WP(C) 495/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.K. Mi shra, learned Standing Counsel, Education appearing for the official respondents , Mr. E. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 and Mr. PJ Sai kia, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. As agreed to and in view of the subject matter involved i.e. appointment , the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. With the prior approval of the Director of Higher Education, Government of Assam, an advertisement was published by the Principal, Sibsagar Girls’ Colle ge in the newspaper on 28.7.2007 inviting applications, inter alia, for filling up of a vacant sanctioned post of Lecturer in the Department of Assamese. The pe titioner as well as the Respondent No.6 and several other candidates submitted t heir applications and underwent a selection by the duly constituted selection co mmittee. On 17.9.2008, the Selection Committee selected the Respondent No.6. The Governing Body of the college adopted a resolution on 17.10.2007 approving the decision of the selection committee. Thereafter, on 26.12.2007, a proposal was s ent by the College to the Director of Higher Education for due approval of the n ame of the Respondent No.6 for appointment in the post of Lecturer in Assamese. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed contending that under the provision s of the Assam College Employees Provincialisation Act, 2005 and the Assam Educa tion Department Selection Rules, 1981, the College authorities should have forwa rded a panel of three candidates, in order of merit, to the Director. The furthe r contention raised in the writ petition is that in the proceedings of selection , there are overwritings in the marks awarded by the members of the selection Co mmittee in favour of the Respondent No.6 which vitiates the selection of the Res pondent No.6 and the proposal submitted to the Director. Under the provisions of the Assam Non-Govt. College Management Rule, 200 1, appointment against a sanctioned post in a College requires the prior approva l of Director of Higher Education, Whereas under the Provincialisation Act of 20 05 appointment is to be made by the Director of Higher Education on the basis of the recommendation of Governing Body of the College. In the present case which particular statute will be applicable has not been very clearly indicated by the parties. However, the said fact need not come in the way of disposal of the wri t petition. The Director, before according approval or before making appointment , as the case may be, has to scrutinize the proceedings of the selection and als o decide as to whether the selection held and the recommendations made are in co nformity with all requirements of law. Only upon such satisfaction being reached by the Director, the approval for appointment can be accorded or appointment ma y be made by the Director. In the present case, though the College authority has submitted a propos al seeking the approval of the Director for the appointment of the Respondent No .6, the Director had thought it appropriate not to decide the matter in view of the pendency of the writ petition. As already noted, the Director of Higher Educ ation has been recognized by the statute to be the competent authority to decide on the appointment in question. The proceedings of the selection and all other relevant facts and circumstances which have to be considered by the Director bef ore finalizing his decision have already been forwarded to him by the College au thority. In a situation, where the statute contemplates a specified authority to be the competent authority to do an act, unless the same is performed, there sh ould be no occasion for the Court to intervene as any such intervention may have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of a statutorily recognized authority. In the above circumstances, the Court is of the view that this writ peti tion should be disposed of by requiring the Director of Higher Education to exam ine the matter in the light of the grievances expressed by the petitioner, as re corded in the present order, and after taking into account all relevant facts an d circumstances to finalize his decision. The Director will complete the exercis e within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. In the e vent the decision of the Director is in any way adverse to the petitioner, the p etitioner will be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be open to him in law including a further approach to this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.