WP(C) 4903/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. M. Kh ataniar, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The Ar ya Vidyapeeth College and its governing body (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) are repre sented by Ms. P. Barman. This pertains to the resolution of the governing body adopted on 5.8.2010 for ap pointment of a Lecturer in Anthropology in the Arya Vidyapeeth College. Mr. U. Bhuyan learned counsel points out that the petitioner had offered her can didature in pursuant to the advertisement issued on 13.6.2010 but her candidatu re was not considered as eligible by the college authorities. The consequential resolution adopted by the governing body is contended to be illegal and accordin gly the petitioner had filed a representation before the Director of Higher Educ ation on 17.8.2010(Annexure-I), seeking the DHE’s intervention in the matter, fo r directing the governing body to send a fresh resolution by considering on meri t, the candidature of the petitioner. Ms. P. Barman, learned counsel, appearing for the College, submits that the peti tioner, who did not have NET/SLET qualification at the time of her Phd. Degree i s not qualified for ppointment to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology as per t he then prevalent UGC norms of 2009. The learned departmental counsel, on the other hand, refers to the averments mad e in the counter affidavit of the DHE to show that approval to resolution given by the governing body is to be considered with reference to the applicable UGC n orms and the instructions of the Gauhati University. He further submits that the representation which is pending before the DHE filed by the petitioner could no t be considered, because of the pendency of this case i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4903/201 0. Considering the stand in the Department’s counter affidavit, Mr. Bhuyan submits that direction be issued to the DHE to consider the petitioner’s representation and dispose of the same with a speaking order in a time bound period. This praye r of the petitioner is not opposed by Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel as well as Ms. P. Barman, representing the College authorities. In view of the above, agreement amongst the rival lawyers, the DHE, Assam(respon dent No. 2) is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner filed o n 17.8.2010 and dispose of the same on merit with a reasoned order, having regar d to the applicable UGC norms and the Gauhati University guidelines. Since the c ollege is suffering for want of a lecturer, the exercise is ordered to be comple ted within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of this Court’s order . The petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy of this order and a fresh copy of his representation dated 17.8.2010, to facilitate the Director to carry out the exercise. The case is disposed of with the above order.