(the high court of assam, nagaland, …ghconline.nic.in/judgment/wa2272009.pdf · (the high court...
TRANSCRIPT
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 1 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM
AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1) WRIT APPEAL NO. 227 of 2009
1) Dr. Ajit Kr. Baruah S/o. Late Bubai Baruah R/o. Bormoinaparia, P.O. Borkhelia, Dist. Jorthat, Assam 2) Dr. Uptal Ch. Sarma S/o. Shri Gopal Ch. Sarmah, R/o. Golai Nagar-2, P.O. Digboi Dist. Tinsukia 3) Dr. Parimal Ch. Acharjee S/o. Late Surendra Bijay Acharjee Presently working in the Lumding College, P.O. Lumding, Dist. Nagaon … Appellants Versus
1) The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner And Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, Dispur, Assam 2) The Director of Higher Education Assam, Kahilipara, Ghy- 19 3) The Governing Body of Lakhimpur Kendriya Mahavidyalaya, Lakhimpur Represented by its Presidnet. 4) Shri Suresh Ch. Goswami, Principal (Retd.) Lakhimpur Kendriya Mahavidyalaya, Lakhimpur.
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 2 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
5) Smti Neelima Gogoi (Konwar), Head of the Deptt. of Economics, Lakhimpur Kendriya Mahavidayalaya, Lakhimpur, Assam 6) Shri Durgeswar Hazarika, S/o. Shri Beben Hazarika, R/s. Charaimaria, P.S. North Lakhimpur, Dist. Lakhimpur, Assam 7) Dr. Jogesh Kakoti, S/o. Late Sarat kakoti R/o. 4-B, Shakti Enclave, Manik Nagar, Rajdhani Nursery, Zoo Road, Guwahati-05 8) Dr. Ranjan Kr. Borah, S/o. Shri Nirmal Ch. Borah, R/o. Vill & P.O. Alengmuria, P.S. Hokirakhat, Dergaon, Golaghat- 22 9) Dr. Ram Ch. Deka, S/o Shri Dhireswar Deka, R/o. Bhuktabari, P.O. Sipajhar, Darrang- 784145 10) Dr. Ganga Dhar Das, S/o. Late Dina Nath Das, R/o. Vill- Kaljar, P.O. Barbala Barpeta- 781316 11) Dr. Suranjan Sarma, S/o. Shri Panchanan Sarma R/o. Forensic Sc. Lab., Qtr. No. 5 Kahilipara, Ghy- 19 12) Dr. (Mrs.) Sarafima Ahmed, D/o. Late Lamaluddin Ahmed, R/o. Ward No. 6, P.O. North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur- 1
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 3 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
13) Dr. Prasen Daimari, S/o. Late Takhoria Daimari R/o. Vill- Pub-Nalbari, P.O. Tangla, Udalguri (BTAD) Pin- 784521 14) Dr. Kukil Kr. Baruah, S/o. Late Hari Kanta Baruah, R/o. North Guwahati, Silsakoo, P.O. Guwahati-30 15) Dr. Kishore Kr. Talukdar, S/o. Late Hem Ch. Talukdar, R/o. Ward No. 1, Tihu Town, Nalbari- 781371 16) Dr. Bhaskar Kalita, S/o. Santo Ram Kalita Vill & P.O. Karchantola, Jamugurihat, Sonitpur-784189 17) Dr. Khagendra Kr. Nath, S/o. Sangarnagar, Ward No. 8 P.O.- Mangaldoi, Darrang-784125 18) Dr. Ghana Gogoi, S/o. Late Padmadhar Gogoi, R/o. Vill- Ramu Gaon, Amguri Sibsagar 19) Dinamani Bhagawati S/o. Late Nabin Ch. Bhagawati, R/o. Lane-4, Ward No. 3, Bidyapur, Nalbari 20) Girish Ch. Deka, S/o. Late Pilinga Deka, R/o. Bidyapur, Ward No. 3 Nalbari 21) Upama Barman Deka, D/o. Late Chandi Charan Barman, R/o. Bidyapur, Ward No. 3, P.O. & Dist. Nalbari- 781335
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 4 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
22) Parul Saikia, D/o. Late Madhan Saikia, R/o. Six Mile, Juripar, House NO. 2, Ghy-781037 23) Indira Saikia Borah, D/o. Late Kolai Saikia, HOD Sanskrit Deptt., Pragjyotish College, Ghy-9 24) Nripendra Nath Talukdar, S/o. Late Chana Ram Talukdar, HOD Chemistry Deptt., Pub-Kamrup College, P.O. Baihata Chariali, Kamrup, Ghy-81 25) Dr. Dhiren Shrutikar, S/o. Late Upendra Nath Shrutikar, R/o. Qtr. No. B1-002, Game Village, Borsajai, Ghy-781029 26) Dr. Bibhas Deb, S/o. Late Birendra Kr. Deb, R/o. Basoata Niloy, Adhor Chand School Road, Dist. Silchar- 788004 27) Dr. Umen Dutta, S/o. Late Debeswar Dutta, R/o. K.N. Path, Na-Ali, Bongal Pukhuri, K.N. Path, Jorhat- 1 28) Dr. Bimal Borah, S/o. Shri Ganesh Borah, C/o. Haresh Baruah, H.B. Path, Katoky Gaon, Dist. Jorhat 29) Dr. Buddhindra Nath Saikia, S/o. Late Dharmeswar Saikia, R/o. Vill & P.O. Chakial, Dist. Jorhat- 785632
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 5 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
30) Dr. Babul Chandra Sarma, S/o. Late Dhireswar Sarma R/o. P.O. Gopal Bazar, Vill- Kharjar, Dist. Nalbari-781365 31) Dr. Beda Kumar Chaliha, S/o. Late Hemaprasad Chaliha, R/o. Vill- Bhogpuriya, P.S. Phulbari Boka Nadi, Dist. Lakhimpur 32) Dr. Lohit Saikia, S/o. Shri Tankeswar Saikia, R/o. Jahajram Das Road, Graham Bazar, P.O.- Dibrugarh Dist. Dibrugarh 33) Dr. Dip Saikia, S/o. Shri Bisweswar Saikia R/o. MBP Road, Amolapatty, Nagaon, Dist. Nagaon 34) Dr. Bharati Dutta, S/o. Late Ram Raja Sinha, C/o. Prof. K. Dutta, Deptt. of Statistics Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh 35) Dr. Debabrata Khanikar, S/o. Tuaram Khanikar, R/o. P.O. & Vill- Chakial, Dist. Jorhat-785614 36) Dr. Muhudhar Puzari, S/o. Shri Kamal Chandra Puzari, R/o. Ward No. 8, Sashi Phukan Path, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur- 787001 37) Dr. Manindra Singha S/o. Late Thambanjaw Singha, R/o. Vill & P.O. Amala, Dist. Hailakandi Pin- 788164 38) Dr. Ashok Kumar Das, S/o. Shri Akash Chandra Das, R/o. Tilok Chand Road, P.O. & Dist. Karimganj- 788710
