WP(C) 3802/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department is representing the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The private respondent No.5 is represented by Mr. A.D. Choudhury. 2. The petitioner who offered her candidature for the post of Lectu rer in Bengali reserved for Scheduled Caste category people, in the Janata Colle ge, Kabuganj of Cachar district challenges the recommendation for appointment of the respondent No.5 to the said post, by the Selection Committee. The petitione r contends that the selection is vitiated through extraneous consideration to ac commodate the respondent No.5. 3. In pursuant to the advertisement issued on 7.6.2009 (Dainik Juga shankha) and 8.7.2009 (The Assam Tribune), 11 (eleven) Scheduled Caste Category candidates responded out of which, 8 candidates participated in the selection p rocess. The Selection Committee on the basis of evaluation of candidates recomme nded the respondent No.5 for the post of Lecturer in Bengali and the resolution of the College for appointment of the recommended candidate, was duly approved b y the Director of Higher Education, Assam (D.E.E.). 4. In the affidavit of the D.E.E. filed on 18.5.2010, the academic achievements of the petitioner and the selected candidate (respondent No.5) are furnished and the same are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:- Name of the Candidate H.S.L.C. H.S. B.A M.A Dr. Nilima Das (Petitioner) 36.24% 49.3% 51.89% 50% Dr. Pinaki Das (Respondent No.5) 56.44% 60.40% 57.88% 53.69% 5. Under the guidelines circulated by the Government on 28.2.3003, marks are to be awarded for academic achievements to individual candidates and i t is apparent from above that the respondent No.5 has better academic results in the concerned examination than the petitioner. 6. However it is contended by Mr. Nath that the respondent No.5 on the date of the first advertisement issued on 7.6.2009, did not have the requisi te M.Phil qualification and was therefore not eligible to offer her candidature for the post of Lecturer. But it is seen that the selection process was preceded by 2 advertisements, one dated 7.6.2009 in a vernacular daily and another dated 8.7.2009 in an English daily as is mandatorily provided. Therefore, merely beca use one of the advertisement was published prior to the respondent No.5 acquirin g the M.Phil qualification, in my view, cannot be a ground for declaring that sh e was not an eligible candidate, when she had secured the necessary qualificatio n on 30.6.2009, before the advertisement in the ’Assam Tribune’ was published on 8.7.2009. 7. Having concluded that the respondent No.5 had better academic re cords than the petitioner and considering that marks have been awarded by follow ing the norms stipulated in the Government guidelines dated 28.2.2003, I am of t he view that interference with the recommendation made in favour of the responde nt No.5 is not justified. The petitioner being a less meritorious candidate cann ot have any grievance with the recommendation made in favour of the respondent N o.5. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is held to be without any merit an d the same is dismissed without any order on costs.