WP(C) 275/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Bharali, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.3 and 4. I have also h eard Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5. There is no dispute that the selection committee, which was constituted for the purpose of selection of Lecturer in Political Science of Nalbari College has recommended the petitioner for appointment as such. The minutes of the sele ction committee dated 13.9.2010 is at Annexure-X. However, the Governing Body of the college in its resolution adopted on 8.11.2009 recommended the Respondent N o.5, who had secured 5th position in the selection for appointment as Lecturer. The ground assigned for such a course of action is that the said Respondent No. 5 has been working as part-time Lecturer in the college and that he is the grand -son of a freedom fighter. I am afraid, the Governing Body of the college could not have bypassed the selection committee in that manner. The Respondent No.5 b eing at Sl. No.5 in the merit list could not have been recommended for appointme nt on the aforesaid ground. The selection committee having recommended the petit ioner as the first nominee, the college authority ought to have forwarded the re commendation of the selection committee to the Director of Higher Education, Ass am for necessary follow up action. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside and quashing the impugned resolution No.3(f) dated 8.11.2009 adopted by the Governi ng Body of the respondent-college and direction is hereby issued for taking nece ssary follow up action in terms of the recommendation made by the selection comm ittee in its meeting held on 13.9.2009 (Annexure-X to the writ petition) Necessary follow up action shall be taken by the Governing Body as exped itiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31st December 2010. Writ petition is allowed.