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 6 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
39) Dr. Suresh Dutta, S/o. Late Indra Nath Dutta, R/o. College Road Khelmati North Lakhimpur, Dist- Lakhimpur Pin- 787031 40) Dr. Sarat Barkataki, S/o. Late Nilkanta Barkataki, R/o. Panigaon, Chayali, Politechnique Road, Dist. Nagaon- 782001 41) Dr. Gajendra Adhikary, S/o. Late Kamala Kanta Adhikary, R/o. P.O. Mirza, Kamrup- 781125 42) Dr. Parul Choudhury, W/o. Shri Kandarpa Talukdar R/o. Shantipur Main Road, Ashram Road, Guwahati, Dist. Kamrup- 781009 43) Dr. Golapi Devi D/o. Late Girish Ch. Sarma, R/o. Rajabahar, P.O- Dergaon, Dist. Golaghat 44) Dr. Joy Krishna Mahanta, S/o. Late Hemchandra Mahanta, R/o. Naliapul, P.O. Dibrugarh Dist. Dibrugarh 45) Dr. Bipul Kumar Baruah, Dibrugarh College, Dist. Dibrugarh 46) Dr. Narayan Ch. Sarma S/o. Late Hariprasad Sarma P.O. Makalabari Dist. Jorhat
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 7 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
47) Dr. Amelendu Chakraborty, Selection Grade Lecturer, Deptt. of Physics, Cachar College, Silchar, 48) Dr. Sankar Prasad Bhattacharyya, Selection Grade Lecturer, Deptt. of Zoology, G.C. College, Silchar 49) Dr. K. Nayan Chand Singha, Selection Grade Lecturer, HOD, Deptt. of Manipuri, G.C. College, Silchar 50) Dr. P. Raj Bihari Singh, Selection Grade Lecturer & HOD Deptt. of Economics, Nehru College, Pilapool Cachar 51) Dr. Debashish Roy, Senior Lecturer, Deptt. of History, Radhamadhab College, Silchar- 6 52) Dr. Chandan Dey, Head Department of Commerce, Cachar College, Silchar-1 53) Dr. Pran Krishna Das, Senior Lecturer, Nalbari College, Nalbari, 54) Dr. Leena Kumari Deka, Sr. Lecturer, M.N.C. Balika Mahavidyalaya, Nalbari 55) Dr. Dalimi Devi Sr. Lecturer, M.N.C. Balika Mahavidyalaya, Nalbari 56) Dr. Umesh Talukdar, Sr. Lecturer, Nalbari Commerce College, Nalbari
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 8 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
57) Dr. Atul Ch. Haloi, Sr. Lecturer, Nalbari Commerce College, Nalbari, 58) Dr Dipti Choudhury, Sr. Lecturer M.N.C. Balika Mahavidyalaya, Nalbari 59) Dr. Biren Kr. Chakravorty, Sr. Lecturer, Nalbari College, Nalbari, 60) Dr. Prabodh Sarmah, Sr. Lecturer, Nalbari College, Nalbari 61) Dr. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Lecturer, Guwahati College, Guwahati-21 62) Dr. Lakhaneswar Ghatowar, Sr. Lecturer, Guwahati College, Guwahati-21 63) Dr. Dhiren Kalita, Sr. Lecturer, Kakojan College, Jorhat, 64) Dr. (Mrs.) Shanti Borah, Sr. Lecturer, Dibru College, Dibrugarh 65) Dr. Bipul Gogoi, Sr. Lecturer, Demow College, Sivasagar 66) Dr. (Mrs.) Ashfir Sultana Sr. Lecturer, Sibsagar College, Joysagar, Sibsagar, 67) Dr. Gunin Gogoi Sr. Lecturer, Tengakhat College, Dist. Dibrugarh,
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 9 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
68) Dr. Shahjahan Ali Ahmed, Sr. Lecturer, Kamar Gaon College, Kamargaon, Dist. Golaghat
69) Dr. Purushottam Bhandari, Selection Grade Lecturer, Jagiroad College, 70) Dr. Bijoya Baruah, Sr. Lecturer, Dimoria College, Dist. Kamrup 71) Dr. (Mrs.) Babita Choudhury, Selection Grade Lecturer, Deppt. Of Education, Radha Govinda Baruah College, Fatasil Ambari, Guwahati-25 72) Dr. Mahananda Borah, Sr. Lecturer, Deptt. of Geology, Demoria College, Khetri, Kamrup 73) Dr. Rajib Barthakur, Sl. Grade Lecturer, HOD, Botany, D.K.D. College, Dergaon, 74) Dr. Porag Kumar Thakur, Sl. Grade Lecturer, HOD of Zoology D.K.D. College, Dergaon 75) Dr. Monoj Joyti Hazarika Sl. Grade Lecturer, Deptt. of Chemistry, D.K.D. College, Dergaon, 76) Dr. Pranab Kumar Sarma Sr. Lecturer, Mangaldoi College, Dist. Mangaldoi 77) Dr. Mrinal Bhuyan, Sr. Lecturer, DHSK College, Dibrugarh, Dibrugarh
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 10 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
78) Dr. Rajee Konwar Sr. Lecturer,
Demow College, Demow, Sibsagar
79) Dr. Pratha Ganguli Sr. Lecturer, DHSK College, Dibrugarh 80) Dr. Madhumita Purkayastha Sr. Lecturer,
DHSK College, Dibrugarh, Dibrugarh 81) Dr. Priya Dev Goswami Sr. Lecturer, DHSK College, Dibrugarh, Dibrugarh 82) Dr. Poresh Baruah, Sr. Lecturer, DHSK College, Dibrugarh, Dibrugarh 83) Dr. Ritupon Sarmah Sr. Lecturer DHSK College, Dibrugarh, Dibrugarh 84) Dr. Atikuddin Ahmed, Sr. Lecturer, DHSK College, Dibrugarh, Dibrugarh 85) Dr. (Ms.) Junu Mahanta Sr. Lecturer, DDR College, Chabua, Dibrugarh
86) Dr. Omar Saaduddin Ahmed, Sr. Lecturer, Bahana College, Jorhat 87) Dr. Minal Kr. Borah, Sr. Lecturer, Soigaon College, Kamrup
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 11 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
