WP(C) 1201/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as wel l as Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Governin g Body of the college in question. I have also heard Mr. S. Chokraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The matter pertains to the selection of Lecturer in the particular colle ge. The department involved is Education. It is the case of the petitioner that in selecting the respondent No. 4 the selection committee ignored the teaching e xperience of the petitioner and thus she has been made to secure lesser marks th an that of the respondent No. 4. As recorded in the order dated 20.03.09 by whic h the Director of High Education, Assam was restrained from granting approval to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4, it is the grievance of t he petitioner that the selection committee denied the benefit of marks on accoun t of her teaching experience and research papers and articles , but for whic the petitioner would have scored a march over the respondent No. 4. Another gri evance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was given higher marks in view of participation of the expert in the selection who was the research guide of the respondent No. 4. However, the said expert is not the party respondent in this proceeding. On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondent No. 4 that the particular s election conducted by an expert body, i.e. the selection committee, cannot be in terfered with by exercising the writ jurisdiction. According to the respondent N o. 4, the petitioner had falsely indicated her teaching experience as four year s inasmuch as, as per information gathered through the RTI Act, in a span of fo ur years, the petitioner had rendered only 14 months of service as Lecturer. Ano ther contention raised by the respondent No. 4 is that the petitioner has falsel y shown to have worked in two colleges simultaneously inasmuch as the distance b etween the two colleges is 25 km. At this stage, Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submi ts that the aforesaid plea of the respondent No. 4 is not tenable inasmuch as th e college authority under which the petitioner had worked has given necessary e xperience certificate. However, Mr. Chokraborty, learned counsel appearing for t he respondent No. 4 disputes the same. Since the matter is now pending with the Director of Higher Education fo r consideration for approval to the recommendation made by the selection commi ttee and the Governing body of the college, I am of the considered opinion that the Director be permitted to carry out the said exercise. While doing so, he m ay consider all the relevant aspects of the matter including the plea on behalf of the Governing Body of the College that teaching experience is to be counted o nly in Govt. or Deficit Colleges. As regards the plea of participation of the ex pert in the selection, in absence of the said expert in this proceeding, no adve rse order can be passed. Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the Governing Body of the college submits that there is no bar for participation of experts in a se lection. Be it stated here that there is no allegation of mala fide and/or colou rable exercise of power on the part of the expert. Even if had been raised, in a bsence of the said expert, no adverse order could have been passed against him. Now the matter shall be decided by the Director of Higher Education cons istently with the observations made above and shall pass appropriate order as ex peditiously as possible preferably within 31.12.2010. The writ petition is disposed of.