ABUL HUSSAIN vs GAUHATI UNIVERSITY and ORS

1.Heard Mr. M. Haque, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Gauhati University and their Registrar is represented by Mr. L.P.

Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel for the University. However, there is no representation from the side of the private respondents.

The Gauhati University issued the advertisement No. C/4/92 dated 6.6.1992 to invite application for the LDA vacancies and the petitioner offered his

candidature. Following the written and the viva-voce tests, the select list was prepared on 2.1.1996 and in this list, the petitioner’s name in order of

merit, figures at Sl. No.17. The top 13 persons from the select list were then appointed within the validity period of the select list i.e. 1.1.1999.

However, some of the respondents whose names figures below the petitioner, were appointed subsequently on the basis of the Resolution dated

7.4.2001 of the Gauhati University, following the recommendation of the Rationalization Committee. Accordingly those appointments made in the year

2001 have been challenged several years later in the two writ petitions filed by the aggrieved applicant i.e. Abdul Hussain. The main ground to claim

appointment of the petitioner was the appointment of persons below him, in the select list of 2.1.1996.

Defending the appointment, Mr. L.P. Sharma as the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati University refers to the averments in the counter

affidavit of the Registrar to explain the circumstances under which, the additional appointments were made by the Gauhati University. The Counsel

refers to the preferential claim of appointment made by the residents of the neighbouring villages (Garigaon,

Sadilapur, Sundarbori etc.) and the reference made to the Rationalization Committee for resolution of the strong demand of the agitating group by the

University. To diffuse the tense situation, the Committee made recommendation for appointment of 4 already selected candidates from the

neighbouring area, as a special case. The names of these four persons are at Sl. No.25, 26, 33 & 35 respectively in the select list. Two others Basanta

Bordoloi and Parama Basumatar were appointed on the basis of the direction issued by the High Court. That is how the University authorities defend

the appointment of some additional persons, from the same select list.

As can be seen from the case papers that the petitioner was at Sl. No. 17 in the select list of 2.1.1996 and those at Sl. Nos.14th, 15th and 16th

position above the petitioner, have not been appointed. The appointments of few others have been made on the basis of recommendation made by the

Rationalization Committee to diffuse the surcharged atmosphere in the Gauhati University, on account of the preferential appointment demand, made

by the neighbouring villagers. But all these happened many years before the petitioner filed his two writ petitions in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Considering the above circumstances and more particularly the belated challenge made by the petitioner, I am of the view that interference would not

be justified with the impugned appointment(s), made well before in the year 2001. That apart, the select list prepared on 2.1.1996 had initially expired

on 1.1.1999 and after extension, the life of the select list ended on 7.4.2001 with those appointments. Hence at this stage, appointment of the petitioner

will not be justified from the expired select list.

It is also relevant to note in the context that under the Gauhati University (Amendment) Act, 2013, the Section 44 was inserted in the Gauhati

University Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the G.U Actâ€) and since then, approval of the Government is required for appointment of all

non-teaching staff in the Gauhati University. Therefore, by virtue of the amendment of the G.U Act, the Gauhati University cannot independently

appoint any non-teaching staff, without approval of the Government. For this reason also, the appointment cannot be given to the LDA’s post by

the University.

In view of the above no relief can be granted in these cases and accordingly both the writ petitions are dismissed. No cost.