WP(C) 5034/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. I have also hear d Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. L.P. Sarma , leaned Standing counsel, Gauhati University has made his submission on behalf of the respondent No. 6. Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned counsel appears on behalf of t he respondent No. 3. The challenge made in this writ petition is the selection of the respond ent No. 7 for appointment as Graduate Teacher (Arts) in Somnath Chatuspathi (San skrit Tol), Bihpuria in the District of Lakhimpur for which interview was held o n 31.10.2009 pursuant to advertisement dated 14.10.2009. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that while awarding marks for teaching experience, the guideli nes adopted by the Selection Committee was not followed and consequently, the re spondent No. 7 was given marks by the members of the Selection Committee beyond the permissible limit. On the other hand, the petitioner was given lesser marks than his entitlement under the said guidelines. The petitioner has also referred to the objections raised by one of the members of the Selection Committee, namely Shri Siva Sarma. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is that the entire selection process is vitiated as the membe rs of the Selection Board did not adhere to the norms adopted by it and conseque ntly such selection and recommendation of the respondent No. 7 is liable to be i nterfered with. The respondent No. 7 in his counter affidavit has justified the selectio n. What has been contended is that the Selection Committee being an expert body, the writ Court will be reluctant to sit on appeal over the findings arrived at by the said expert body. In the counter affidavit filed by the appointing author ity, the respondent No. 3 (Deputy Director, Sanskrit Education), the aforesaid p urported anomalies have been pointed out noticing which this Court passed the fo llowing order dated 22.07.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. Also perused the relevant records. In para-9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 it has been stat ed as follows : After receipt of the whole documents of the selection proceeding while verified the same, it is found that the report of the nominated member Shri Siba Sarma are correct and marks are not by all the members of the Selection Committ ee in terms of the guidelines. As per the proceeding, the Selection Committee wa s decided to allot 1 marks for 1(one) year experience. However, it is revealed f rom the individual statement of marks put against the respective candidate that tat the time of interview, the decision of the members of the Selection Committe e was not in conformity with the guidelines. The respondent No.7, who stood first in the panel list has 3(three) mont hs 20 days teaching experience. On the other hand, as per experience certificate of dated 28.07.2004 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) the petitioner who stoo d second in the selection has 6 years 8 months and 3 days experience. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to get 5(five) marks against his teaching experience . If we go by the aforesaid stand of the respondent No.3, the Members of the Selec tion Committee did not award marks in terms of the guidelines. The guideline is stated to be of 05.08.2006. A copy of which has been annexed to the counter-affi davit. It has further been stated that as per the proceeding of the Selection Co mmittee it had decided to allot one mark for one year experience. According to t he respondent No.3, the individual statement of marks against the respective can didate shows that the decision of the Members of the Selection Committee was not in conformity with the guidelines. On perusal of the aforesaid guidelines what is found is that the Selection Proce dure has been generally discussed and no specific guideline has been laid down. From the stand of the respondent No.3 it appears that he has supported the conte ntion of one of the members of the Selection Board namely Sri Siba Sharma. The a foresaid statement made in Para-9 of the counter-affidavit has been verified as being matters of record. In view of the above, the respondent No.3 shall file further affidavit clarifyin g as to how according to him the Members of the Selection Committee did not awar d marks as per the guidelines and that the decision of the Members of the Select ion Committee was not in conformity with the guidelines. I have perused the records produced by Mr. U K Goswami, learned Standing Counsel , Education which reveals that in the selection process, the aforesaid descentin g Member Sri Siba Sarma dully participated and signed without any reservation. H e also signed the individual statement of marks awarded by him. Not only that, t here was further sitting of the Selection Committee on 04.11.2009 and 19.11.2009 and in the said two meetings also, the said Member dully participated agreeing to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. As per the minutes of the meeting held on 04.11.2009, the marks relating to experience was included under interview column with the scope for awarding marks as additional experience. Th us, the very stand of the said Member that for each year of experience subject t o a maximum of 5 marks, a decision was taken to award one mark is diluted by the further meetings of the Selection Committee held on 4.11.2009 and on 19.11.2009 in which, the said Member was a signatory. All the above aspects of the matter have not been taken note of by the responden t No.3 while supporting the objection raised by the said Member. He will clarify the position by filing an additional affidavit on or before 3rd of August, 2010 . Mr. U K Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education takes note of this order. Let a copy of this order be furnished to him. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 22.07.2010, the Deputy Director of Sanskrit Education has filed an additional affidavit on 17.08.2010 reiterating his earlier stand in the matter. In paragraph-8 of the said affidavit, he has in dicated the marks given by the members of the Selection Committee under the head Teaching Experience to the petitioner and the respondent No. 7. As per his ca lculation, the petitioner was awarded lesser marks than his entitlement, but the respondent No. 7 was awarded higher marks. Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sinc e the anomalies in the selection is an admitted position, the matter should go b ack to the authority for fresh selection. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the re spondent No. 4 and 5 also submits that having regard to the stalemate created in view of the anomalies in respect of the adopted guidelines, in all fairness t here should be a fresh selection. Countering the above arguments made by the learned counsel for the said parties, Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, submits tha t the marks awarded under the head Teaching Experience was as per the guidelin es adopted by the Selection Committee. He submits that the variation in awarding marks is as per the own perception and expertise of individual members and thus cannot be gone into exercising the writ jurisdiction. He further submits that t he claim of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner w as entitled to more marks under the said head is not tenable inasmuch as the wor king experience of the petitioner was not in any Sanskrit Tol, but was in a Coll ege. However, Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner disputing t he same, submits that as per the requirement of the advertisement, the teaching experience is irrespective of serving in any Sanskrit Tol or in a College. Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the limited scope of interference in such matter exercising the writ jurisdiction, I dispose of the matter with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to take appropriate deci sion in the matter taking into account all relevant aspects of the matter as dis cussed above. The respondent No. 3 will also bear in mind his power and jurisdi ction in such matter and towards granting approval for appointment. He will also have to apply some discretion in the matter to find out as to whether the recom mendation made by the Selection Committee is not acceptable and also as to wheth er the matter requires fresh consideration. It is expected that the respondent N o. 3 will pass appropriate order in the matter strictly in accordance with law a s expeditiously as possible, but any rate, not later than 30.09.2010. If need be , the parties to this proceeding may also be given hearing.