WP(C) 4407/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. SP Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AK Goswami, learne d Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. SK Talukdar, learned counsel for re spondent No.6. Learned Standing Counsel, Education Department is also heard. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the resolution dated 10 /8/09 adopted by the Governing Body of Ujani Majuli Kherkatia College, Majuli i n the district of Jorhat recommending respondent No.6 for appointment as Lecture r in History in the college. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the sele ction procedure adopted by the college authority is vitiated on the grounds, nam ely, i) term of the Governing Body of the college has already expired, ii) there has been unfairness in the process of selection and iii) some of the members of the selection committee aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.6 in the po st. However, Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 refused the afo resaid allegations and has pointed out that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP'No. 3198/09 which was disposed of on 5/8/ 09 wherein certain directions was issued by this Court to accept M.Phil certifi cate produced by the petitioner although subsequently an advertisement for the s aid post was made. Thereafter, the college authority accepted the candidature o f the petitioner and considered her case on merit and finally recommended the na me of respondent No.6 for appointment in the said post. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 by filing a misc. ca se supporting the selection procedure of lecturer in the college contends that t he selection was made in consonance with of the provisions of the relevant Rules and by complying the directions passed by this Court on earlier occasion in WP' No.1758/09. The resolution of the Governing Body is not enforceable per se unless it is app roved by the Director of Higher Education in terms of Rule 18 of the Assam Non-G overnment College Management Rules, 2001. Under the said Rule, the minutes of t he proceedings of the Government Body meeting shall be sent to the Director and the concerned affiliating University and no final decision regarding appointment , promotion, suspension, termination, removal or dismissal of teaching or non-te aching staff including that of the Principal or any construction works involving Rs.1,00,000/- or more shall be undertaken by the Governing Body without prior a pproval of the Director. Various judicial pronouncements rendered so far interpreting Rule 18 disclose th at under Rule 18 the Director, Higher Education, in the matter of according app roval is not a mere formality. The Director is to apply his mind and is to see whether the provisions of relevant Rules and Laws/instructions have duly been co mplied with in adopting the resolution by the Governing Body in making the resol ution. The Director is also to see whether the resolution is adopted fairly and in consonance with justice and fair play. Such being the position and the Director of Higher Education is specified for su ch consideration of the matter, , in my considered opinion, this writ petition i s a pre-matured one. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed with direction th at the Director, Higher Education shall take up the matter of approval of the re solution dated 22/9/09 adopted by the Governing Body of the college involving th e appointment in the post of lecturer in History, forwarded to him vide communic ation dated 1/10/09, considering all aspects of the matter in terms of Rule 18 o f the Rules and as indicated above. Unless such a decision is taken by the Dire ctor of Higher Education, the aforesaid resolution of the Governing Body would n ot be made enforceable. Since the matter is pertains to appointment of a lectur er in college, the Director, Higher Education shall make necessary endeavour to dispose of the matter finally as early as possible preferably within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner is at liberty to furnish a copy of this order along with copies of th e writ petition including the annexures appended thereto before the authority. The interim order dated 28/10/2009 stands merged with this order. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.