88) Dr. Nayen Kalita, Sr. Lecturer, Soigaon College, Kamrup 89) Dr. Nazibur Rahman, Sr. Lecturer, West Goalpara College, Goalpara 90) Dr. Dibakar Sarma Sr. Lecturer, M.K. College, Cherga, Barpeta 91) Prabin Das, Sr. Lecturer, Deptt. of Maths, Arya Vidayapeeth College Guwhati-16 92) Shri Ganesh Choudhury, Sr. Lecturer, Deptt. of Chemistry, Arya Vidayapeeth College Guwhati-16 93) Shri Jnanashree Borah, Sr. Lecturer, Deptt. of Geography, Arya Vidayapeeth College Guwhati-16 94) Shri Naba Kr. Talukdar, Sr. Lecturer, M.C. College, Barpeta 95) Dr. Kailash Ch. Sarma Selection Grade Lecturer, & HOD of Botany, Tihu College, Tihu, Nalbari 96) Dr. Jyotish Bhagabati, Selection Grade Lecturer, & HOD of Assamse, Tihu College, Tihu, Nalbari
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 12 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
97) Dr. Probodh Ch. Goswami, Sr. Lecturer, N.H. College, Patacharkuchi, Barpeta, 98) Dr. Bhupendra Talukdar, Selection Grade Lecturer, Deptt. of Geography, Bajali College, Pathsala, Barpeta 99) Dr. Bhagaban Sarma Selection Grade Lecturer, Deptt. of Zoology, Bajali College, Pathsala, Barpeta 100) Dr. Chandana Sarma Selection Grade Lecturer, Deptt. of Chemistry, Bajali College, Pathsala, Barpeta 101) Shri Balin Hazarika Sr. Lecturer, Kaliabor College, Nagaon 102) Shri Bipul Kr. Sharma Sr. Lecturer, Kaliabor College, Nagaon 103) Dr. Hitesh Deka, S/o. P.C. Deka Secretary, Governing Body, K.C. Das Commerce College, Chatribari, Ghy- 8 104) Shri Balendra Kr. Das, S/o. Hari Ch. Das, Secretary Governing Body, Pachim Guwahati Mahavidyalaya Guwahati-33 …Respondents
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 13 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
2) WRIT PETITION NO. 3080 OF 2009
1) Dr. Ajit Kr. Baruah S/o. Late Bubai Baruah R/o. Bormoinaparia, P.O. Borkhelia, Dist. Jorthat, Assam 2) Dr. Uptal Ch. Sarma S/o. Shri Gopal Ch. Sarmah, R/o. Golai Nagar-2, P.O. Digboi Dist. Tinsukia 3) Dr. Parimal Ch. Acharjee S/o. Late Surendra Bijay Acharjee Presently working in the Lumding College, P.O. Lumding, Dist. Nagaon … Petitioners Versus 1) The State of Assam Represented by the Commissioner And Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department, Dispur, Assam 2) The University Grants Commission Represented by its Secretary Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 3) The State Selection Board, Khahilipara Road, Jatia Bye Lane No. 3, Dispur Guwhati-6 4) The Director of Higher Education Assam, Kahilipara, Ghy- 19 5) Dr. Kukil Kr. Baruah, North Gauhati College, Guwahati
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 14 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
6) Dr. Umen Dutta, CKB Commerce College, Jorhat 7) Dr. Indira Saikia Borah, Pragjyotish College, Guwahati 8) Dr. Upama Barman Deka Nalbari College, Nalbari 9) Dr. Gajendra Adhikary DK Girls College, Mirza Kamrup 10) Dr. Bhaskar Kalita, T.H.B. College, Jamugurihat, Sonitpur 11) Dr. Suranjan Sarma Dimoria College, Khetri Kamrup 12) Dr. (Mrs.) Manju Goswami Arya Vidyapith College, Guwahati 13) Dr. Haladhar Dev Goswami M.C. College, Barpeta 14) Dr. Nripendra Nath Talukdar, Pub Kamrup College, Baihata Chariali 15) Dr. Ganga Dhar Das, B.H. College, Howly, Barpeta 16) Dr. Ranjan Kr. Borah, Pragjyotish College, Guwahati 17) Dr. Parul Choudhury, K.R.B. Girls College, Guwahati 18) Dr. Binita Bora Dev Choudhury, Bajali College, Pathsala, Barpeta
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 15 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
19) Dr. Siddhi Nath Sarma, Goalpara College, Goalpara 20) Dr. Parul Saikia R.G. Baruah College, Guwahati 21) Dr. Lohit Saikia M.K.D.G. College, Dibrugarh 22) Dr. Debendra Kr. Bezbaruah, Dimoria College, Khetri, Kamrup 23) Dr. Dhritikesh Chakraborty, Handique Girls College, Guwahati 24) Dr. Khagendra Kr. Nath, Mangaldoi College, Mangaldoi Darrang 25) Dr. Dhiren Shrutikar, K.R.B. Girls College, Guwahati 26) Dr. Bibhash Dev, G.C. College, Silchar, Cachar 27) Dr. Muhidhar Puzari, North Lakhimpur College, Lakhimpur 28) Dr. (Mrs.) Sarafima Ahmed, Nabajyoti College, Kalgachia, Barpeta, 29) Dr. Prasen Daimari, Tangla College, Tangla Udalguri 30) Dr. Bimal Borah, J.B. College, Jorhat
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 16 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
31) Dr. Dinamoni Bhagwati, Nalbari College, Nagari 32) Dr. Munindra Singha, Lala Rural College, Lala, Hailakandi 33) Dr. Suresh Dutta, North Lakhimpur College, Lakhimpur 34) Dr. Bharati Dutta, D.H.S.K. College, Dibrugarh 35) Dr. (Mrs.) Golapi Devi D.K.D. College, Dergaon, Golaghat 36) Dr. Beda Kr. Chaliha Rangachahi College, Majuli, Jorhat 37) Dr. Ghana Gogoi, Abhayapuri College Bongaigaon 38) Dr. Hema Ch. Deka, Dimoria College, Khetri, Kamrup 39) Dr. Dip Saikia, Duliajan College, Duliajan, Dibrugarh 40) Dr. Devabrata Khanikar, D.K.D. College, Dergaon, Golaghat, 41) Dr. Sarat Borkataki, Nowgaon College, Nagaon 42) Dr. Ashok Kr. Das, Karimganj College, Karimganj
