Preference for local (BTR) candidates under an appointment advertisement cannot be invoked where other candidates have superior merit; such preference applies only when candidates are otherwise equal in all respects. Judgment upholds existing Supreme Court precedent and acts as binding authority for similar education sector selections.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/598/2024 of PRAMOD MEDHI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS |
| CNR | GAHC010024502024 |
| Date of Registration | 06-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Gauhati High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents: Secy, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu; G. Jayalal v. UOI |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Education Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Preference provisions can only be invoked in case of parity in merit and eligibility; authority must act strictly in accordance with the rules and judgments of the Supreme Court regarding public appointment processes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The post of Principal at Goreswar College was advertised, requiring minimum research credentials and stating a preference for BTR candidates. Selection Committee scored the writ petitioners; the candidate with higher marks was not appointed, with preference given to a local candidate. The dispute involved both the use of the “preference” clause and the research eligibility of the higher-scoring candidate. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the Gauhati High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, tribunals, and administrative authorities in similar education/service matters |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes cases where “preference” may be invoked only on parity; disapproved applying preference despite superior merit |
| Follows | Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu (2003) 5 SCC 341; G. Jayalal v. UOI (2013) 7 SCC 150 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that “preference” for local candidates under appointment advertisements or rules can only be exercised when candidates are otherwise equal in merit and eligibility.
- The “preference” clause cannot override a clear mark advantage in the selection process.
- Delayed challenges to the eligibility of higher-scoring candidates are likely to be viewed as afterthoughts and without merit, especially if not pressed at the initial stage.
- Candidate’s research credits were scrutinised; the university’s original assessment was upheld, and post-selection re-verification by a committee was given limited weight in the absence of prior objections.
- Lawyers should ensure that preference provisions are only invoked as qualifying tie-breakers, not as blanket overrides of superior merit.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the advertisement’s terms, particularly Clause 5 (research credentials) and Clause 10 (preference for BTR candidates).
- It held, based on Supreme Court precedent (Secy, A.P. PSC v. Srinivasulu; G. Jayalal v. UOI), that “preference” can only operate when all other eligibility and merit factors are equal.
- Since the candidate not from BTR (petitioner in WP(C) No. 3543/2023) had clearly scored more than the local candidate, exercising preference was impermissible.
- The challenge to the higher-scoring candidate’s research credentials was found to be belated and not pressed until after the appointment process; the initial selection process, conducted according to the rules and verified by the university, was valid.
- The subsequent re-verification by the BTC committee did not alter this conclusion, as the original Selection Committee’s assessment was comprehensive.
- The decision directed appointment strictly as per the Selection Committee’s original recommendation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (WP(C) No. 3543/2023):
- Scored highest in merit and declared first by the Selection Committee.
- Appointment of second-highest candidate under Clause 10 (preference) is illegal; preference applies only where other merits are equal.
- Respondent’s belated challenge to research credentials is an afterthought.
- Relied on Supreme Court and High Court decisions disallowing preference in absence of equal merit.
Petitioner (WP(C) No. 598/2024):
- Argued eligibility of respondent for not meeting minimum research publication criteria.
- Claimed to fulfill all research publication and research score requirements.
- Preference for local/BTR area candidate should apply as per Clause 10.
Respondents (BTC, Governing Body, University):
- Preference for BTR candidates justified under Clause 10.
- University: Screening Committee evaluated publication credentials as per UGC norms; limited ability to verify peer-review status.
- BTC: Constituted re-verification committee; new committee found inadequacies in some publications by higher-scoring candidate.
- UGC: Declined to comment definitively on peer-review status due to lack of database.
Factual Background
The dispute concerned the appointment of Principal at Goreswar College, Assam. The post was advertised in January 2023, requiring specific research qualifications and mentioning a preference for BTR (Bodoland Territorial Region) residents. After interviews, one candidate scored highest and was recommended by the Selection Committee. However, the appointment went to a lower-scoring, local candidate, citing Clause 10 (preference). The higher-scoring candidate challenged this, while the appointed candidate in turn alleged non-fulfilment of research requirements by the challenger. Delayed challenges and subsequent committee reviews of credentials featured in the dispute.
Statutory Analysis
- Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010: Governed the appointment and selection process.
- UGC Regulations, 2018: Laid down mandatory minimum qualifications and research credentials for college principals (Regulation 4.1, Appendix-II Table 2).
- Interpretation: “Preference” for local candidates under service rules/advertisement is to be exercised only when candidates are otherwise equal in merit and eligibility.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were mentioned in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or changes to standard practice were reported in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedents on the meaning and application of “preference” in selection/appointment processes affirmed.
Citations
- Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu, (2003) 5 SCC 341
- G. Jayalal v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 150
- Dr. Thoudam Rajen Singh & Anr. v. Manipur Public Service Commission & Ors., 2015 SCC Online Mani 128
- Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S v. Dr. Rajasree MS & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 1473
- Shehnaz Begum v. State of Assam, Judgment dated 03.10.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 27 of 2019
- Banashree Bharaddash @ Banashree Bhardwaj v. State of Assam, 2015 5 GLR 56