINULHOQUE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On June 12, 2003
AMINULHOQUE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal, Darrang College, Tezpur by an advertisement dated 18.5.2002 invited applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in various subjects including Botany. The advertisement specifies that the candidate must have UGC norms with brilliant academic carrier with specialization in Mycology and Plant Pathology. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer of Botany. The petitioner along with others were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 13.7.2002. The Selection Board prepared a list of three successful candidates and the petitioner was the second nominee. The Governing Body of the college met on 17.8.2002 and decided to appoint the petitioner as he has all the requisite qualifications for appointment as Lecturer in Botany to the exclusion of the first nominee, the respondent No .4. The Principal of the college issued appointment letter dated 29.8.2002 in favour of the petitioner and vide letter dated 27.9.2002 requested the Director of Higher Education to accord approval of the appointment. The Director, in turn, refused to accord approval apparently on the ground that the writ petitioner was second in order of merit in the list prepared by the Selection Board. Hence, this petition.

(2.) Shri Phatik Tamuli, the first nominee was impleaded as respondent No.4 on his prayer made in Misc Case No.57 of 2003.

(3.) Annexure D, attached with the writ petition, is the report of the Selection Board. From this, it is apparent that the writ petitioner stood second while the respondent No.4 stood first in order of merit. Annexure F is the letter dated 27.9.2002 written by the Principal to the Director of Higher Education requesting for approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner as per Governing Body's resolution. Along with this letter, the Principal had annexed a copy of the relevant resolution adopted by the Governing Body against Item No.2. The reasons for ignoring the claim of the respondent No.4, the first nominee, may be read in the words of the Governing Body. The same is quoted herein below :