SAILENDRA BHUYAN Vs. DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.B.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 i.e. University Grants Commission is on record. Also on record is that Mr. A. Chamuah represents respondent no. 6.

(2.) CHALLENGE is made to the letter dated 16.10.2012 issued by the Registrar, Dibru-garh University, Dibrugarh whereby the petitioners were informed that the Statutory Selection Committee had not recommended their cases to the Executive Council of the University for their promotion to the post of Associate Professor under the Career Advancement and Promotion Scheme (CAPS) in the Department of Education. Selection for promotion to the post of Reader/ Associate Professor was initiated by Notice dated 26.11.2010. Both the petitioners responded to the said Notice and appeared in the interview held on 29.1.2011. Pertinent to mention, at the time when the Notice was issued, the Rules governing the selection was the Dibrugarh University Teachers' Services Condition Ordinance, 1974 (amended upto March, 2007). On an apprehension that the selection and result thereof would be made in terms of the Ordinance of 1974 (amended upto 31.12.2010), a writ petition was instituted by the petitioners being WP(C) No. 788/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.4.2012 and while doing so, this Court considered the affidavit filed by the respondent University where a categorical plea had been taken that the interview/selection was conducted as per the unamended provisions of the Ordinance. The minutes of the Selection Committee was also produced before this Court in a sealed cover and from a perusal of the said minutes, this Court observed that the selection had been conducted as per the provisions of the unamended Ordinance. As publication of the results of the selection was kept on hold by an interim order passed in the said writ petition, this Court granted liberty to the respondent University to publish the results with further liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court if aggrieved by the result of the selection. As the result did not stand in favour of the petitioners, the instant proceedings have been instituted.

(3.) THE basis for making challenge to the letter/order dated 16.10.2012 is that although the respondent University had placed submission and pleadings in the earlier round of litigation that the selection was based on the unamended provisions of the Ordinance, however, from a bare perusal of the letter/order dated 16.10.2012 as well as the proceedings of the Executive Council, it is apparent that assessment had been made as per the amended provisions of the Ordinance. Petitioners have referred to the letter dated 16.10.2012 wherein they have been addressed by showing their designation as Assistant Professor (Stage-II). According to the petitioners, this itself goes to show that assessment of their merits had been done as per the amended provisions of the Ordinance. In so far as the proceedings of the Executive Council (Annexure-11) is concerned, the petitioners have not been able to pinpoint as it how it can be said that selection had been made in terms of the amended Ordinance.