LEENA B DAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less similar facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.

(2.) An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 14.2.2004 inviting applications for as many as seven posts of Lecturers in different subjects in the Gauhati Commerce College (in short the College). The selection held pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, in so far as the posts of Lecturer in Accountancy is concerned, has been assailed in W.P.(C) No. 5912/2004 whereas the selection held in respect of the post of Lecturer in Commerce has been assailed in W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004. While the specific details of the challenge made will be noticed a little later what has to be recorded at this stage of recital of facts is that the petitioner in both the cases claim to have submitted their applications pursuant to the advertisement issued and to have participated in the separate selections held for the two posts in question. In the selection held on 13.8.2004 for the post of Lecturer in Accountancy the respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 5912/2004, Dr. Pranjit Kumar Nath, was selected and placed at Serial No. 1 whereas the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 of the select list. Similarly, in the selection held on 11.8.2004 for the post of Lecturer in Commerce, which is assailed in W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004, Dr. Pranjit Kumar Nath was placed at serial No. 1 of the select list whereas one Smt. Angana Bora, respondent No. 9, was placed at serial No. 2 and the petitioner Dr. Monalisha Choudhury was placed at serial No. 3 of the select list. In the aforesaid writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004 the person who had been placed at serial No. 1 of the select list viz. Dr. Pranjit Kumar Nath is not impleaded as a party respondent on the basis of the contention advanced that the said person had opted for appointment in the post of Lecturer in Accountancy. It must also be noticed at the stage that the recommendations of the selection committee having been approved by the Governing Body of the College, the matter was required to be sent to the Director of Higher Education for accord of prior approval. It is at this stage that both the writ petitions were filed calling into question the selections made.

(3.) I have heard Sri S. S. Dey and Sri M. Nath, learned counsels appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5912/2004, Sri G. K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the Governing Body of the College and Sri A. C. Borbora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. [ have also heard Sri B. B. Narzari, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6898/2004 and Sri B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the Governing Body of the College in the aforesaid case. Sri K. N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Sri A. K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education were heard in both the cases on behalf of the official respondents.