GUWAHATI, India, July 28 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 27:

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging a recruitment process initiated by the respondent-Gauhati University for filling up of the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore Research.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner claims to be a Ph.D. degree holder in Folklore having M.Phil. degree and has also got the qualification of NET from the Gauhati University. The petitioner had completed his Masters from Tejpur University and has also got teaching experience.

3. An Advertisement was published by the respondent-Gauhati University on 04.12.2015 for filling up of the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore Research. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied and though not having the Ph.D. degree, he was called for the interview but was not selected. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the petitioner had obtained the Ph.D. degree. Subsequently, the impugned recruitment process was initiated vide the advertisement dated 12.06.2018 and the petitioner, who claims to be qualified in all respects, had applied for the said post.

4. It is contended that the desirable qualification was Master of Music or equivalent and the petitioner had the aforesaid qualification and was eligible as per the UGC norms. It is the contention of the petitioner that though he had duly applied, there was long silence from the respondent-University and on an enquiry made after about a year, he came to know that the interview was held on 14.03.2020 in which, he was not called for. It is the aforesaid action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

5. It may be mentioned that when the writ petition was filed, the aspect of selection and appointment did not surface and subsequently, the selected candidate has been included as party respondent no. 5 vide the order dated 06.12.2021 of this Court passed in IA(C)/2013/2021. However, there was no amendment of the writ petition, as such and accordingly, the appointment of the respondent no. 5 is not the specific matter of challenge.

6. I have heard Shri YS Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri PJ Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University as well as Shri D Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

7. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has all the qualifications for being considered for such appointment. He submits that when the petition was instituted in the year 2020, many facts had emerged subsequently, which the petitioner could know from the materials placed on record. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent-University on 29.11.2021, the learned counsel has submitted that the reason for the rejection which appears from the remarks is "Weak Academic Career" and accordingly, the petitioner was held to be not fulfilling the criteria of the Executive Committee for being shortlisted.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d2nXSdIKMg3Z6f4kwjrsU5PGeEwXXGz%2F%2FsOwvCr5k%2FQ1&caseno=WP(C)/2348/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010078682020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.