WP(C) 3407/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. N Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Das, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The r espondent No.4 is represented by Mr. A D Choudhury, learned counsel and Mr. S K Sarma, learned counsel appears for the private respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner offered his candidature for the post of Lecturer in Benga li in the G.C. College, Silchar in pursuant to the Newspaper advertisements publ ished on 29.9.2008 (in Dainik Jugasankha) and on 2.10.2008 (in The Assam Tribune ). Following a selection process where 9 of the 15 applicants participated, the respondent No.5 was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment. The petitioner claiming to be a more deserving candidate has challenged the said rec ommendation made in favour of the respondent No.5. 3. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 are both having Ph.D. qualificati on and it is not in dispute that at the relevant time, candidates with Ph.D. qua lification, even without NET/SLET qualification were eligible to be appointed as lecturer in colleges. 4. In the writ petition itself, the petitioner has not mentioned the marks secured by him at different examinations upto Post-Graduate level and accordingl y this Court has to gather the relevant information on the academic achievements of the 2 rival candidates from the affidavit filed by the Director of Higher Ed ucation (DHE) and the College Authorities. 5. The comparative academic achievements of the petitioner and the selected candidate (respondent No.5) are accordingly extracted here-in-below for ready r eference: Dr. Pronoy Brahmachary Dr. Himashish Kr. Bhattacharjee (Respondent No.5) (Petitioner) HSLC: II 50.50% HSLC: II 46.4% HS: II 55% HSLC: II 45.2% BA: II 54.13% BA: P 35.5% MA: 1st Class 1st 60.25% MA: II 56.2% Ph.D. Ph.D. Marks Secured 68.00 Marks Secured 47.0 6. On reading of the academic credentials, it is apparent that the responde nt No.5 who is a Gold Medalist with a first class post graduate degree in Bengal i is a better candidate than the writ petitioner. The marks awardable for academ ic achievements of the participating candidates are on the basis of the objectiv e criteria specified in the guidelines issued on 20.2.2003 by the Government. It is pointed out by the respondents that the marks awarded to the candidates were in accordance with the norms stipulated in the guidelines of 20.2.2003. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Pathak however subm its that the total B.A. pass marks of the petitioner was taken into account and not the individual marks secured by him in Bengali which was an elective subject chosen by him at B.A. was ignored. On this basis, the evaluation of the petitio ner is contended to be flawed. 8. However as per the marking system provided for academic qualification, t otal marks at the B.A. level for those without an Honours Degree is required to be considered and there is no requirement to consider the marks in the individua l elective subject offered by a candidate. 9. The petitioner did not obtain an Honours Degree in Bengali and the marks secured by him in Bengali as a elective subject, could not have shifted the bal ance in favour of the writ petitioner. 10. In view of the above conclusion and having regard to the better academic credentials of the recommended candidate (respondent No.5) and the norms stipul ated in the guideline dated 20.2.2003, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference with selection of respondent No.5 f or the post of lecturer in Bengali in G.C. College, Silchar. 11. Accordingly the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the sam e is accordingly dismissed. No cost.