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 17 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
43) Dr. Budhindra Nath Saikia, N.N.S. College, Titabor, Jorhat 44) Dr. Ashok Dr. Sarma, Nalbari College, Nalbari 45) Dr. Ram Ch. Deka, Sipajhar College, Sipajhar, Darrang 46) Dr. Bhanu Prova Saikia Moran College, Moranhat, Sivasagar 47) Dr. Girish Ch. Deka, Kamrup College, Chamata, Nalblari 48) Dr. Bibhuti Bhushan Panda, B.P.C. College, Nagarbora, Kamrup 49) Dr. Babul Ch. Sarma, Abhayapuri College, Bongaigaon 50) Dr. Minu Buragohain, D.H.S.K. College, Dibrugarh 51) Dr. Manik Ch. Barman, Nalbari Commerce College, Nalbari 52) Dr. Khanindra Kr. Sarma, Birjhora Mahavidyalaya, Bongaigaon 53) Dr. Karabi Dutta Choudhury, G.C. College, Silchar, Cachar 54) Dr. Kishore Kr. Talukdar, Tihu College, Tihu, Nalbari
… Respondents
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 18 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA
For the petitioner s : Mr. S.S. Goswami, Ms. L. Devi, Avocates For the respondents : Mr. D. Saikia, SC, Mr. A. Deka, SC Mr. U.K. Nair, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Mr. A. Choudhury, Mr. D. Baurah, Mr. P.J. Phukan, Advocates Date of hearing : 23.08.2011 Date of judgment : 23.09.2011
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(B.K. Sharma, J)
1. The writ appeal and the writ petition raising the same issue
have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment and order.
2. While in the writ appeal the challenge is to the judgment and
order dated 30.06.09 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1657/2009 filed by the
respondent No. 6, in the writ petition the challenge is to the
consequential action of publishing the select list for appointment of
Principal in 51 provincialised colleges. Be it stated here that the
present appellants/ petitioners were not party to the said
proceeding.
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 19 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
3. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1657/2009 from which the
present proceeding has arisen, was filed by one Shri Durgeswar
Hazarika (respondent No. 6 in the appeal) in respect of the dispute
relating to the charge of Principal of the college called Lakhimpur
Kendriya Mahabidyalaya. The challenge in the writ petition was the
Annexure-15 order dated 31.03.2009 and Annexure-17 order dated
18.03.2009 (annexed to the writ petition) passed by the Principal of
the Mahabidyalaya and the Director of Higher Education, Assam
respectively. By Annexure-15 order dated 31.03.2009, the resolution
of the Governing Body of the college and consequential handing
over of charge to the respondent No. 5 therein was conveyed. The
said resolution and action of the Principal of the college was
approved by the Director of Higher Education Assam by the
aforesaid Anenxure-17 order dated 18.03.2009.
4. According to the writ petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 6, because
of non-sanctioning of the post of Vice-Principal in which capacity he
had been discharging duties and functions, he had been deprived of
being the In-charge Principal.
5. While adjudicating the said issue involved in the writ petition,
learned Single Judge took up the larger issue of appointment of
Principals in colleges on regular basis and on the basis of the
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 20 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
submission made by the learned Standing counsel, Education
Department that interview, selection and other process for selecting
the candidates were already over, held that the select list should be
published. Accordingly, direction was issued to publish the select list
and thereafter to make appointments on that basis as per the
provision of law.
6. As regards the issue raised in the writ petition it was held that
in absence of any provision in the Rules that the Vice-Principal
should be allowed to hold the charge of the Principal, the petitioner
involved in the writ petition was not entitled to any superior claim
over the respondent No. 5 therein. Accordingly, direction was issued
for continuation of the respondent No. 5 as In-Charge Principal for a
period of three months and thereafter to take action for appointment
of regular Principal on the basis of the select list that was directed
to be published.
7. In the present proceeding, we are not concerned with the
dispute between the respondent No. 5 and the writ petitioner
involved in the writ petition from which the present writ appeal and
the writ petition have arisen. The issue involved is as to whether the
selection for appointments of Principal had been conducted in
accordance with rules and if not, whether the learned Single Judge
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 21 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
could have issued the direction for publication of the select list and
thereafter to make appointments of Principal on that basis.
