LAWS(GAU)-2016-4-41

JAYASHREE NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On April 01, 2016
Jayashree Nath Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for primary respondent nos. 3 and 4 as well as Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel representing respondent no. 5. Also heard Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2015 passed in WP(C) 4066 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) MATTER pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Chemistry at J.B. College, Jorhat. Challenging the selection made in favour of the respondent No. 5, it is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that the Selection Board had wrongly withheld award of 2 marks to the appellant under the head "Research Performance", more particularly in respect of sub -clause (v) of the Guidelines governing the selection procedure. The said sub -clause (v) pertains to award of marks in respect of "Presentation of papers in international/national Seminar, Workshop, etc." carrying 2 marks for each paper, subject to a maximum of 5 marks. The said sub -clause makes mention that there would not be any marks for attending seminar, workshop, etc. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that in the application seeking appointment she had clearly indicated the symposia/conferences attended and, therefore, she was legitimately entitled to 2 marks which had not been awarded to her. Taking it further, the appellant submits that 2 marks had been wrongly awarded to the respondent No. 5, inasmuch as, as against sub -clause (iv) and (v) of the Guidelines regulating the selection procedure, marks had been awarded in respect of text book with ISBN number as well as for presentation of paper on the same work. The appellant contends that if the 2 marks had been awarded in her favour, she would have secured the 1st position in the selection, over and above the respondent no. 5.