SATYA SANDHA DAR Vs. CHINTAMANI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30.3.95 allowing Civil Rule No. 2429/93 filed by the petitioner- respondent Shri. Chintamani Sharrna.

(2.) At the admission stage; we have heard Shri. N.M. Lahiri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri. A.K. Phukan arid Shri. V.M. Thomas, Advocates appearing for the appellant (respondent Nb. 4 in the Civil Rule), Mr. S.R. Bhattacharjee, assisted by Mr. H.A. Sarkar,, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-writ petitioner and Mr. B.C. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the State-respondents.

(3.) The brief facts for the purpose of adjudicating the present appeal are that a few posts of lecturer in Pragjyotish College, Guwahati fell vacant for which an advertisement was made which has been quoted in extenso in the judgment under appeal. In pursuance of the; aforesaid advertisement besides the petitioner-respondent, the appellant (respondent No.4 in the Civil Rule) and others applied and according to the Rules the Governing Body took interview for the purpose of preparing a select list. It is not disputed that the name of the contesting respondent-petitioner was placed at Serial No.l as he has obtained first class in M.Sc. and first class in B.Sc. examinations. Admittedly, the name of the appellant (respondent No.4 in the Civil Rule) was placed at serial No.3 as she had obtained second class both in her Post Graduate and Graduation examinations. The marks awarded on the basis of the guidelines laid down by the Director of Higher Educaticon to the petitioner-respondent were 30 and the marks awarded to the appellant (respondent No.4 in the Civil Rule) were 25. However, while making recommendation for appointment on the post of lecturer, the petitioner-respondent who admittedly was placed at serial No.l in the select list was bye-passed and the Governing Body made recommendation for appointment of the appellant who was admittedly placed at serial No.3. In the Civil Rule, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Governing Body of the College in which the Governing Body has set out the justification for bye- passing the candidate at serial No.l, i.e. the writ petitioner-respondent and preferring the appellant (respondent No.4 in the Civil Rule). The reasons have been set out in extenso in the: judgment under appeal by the learned Single Judge and from the reasons given, three grounds which emerged for bye-passing the candidate at serial No.l and preferring the candidate at serial No.3 by the Governing Body are :