8. The appellants/ writ petitioners are working in provincialised
colleges in Assam. They claim to be qualified for empanelment
pursuant to the selection to be conducted by the State Selection
Board, Assam for the post of Principal. Referring to the Assam
Education Department Selection Rules, 1981, the appellants/
writ petitioners have contended that under Rule 10 (1), the number
of the selected candidates to be empanelled should be at least 3
times of the existing vacancies. They have also stated about the
Assam College Employees Provincialisation Act, 2005
providing for provincialisation of the services of the employees of the
Non-government colleges. Emphasizing on Section-6 of the said Act,
it has been stated that the appointments against both teaching and
non-teaching posts in the colleges should be made by the Director of
Higher Education, Assam on the basis of the selection and
recommendation of the Governing Body of the respective colleges in
accordance with the rules and procedure being followed.
9. The above stand of the appellants/petitioners has a vital
bearing in the instant proceeding inasmuch as the impugned select
list has been prepared by Govt. of Assam in the Higher Education on
the basis of the selection conducted by the State Selection Board
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 22 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
and in the process there is no association of Governing Body of the
respective colleges.
10. Since in the present proceeding we are concerned with the
issue as to whether the select list was prepared in accordance with
law or not, the basic fact related to the said issue are briefly
indicated. The selection in question was conducted pursuant to the
judgment and order dated 15.02.2007 passed in the writ appeal
being WA No. 261/2006. The appeal was preferred against the
judgment and order dated 19.06.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 819/2006
whereby it was provided that the particular select list published on
21.06.2004 was valid till 21.06.2006. It was also provided that the
select list would continue to operate for further period of 4 months
upto 18.10.2006.
11. In the said judgment and order the significant observation
made is in paragraph-6 dealing with the contention about the
number of posts for which the particular advertisement was issued.
The said observation is “moreover, this is not a case of
selection for appointment; it is a case of selection for
empanelment of teachers for the post of Principal. Rule
provides that persons who are empanelled in the select list
are eligible for appointment to the post of Principal and the
concerned college is required to make selection from the
said list only”.
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 23 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
12. In the said writ appeal the following direction was issued.
“We, therefore, direct the respondent authority, the Selection Board to issue fresh advertisement in accordance with Rule and regulations governing the matter, clearly indicating therein the number of vacancies for which advertisement is issued. The entire process of selection shall be completed and selection panel list be published within a period of four months”.
13. After the aforesaid judgment and order, the State Selection
Board, Assam issued an advertisement inviting candidatures for
selection of candidates for appointment of Principals in provincialised
colleges of Assam. In response to the said advertisement,
candidatures were offered including the candidatures of the
appellants/ writ petitioners. In acceptance of the candidatures, call
letters had been issued for interview. After the interview etc., the
Member Secretary of the Selection Board by its letter dated
13.02.2009 submitted the select list of the candidates for
appointment of Principals in provincialised colleges to the Principal
Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Higher Education. The select
list was prepared in order of preference with the ratio of 1:3.
Keeping the said ratio against 51 vacant posts, 153 candidates were
selected. It is the stand of the writ petitioners that the select list
could not have been prepared in order of preference as according to
them, in fact it was not a select list but an empanelled list of eligible
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 24 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
candidates for selection as Principal to be conducted by the
respective colleges.
14. By letter dated 13.02.2009 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition),
the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher) Department informed
the Principal Secretary of the State Selection Board that the earlier
direction for selection of Principal against the vacancies at the ratio
of 1:3 be restricted to the number of vacancies only as per the
provision of Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to FRBM Act, 2005). Thereafter
the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher)
Department issued office memorandum dated 24.02.2009 notifying
that in view of coming into force of the FRBM Act, 2005, the first
sentence in Rule 10 (1) of the Assam Education Department
Selection Rules, 1981 stood amended. The amendment of Rule
10 was indicated as follows:
“Rule 10: Publication of selection list of Lecturers and Principals (I) The Selection Board shall prepare lists of candidates for Lecturers and Principals numbering equal to the number of vacancies notified in the advertisement and shall forward the list as prepared to the Government”.
15. It was at that stage the writ petitioners came to know about
the impugned judgment and order issuing direction for publication of
the select list within three months. It was their stand that they were
expecting publication of the select list/empanelled list containing the
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 25 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
names of 153 candidates at the ratio of 1:3 on the basis of which
the further selection was to be made by the respective colleges.
16. When the writ petitioners/appellants came to know about the
impugned judgment and order, they made queries about the
proceeding therein and could come to know about the writ petition,
facts stated therein with eventual impugned judgment and order.
Thereafter by impugned office memorandum dated 13.07.2009 the
select list containing the names of 51 candidates had been
published. While challenging the select list, the petitioners have also
contended that the ratio of 1:3 as envisaged in the Rules of 1981
could not have been set at naught by a stroke of pen taking
recourse to FRBM Act.
17. We have heard Mr. S.S. Goswami alongwith Ms. L. Devi,
learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners as well as Mr. D.
Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam alongwith Mr. A.
Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department representing
the official respondents. We have also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned
counsel representing the respondent Nos. 7 to 43; Mr. T.J. Mahanta,
learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5; Mr. A.
Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 13,
16, 17: Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel representing the
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 26 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
respondent No. 47 to 101 and Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel
representing the respondent Nos. 103 and 104.
18. While Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent
No. 13, 14 and 17 in course of argument supported the case of the
respondent Nos. 7 to 43 represented by Mr. U.K. Nair, Mr. D.
Baruah, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 47 to 101
supported the case of the appellants /writ petitioners. On the other
hand Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel representing the respondent
No. 5 submitted that in the event of the appeal/petition being
allowed with direction to hold a regular selection in accordance with
Rules, the interest of the respondent No. 5 as In-charge Principal of
the particular college should be protected till finalisation of the said
selection.
19. In his elaborate and detailed argument, Mr. Goswami, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitioners, submitted that all
through out the history of the Education Department, in every
selection of Principal a list of empanelled candidates was prepared
making the empanelled candidates eligible for selection to be
conducted by the respective colleges. According to him a deviation
was made in making the impugned selection. In this connection, he
has exclusively referred to the aforementioned judgment and order
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 27 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA
No. 261/2006 in which the above quoted directions had been issued.
20. In addition to above, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners has also placed reliance on certain other
decisions which are as follows:
i) 1993 (2) GLJ 242 (Shri Bhupender Singh vs. Director of Public Instruction (Higher Education) Govt. of Assam & ors.)
ii) (1998) 9 SCC 223 (B.L. Gupta & ors. vs. M.C.D.) iii) (2010) 7 SCC 560 (Md. Raisul Islam & anr. Vs. Gakul Mohan Hazarika and ors.) iv) Unreported judgment dated 10.06.2009 passed in WA No. 308/2006 alongwith W.P.(C) No. 1546/2007 (Dr. Ramen Talukdar vs. State of Assam & ors.) v) Unreported Judgment dated 02.12.2009 passed in
WA No. 167/2007 (The Governing Body of Dibru College vs. State of Assam and ors.)
vi) Unreported judgment dated 23.09.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 6131/2006 (Bhabeswar Deka vs. State of Assam and ors.)
21. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General during the
course of argument submitted that since in the meantime the
Assam College Employees’ (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010
has come into force, the procedure envisaged in the said rules
should be applied towards consideration of the selection. He has also
referred to the provision of the Assam College Employees’
(Provincialisation) Act, 2005 to emphasize the point. Referring
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 28 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
to the decision reported in 2011 (1) GLT (SC) 52 (Ranu
Hazarika vs. State of Assam) , he submitted that he the High
Court will not perpetuate an illegality that was committed while
preparing the select list.
22. Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel representing the respondent
Nos. 103 and 104 referring to the provision of the Act of 2005,
submitted that the entire selection was vitiated due to non-
compliance of the provisions of the said Act and consequently the
learned Single Judge could not have issued the direction for
publication of the select list that was prepared in violation of the
provisions of the said Act. In support of his submission he has
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR
1975 SC 984 (Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of
Punjab and others) .
23. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 43
strenuously argued towards defending the impugned judgment and
order. He submitted that the appellants/ petitioners having
participated in the selection process cannot turn around the same so
as to contend that the selection was not as per the Rules. Referring
to the provisions of the Assam Education Department Selection
Rules, 1981, he submitted that the entire selection process was
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules and thus,
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 29 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order by which
direction was issued for publication of the select list and to make
appointment on that basis. As regards the contention of the
appellants/ petitioners that as per the provision of Section 6 of the
2005 Act requiring appointment of the Principal on the basis of the
selection to be conducted by the respective colleges, he submitted
that in absence of any Rules laying down the procedure thereof, the
authority rightly followed the procedure envisaged in the Rules of
1981.
24. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. We have also scrutinised the entire
materials on record. After giving our anxious consideration to the
same, our findings and conclusions are as follows:
25. The writ petition from which the impugned judgment and
order has arisen was not involved with the question of publication of
the select list for appointment of Principals in proviscialised colleges
of Assam. As to what was the issue involved in the writ petition, has
been noted above. The controversy raised in the writ petition was
relating to charge of the post of Principal. It was only during the
course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Standing counsel
for the Education Department had apprised the Court about the
particular process and selection for appointment to the vacant posts
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 30 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
of Principal in different colleges and selection of 51 candidates.
However, no reasons could be furnished as to why the select list was
not published. It was submitted that the Rules envisaged under
Section 12 of the Assam College Employees’
(Provincialisation) Act, 2005 had been framed leading to
difficulties in making appointment to the vacant posts of Principal.
26. Learned Single Judge had noticed that there was objection
regarding number of candidates selected in comparison to 51
number of posts. As per the requirement of Rule 10 of the Assam
Education Department Selection Rules, 1981, the Selection
Board was required to select candidates at the ratio of 1:3. However,
falling back on the provision of FRBM Act, 2005, the learned Single
Judge conceded that the select list prepared for fresh appointment
to sanctioned posts of Principal was equal to the number of
vacancies. However, in the process it was not brought to the notice
of the learned Single Judge that as per the provision of the Act of
2005 (Section 6) which provides that the Governing Body of the
respective colleges is the authority for selection and
recommendation of candidates for the post of Principal.
27. While it is true that by office memorandum dated 24.02.2009,
the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Education
(Higher) Department notified amendment of Rule 10 (1) of the
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 31 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981 providing
for preparation of select list of candidates equal to the number of
vacancies, but in the process the said authority completely
overlooked as what would be the position in view of the clear cut
provision under Section 6 of the 2005 Act empowering the
Governing Bodies of the colleges to make the final selection. It was
also not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that as
per the provision of the Assam Non-Government College
Management Rules, 2001 being followed at that relevant point of
time, the Governing Body of the college was to take prior approval
of the Director of Higher Education, Assam in the matter of
appointment of both teaching and non-teaching staff including
Principal.
28. Apart from the above, it was also not brought to the notice of
the learned Single Judge that the selection in question was pursuant
to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WA No. 261/2006 in
which it was clearly held that the selection by the State Selection
Board was not a selection for appointment, but a selection for
empanelment of candidates for the post of Principal and that such
empanelled candidates are required to undergo another selection to
be conducted by the respective colleges. As to what was the
direction in the said case has been noted above.
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 32 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
29. It was pursuant to the said direction, the impugned selection
was conducted. It is on record (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)
that the Director of Higher Education, Assam by his letter dated
01.02.2006 addressed to all Principals and Secretaries of the
Provincialised colleges circulated the Guidelines to be followed by
the provincialised colleges in respect of selection of Principals as per
the provision of Section 6 of 2005 Act. As per the said
Guidelines, the college authority is to constitute a selection
committee for selection of candidates for vacant sanctioned posts of
Principal/ Lecturer /Librarian etc. Detailed procedure was laid down
in the said guidelines. The same was followed by Annexure-7 letter
dated 12.09.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary, State
Selection Board by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the
Education (Higher) Department interalia stating that there had been
no change regarding selection of Principal either for provincialised or
Govt. college since 2000. A copy of the said letter was marked to the
learned Sr. Standing counsel, Education Department with the
endorsement that the letter had been issued in reference to the
aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.02.2007 in WA No.
261/2006 in terms of which the selection conducted by the
Selection Board was to be only for empanelment of candidates, but
instead the select list was prepared by the Board itself for
appointment without referring the empanelled list to the respective
colleges for further selection.
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 33 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
30. The aforesaid communications were followed by Annexure 8
dated 18.02.2009 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Education
(Higher) Department by the Principal Secretary, State Selection
Board intimating selection of candidates applying the ratio of 1:3
against 51 vacant posts. However, on 24.02.2009 the aforesaid
office memorandum was issued purportedly amending Rule 10 (1)
of the Rules of 1981 so as to provide equal number of selected
candidates for equal number of vacant posts as against 1:3 ratio
provided in Rule 10 (1) of the said Rules.
31. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has placed
reliance on the decisions in Shri Bhupendra Singh, Dr. Ramen
Talukdar, Governing Body of Dibru College and Bhabeswar
Deka (supra) to emphasize that it has been the practice and
procedure being followed in the matter of selection and appointment
of Principal in colleges with first the State Selection Board takes a
task of empanelling all eligible candidates applying the ratio of 1:3
and thereafter the final selection is made by the respective colleges
from the said list of empanelled candidates.
32. In the aforesaid decision the above practice and procedure has
been recognised. Irrespective of the said judgments when the very
selection was conducted on the basis of the direction contained in
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 34 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
the aforementioned judgment and order dated 15.02.2007
passed in WA No. 261/2006, the respondents ought to have held
the selection in tune with the said direction.
33. It was in that context Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate
General, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ranju
Hazarika (supra), submitted that if the direction of the learned
Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order is to be
implemented, and this Court issues directions to that effect, the
same will amount to perpetuate an illegality.
34. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Md. Raisul
Islam and B.L. Gupta (supra), to emphasise that when the
statutory rules are there the vacancy will have to be filled up only
according to the said rules without taking recourse to RFBM Act.
35. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents No. 103 and
104 has placed reliance on Dr. Amarjit Singh (supra) so as to
emphasize that the Rules of 1981 are not statutory rules having
force of law and are mere administrative instructions issued by the
State Govt. exercising its executive power. He further submitted that
in view of the provision of Section 6 of 2005 Act mandatorily
requiring the selection to be conducted by the respective colleges,
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 35 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
the respondents could not have taken recourse to non statutory
Rules of 1981 so as to frustrate the said provision of the Act.
36 Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 43 in his
painstaking argument submitted that the selection having been
conducted as per the provisions of 1981 Rules and there being no
objection from any corner even to the extent of participation of the
appellants/ petitioners, learned Single Judge was right in issuing the
direction for appointment from the select list prepared on that basis.
When it was pointed out to him that as per the provision of Section
6 of 2005 Act, it is mandatory to make the selection by the
respective Governing Body of the colleges, it was his submission that
in absence of the rules framed thereunder, the competent authority
was within its right and jurisdiction to take recourse to 1981 Rules.
37. The above submission of the learned counsel will have to be
appreciated in the context of the direction of the Division Bench
referred to above. In the said judgment and on all earlier occasions
this court proceeded in the matter of selection of Principal following
the long stand practice and procedure referred to above. It is in such
circumstances, in the judgment referred to above by the Division
Bench in WA No. 261/2006 direction was issued to the Selection
Board for issuing fresh advertisement in accordance with rules and
regulations governing the matter. While doing so, it was observed
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 36 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
that the select list is not in the sense of selection of candidates for
appointment but for a mere empanelment for the post of Principal.
In Dr. Romen Talukdar (supra) while stating the relevant facts,
the Division Bench recorded thus :
”A list of empanelled candidates eligible for further selection and appointment as Principal of Aided Colleges (now Provincialised) was published on 22.06.2004. The life of the aforesaid panel was for one year, i.e. upto 22.06.2005. From the aforesaid penal, individual colleges were required to make further selection for appointment as Principal on the basis of advertisement issued.”
38. Similarly in Governing Body of Dibru College (supra) also,
the fact of the case was stated thus:
“Appointment of Principals in the erstwhile deficit colleges of Assam (subsequently known as non-Government Colleges most of whom have not been provincialised) was regulated by the provisions of the Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981 (as mentioned) as well as the provisions of the Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, 2001. A select list of persons eligible for appointment as Principal of such Colleges was required to be prepared by the State Selection Board constituted under the provisions of the 1981 Rules. The validity of the select list prepared under Rule 10(3) of the 1981 Rules was for a period of one year. Individual colleges were required to issue advertisements for filling up the post of Principal on such vacancies occurring. Candidates included in the select list prepared by the State Selection Board are eligible to apply. Thereafter each college is required to have its own selection process at the end of which the select list of successful candidates is to be prepared. If the same is approved by the Governing Body of the college the proposal for appointment of the approved name is required to be sent to the Director of Higher Education and only on obtaining the prior approval of the Director appointments could be made”.
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 37 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
39. In Bhabeswar Deka (supra) also similar fact was stated and
while doing so the judgment and order of this Court in WA No.
261/2006 was also referred to.
40. Above being the position, there was no escape from the
responsibility of the State Selection Board to prepare the list of
empanelled candidates from which the respective colleges had
conduct selection for appointment of Principal. Under no
circumstances, Rules of 1981 which has no statutory force could
have been given preference to the provision of 2005 Act.
41. During the course of hearing it was brought to our notice that
the State Govt. in the Education (H) Department has already framed
rules called Assam College Employees’ (Provincialisation)
Rules, 2010 in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section 1
of Section 12 of the Assam College Employees’
(Provincialisation) Act, 2005. In tune with the practice and
procedure being followed all throughout, Rule 5 of the said Rules
prescribing the method of recruitment has provided that
appointment to the post of Principal shall be by direct selection and
for the purpose the Governing Body of the respective colleges shall
constitute a selection committee which shall select the candidates on
the basis of interview from amongst the eligible candidates who
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 38 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
apply in response to open advertisement. It has also been provided
that the Governing Body of the college will recommend the names of
the candidates to the Director of Higher Education who in turn shall
issue the appointment order.
42. The argument that in absence of any rules/ guidelines to
implement the provision of Section 6 of 2005 Act, there was
nothing wrong to fall back on Rules of 1981, will have to
understood in the context of Annexure-6 Guidelines dated
01.02.2006 circulated by the Director of Higher Education, Assam
with copy to the Commissioner and Secretary, Education (Higher)
Department. As per the said guidelines also, the selection of
Principal is to be conducted by the college authority. The said
guidelines was followed by Anenxure-7 communication dated
12.09.2007 addressed to the State Selection Board by the
Secretary, Education (Higher) Department stating that there had
been no change regarding selection of Principal either in
provincialised or Govt. colleges since 2000. A copy of the letter was
also addressed to the learned Sr. Standing counsel, Education
Department in reference to paragraph-7 of the judgment dated
15.02.2007 passed in WA No. 261/2006 quoted above.
43. As regards the applicability of FRBM Act, 2005 on the basis
of which the select list had been restricted to candidates equal to the
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 39 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
number of vacancies, suffice it to say that provision of the said Act
cannot be applied beyond the object sought to be achieved by the
Act. The Act was promulgated as a measure of financial discipline.
Applying the provision of the said Act, the authority could not have
restricted the right of consideration for empanelment with eventual
selection for the post of Principal of college. Moreover, while doing
so the authority could not have overlooked the provision of
Section-6 of 2005 Act. As per the said provision, respective
colleges are the selecting and recommending authority for
appointment to the post of Principal.
44. As regards the submission made that the appellants/
petitioners having participated in the selection cannot now turn
around the same so as to the question the validity of the process of
selection itself, the same will have to be understood in the context of
the grievance raised in the writ appeal/ writ petition.
45. The appellants/petitioners participated in the selection process
keeping in mind the provision of Rule 10 of 1981 Rules and
Section-6 of 2005 Act. It was a shocker to them when they found
that no empanelled list was published and instead the select list was
published directly without any reference to college authorities and
that too, confining the same to 51 candidates. Thus in the process of
selection in which the appellants/ petitioners had participated,
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 40 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
subsequent thereto, if any illegality was committed, the appellants/
petitioners were within their right to assail the legality of the
selection process. In such a situation, the plea of estopel in our
considered view will not be applicable. In this connection, we may
gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1997)
9 SCC 527 (Raj Kumar & ors. vs. Shakti Raj & ors.) in which
the Apex Court noticing the infraction of statutory rules in
conducting the selection in which the party concerned had
participated, held that the plea of estopel will not be applicable. In
paragraph 16 of the judgment, it has been observed thus:
“… It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law”.
46. From the above discussions and on the basis of the material on
record, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondents
while conducting the impugned selection deviated from the past
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 41 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
practice and procedure being followed even to the extent of ignoring
its own guidelines circulated by Annexure-6 circular letter dated
01.02.2006 in terms of which selection for the post of Principal is
to be conducted by respective Governing Body of the provincialised
colleges. Possibly because of such infirmities the State Government
was not inclined to publish the select list.
47. It was submitted that the impugned selection was conducted
complying with the provisions of the Act of 2005 and Rules. It was
also submitted that no rules having been framed under the provision
of the Act and that the same being at the draft stage, Rules of
1981 had to be followed. Even if the Rules of 1981 was to be
applied, in case of any conflict with the provision of the said non
statutory rules and the provision of Act of 2005, needless to say
that the provision of the Act would prevail. It is the draft rule framed
under 2005 Act which has been finally published vide Gazette
notification dated 15.11.2010 and the said Rules is known as Assam
College Employees’ (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010. The
mandate therein, is in tune with the provision of Section-6 of
2005 Act.
48. From the above discussion what has transpired is that
although the selection was conducted pursuant to the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 15.02.2007 passed in WA No.
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 42 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
261/2006, but while conducting the same there was deviation not
only from the directions contained therein but also from the
guidelines framed under Section-6 of 2005 Act. When all along it
has been the practice and procedure of empanelling the eligible
candidates by the State Selection Board for the purpose of making
selection by the respective colleges from the said empanelled list,
the authority in the Education Department could not have made a
deviation altogether so as to project the empanelled list to be the list
of selected candidates for appointment of Principal in different
colleges and that too, deviating from the ratio of 1:3 and thereby
eliminating other eligible candidates who otherwise would have
come within the zone of empanelled candidates, i.e. 153, applying
the ratio of 1:3.
49. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to accept the
appeal and the writ petition setting aside and quashing the
impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed in W.P.(C)
No. 1657/2009 and all consequential action thereunder including the
select list dated 13.07.2009 (Annexure-17). The respondents shall
now hold a fresh selection as per law as expeditiously as possible, in
the interest of the colleges which are running without regular
Principals on adhocism. Till a regular selection is made and regular
Principals are appointed on that basis, status quo as on today in
respect of holding of the post of Principal in the respective colleges,
WA No. 227 /2009 Page 43 of 43
WP(C) No. 3080/2009
shall be maintained subject, however, to the condition that in case
of any deviation is to be made same will have to be for valid and
good reasons to be recorded in writing.
50. The appeal and the writ petition are answered in the above
manner leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kborah