WP(C) 6037/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Both of these writ petitions being interrelated and interconnected, whic h relates to selection and appointment in the sanctioned post of Lecturer in the Department of History (Modern Group) in B.H. College, Howly, are taken up toget her for final disposal by this Court as requested by the learned counsel appeari ng for the parties. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 6037/07 and for Respondent No.5 in W.P.(C)No. 506/08 an d Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the College authority and M r. T. Islam, learned State counsel. In W.P(C)No. 6037/07, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Dir ector, Higher Education issued on 13/8/07 by which the proposal of the Governing Body of the aforesaid college recommending the petitioner for appointment of th e petitioner was not approved. The W.P(C)No.506/08 has been filed by the petiti oner challenging the resolution of the Selection Committee as well the Governing Body of the said college selecting/recommending the Respondent No.5 therein (th e petitioner in W.P.' No. 6037/07) alleging that he has no basic qualification i n terms of the related advertisement to hold the post of Lecturer in History (Mo dern Group). I have also heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 506/08 wherein Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior C ounsel appears for the Respondent No.5 and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appears for the College authorities. The B.H. College, Howly, is now a provincialised college. By an advert isement dated 14/12/06 issued by the Secretary-cum-Principal of the college invi ted applications to fill-up a sanctioned post of Lecturer in History (Modern Gr oup) along with a post of Lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit. In the afores aid advertisement, the qualification of the applicants for the post of Lecturer in History is mentioned as History (Modern Group). The applications so filed by the candidates were scrutinized and after such scrutiny the college authority c onstituted a Selection Committee with the President of the Governing Body as Cha irman of the Selection Committee along with Head of the Department of History an d other two experts on the subject as members. Before the Selection Committee, a question arose about having the essential qualification of History (Modern Gro up) by the petitioner, namely, Hannanur Rahman. From the record, it appears tha t the experts on the subject for deliberation of the matter also took assistance from the outside agency in the matter. Ultimately, the committee held that the petitioner possess such qualification and he was recommended for selection by t he Selection Committee. The matter was placed before the Governing Body of the College for neces sary consideration on 9/7/07. In the Governing Body the matter was deliberated. From the proceeding of the Governing Body dated 9/7/07, it is seen that there was no unanimity in the decision amongst the members of the Governing Body and t he staff members of the Governing Body raised objection that the selection was n ot made as per advertisement. It is also contended by Mr. A.D. Choudhury that o ne of the member of the Managing Committee, namely, Abdur Mannan, who is the fat her of the writ petitioner, Hannanur Rahman, was present and participated in del iberation and accordingly the entire decision is vitiated on this count. Howeve r, the Governing Body accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and forwarded the same for necessary approval to the Director, Higher Education. Th e Director of Higher Education vide order dated 13/8/07 did not accord his appro val and returned the proposal in original as the selected candidate has no speci al paper in the subject as per the advertisement. In this proceeding the colleg e authority has taken a stand that the petitioner, Hannanur Rahman does not poss es the basic qualification by having modern history as special paper and for tha t purpose they have analyzed the course context of the Modern History. The learned counsel for the appearing parties has deliberated on the poi nt as to whether the writ petitioner, Hannanur Rahman, possessed the necessary q ualification of Modern History as mentioned in the advertisement. However, the learned counsel appearing for the parties are unanimous on the point that the fa ther of the petitioner, Hannanur Rahman ought not to have remained and present a nd deliberated when the aforesaid agenda relating to appointment of his son was taken up for consideration. The fair stand taken by the learned counsels is bas ically on the issue as regards the apparent biasness that might have occurred in taking the decision. In view of the aforesaid facts situation and submission, I am of the con sidered opinion that it is a fit case wherein the Governing Body of the said Col lege authority should take a fresh decision to consider the recommendation of th e Selection Committee without allowing Mr. Abdur Mannan to be present and partic ipate while taking such decision. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Governing Body of the college authority for taking a fresh decision as rega rds the validity of the selection of Hannanur Rahman, made by the Selection Com mittee for the post of Lecturer in History (Modern Group). The Governing Body s hall take such decision on urgent basis since the college is now in inneed of a Lecturer in History (Modern Group) and non-filling of the said post is affecting the academic interests of the students of the college. In view of the above direction, the earlier decision taken by the Govern ing Body of the college approving the selection of the writ petitioner, Hannanur Rahman and the decision of the Director, Higher Education dated 13/8/07 are set aside and quashed. It is made clear herein that the Governing Body while considering the re commendation of the Selection Committee shall also consider the entire matter re garding the selection of the candidate in the said post including the case of Sm t. Pranita Barman Choudhury ( petitioner in W.P.' No. 506/08) and take appropria te decision on the basis of the eligibility criteria and other relevant factors. With the aforesaid direction, both these writ petitions stand finally di sposed of.