GAUHATI UNIVERSITY AND ORS. Vs. TARINI PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24-6-2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4090 of 2008 holding that the reasons given by the Executive Council in rejecting the selection of the respondent as Lecturer, Criminal Law and Criminology in the Department of Law appeared to be untenable and arbitrary and accordingly allowed the writ petition, the Gauhati University is preferring this appeal.

(2.) The facts material for disposal of the writ appeal are not in dispute. The Gauhati University ("University" for short) issued the advertisement for filling up the post of Lecturer, Criminal Law and Criminology) in the Department of Law. The requisite qualifications for the post of Lecturer are Post Graduate with good academic record with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an India University or equivalent degree from foreign university. In addition to that, the candidates should also have cleared NET conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. It was, however, provided therein that the candidates, who have completed M.Phil degree before 31st December, 1993 or submitted Ph. D. thesis in the concerned subject within 31st December, 2002 are exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET. The respondent applied for the post, was called for interview along with two other candidates by the Selection Committee, which recommended him for the post and forwarded his name to the Executive Council. The Executive Council, however, did not agree with the recommendation of the Selection Committee on the ground that the respondent did not have uniformly consistent good academic record, and accordingly rejected his selection and directed the Registrar to initiate fresh process for recruitment. It is against this decision that the respondent filed the writ petition.

(3.) While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge recorded the following findings: