WA 258/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U. BHUYAN (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against order dated 3.11.2009 passed by learned S ingle Judge in Review Petition No.68 of 2007 dismissing the review petition of t he appellant seeking direction for appointment as Lecturer. The appellant was a candidate for the post of Lecturer in History in Dhemaji Col lege, District Dhemaji, Assam, advertised on 8.7.2005. Though the Governing Body of the College selected the appellant, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, declined to approve the proposal on the ground that the appellant was not duly qualified. Accordingly the post was re-advertised on 4.3.2006. However, the peti tioner was given temporary appointment which was later terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the fresh advertisement and seeking a directi on for approval of the name of the appellant for the post of Lecturer in departm ent of History. The writ petition was opposed by the Director of Higher Education on the ground that the appellant was not qualified. Learned Single Judge upheld the defence of the department and dismissed the writ petition. The relevant extract from the judgment is as under : However, respondent No.2 after perusal of the proposal alongwith relevant recor ds and Governing Body’s resolution No.5 dated 16.9.3005 found that the selection of the petitioner is irregular, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not have the re quired qualification of NET/SLET as per UGC requirements and therefore, the resp ondent No.2 passed a speaking order dated 28.10.2005 making it clear therein the reason for not approving the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Lectu rer in the department of History, as it was clearly mentioned in the advertiseme nt that candidates must possess UGC norms with NET/SLET, whereas, the petitioner was without NET/SLET. However, without obtaining prior approval from the respon dent No.2, the petitioner was appointed temporarily by the college authority on a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per month due to shortage of staff. Accordingly the petitioner was discharging duty for sometime. The Governing Body of the col lege, thereafter, in pursuance of the order dated 28.10.05, passed by Director o f Higher Education, Assam vide resolution No.3 dated 1.3.06 decided to re-advert ise the said post as per Rule 19(IV) of the Assam Non Government College Managem ent Rules, 2001 (as amended) and that was the reason for publishing the impugned advertisement dated 4.3.06. From the materials placed before this Court it would appear that the writ petiti oner in the instant case has no required qualification of NET/SLET and therefore , her appointment was not approved by Respondent No.2 and as provided under Rule 19(IV) of the Rules, the impugned advertisement was published. In view of the f acts and circumstances of the case, there is no wrong in issuing the advertiseme nt dated 4.3.06. No interference in the impugned advertisement therefore is call ed for. Thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition, mainly, on the ground that su bsequently the appellant acquired the requisite qualification. This plea was not accepted. Further plea for appointment even without qualification in view of po licy decision taken to regularize appointments already made was also not accepte d as the said decision was applicable to persons appointed before 17.07.2004 and did not cover the case of the appellant. The relevant observations are as under : Challenging the aforesaid advertisement dated 31.5.2007, the instant review pet ition has been filed on various grounds, mainly, on the ground that as per offic e memorandum dated 17.7.2004 the petitioner was eligible for holding the post. However, at the time of hearing of the review petition Mr. Dutta has submitted t hat a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 2.6.2001 passed in Writ Appeal NO.358/2008 has held that the benefit sought to be conferred by the offic e memorandum dated 17.7.2004 is only available to the persons appointed before 1 7.7.2004. Mr. Dutta has also fairly submitted that the review petitioner has joi ned the post of lecturer in the Dhemaji College after 17.7.,2004 i.e. on 14.11.2 005. Admittedly, the benefit conferred by the office memorandum would not be ava ilable to her and in view of the same, submitted by Mr. Dutta, learned senior co unsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not willing t o pursue the review petition. Mr. Hazarika on the other hand appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 has subm itted that the college is suffering due to non-availability of the lecturer of H istory and therefore, the post of History in the college required to be filled u p at the earliest as the petitioner was terminated from the said post from the c ollege after serving there for three months i.e. from 14.11.2005 to 4.3.2006 and since then the post is lying vacant. I have considered the submissions so made by Mr. Hazarika. Considering the fact that the students of the college are suffering due to non availability of lectur er of History in the Dhemaji college, the college authority is hereby directed t o take up the matter for filling up of the post of lecturer in the department of History by issuing advertisement etc. and to do the needful as per rules after obtaining prior approval from the Director of Higher Education, Government of As sam. We have heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. N. M. Hazarika, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that on the date of advertis ement and selection, the appellant was not qualified. It could also not be dispu ted that the case of the appellant was not covered by memorandum dated 17.7.2004 . This being the undisputed position, we do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the post is still vacant and dismi ssal of writ petition should not be a bar to consideration of candidature of the appellant in accordance with law. There can be no objection to the submission b eing accepted. If any fresh advertisement is issued, this order will not be bar to the appellant being considered in accordance with law, along with other eligi ble candidates. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.