WP(C) 566/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also h eard Mr. C. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body, Goreswa r College respondent Nos. 5 and 6. I have also heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned coun sel appearing for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. S. Khound, learned Standing Couns el BTC as well as Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Departmen t. This writ petition has been filed making a grievance against the governing body’ s resolution dated 16.8.2008 by which the Governing Body of the College in accep tance of the recommendation made by the selection committed for appointment as l ecturer in English, recommended the case of the second nominee i.e. respondent N o. 7 for his appointment. Such a course of action has been adopted in view of th e fact that the respondent No. 7 belongs to STP. In the advertisement it was st ipulated that preference would be given to STP candidates. In this connection th e respondent No. 7 in his counter affidavit has stated that on earlier occasions the post was advertised confirming candidatures only from STP candidates. Howe ver, on this occasion it was indicated that preference would be given to STP/ ST H/SC candidates. Admittedly the matter is now pending with the Directorate of Higher Education wh o has to take the decision towards granting approval of the recommendation made by the selection committee and the Governing Body of the College. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Director of Higher Education, Assam to take a decision in the matter taking into considerat ion the said resolutions and upon hearing the parties involved in this proceedin g including Governing Body of the College. At this stage Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner su bmits that as per the advertisement the post was meant for general category cand idate. However, Mr. C. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Managing Com mittee of the College disputes the same. He submits that in view of the stipulat ion in the advertisement that preference would be given to the reserved category candidate, on availability of respondent No. 7 a reserved category candidate th e Governing Body was within the jurisdiction and competence to recommend appoin tment of the respondent No. 7. Without expression any opinion on merit of the contention of either of the parti es the matter is left open to the sound discretion of the Higher Education Dire ctor. The Director of Higher Education shall pass appropriate order and if need be he may associate the Director of BTC Education. The entire exercise shall be carried out as early as possible preferably within 31st January, 2011 from the d ate of furnishing certified copy of this order.