Does “Preference” for Local Candidates in Appointment to Public Posts Override Superior Merit? Gauhati High Court Affirms Preference Applies Only When Candidates Are Equal

The Gauhati High Court has clarified that, in competitive public appointments, a “preference” clause for local candidates (such as residents of BTR) can be invoked only when candidates are otherwise equal in merit. By following Supreme Court precedent and the specific advertisement criteria, the Court reaffirmed existing law and directed that merit prevails unless there is parity; setting aside the contrary appointment as unsustainable. This decision serves as binding authority within the Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction for all future public service selection disputes involving “preference” clauses.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The judgment reinforces that a “preference” for local candidates in public appointment can be exercised only when two or more candidates are otherwise equally meritorious.
• Appointment on the sole basis of “preference” despite significant merit difference is unsustainable in law.
• Post-selection eligibility challenges not raised at the time of selection are generally disfavoured.
• The decision affirms and locally binds the interpretation of “preference” as laid down by the Supreme Court.
• Clarified UGC Regulations, 2018 compliance assessment methods for disputed eligibility in academic appointments.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court identified that the central issue was the validity of applying the “preference” clause for BTR candidates in circumstances where merit scores were unequal.
• Citing Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu and G. Jayalal v. Union of India, the Court concluded that “preference” in competitive selection can be given effect only when competing candidates are otherwise equal in merit.
• The merit list demonstrated higher marks for the petitioner (WP(C)/3543/2023) than the appointee (WP(C)/598/2024), thereby excluding operation of “preference.”
• The eligibility challenge based on the requirement of 10 research publications was addressed: both the Selection Committee and University had assessed and verified the claims at the time of selection, and objections were not timely raised.
• The Court dismissed the re-verification committee’s findings, noting procedural infirmities and timing.
• Final orders set aside the wrongly grounded appointment and directed appointment strictly as per the merit determined by the Selection Committee.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (WP(C)/3543/2023)

• Argued that selection was made based on clear higher merit in the interview (427.4 vs. 400.58 marks).
• “Preference” clause for local candidates applies only when candidates are equal in merit.
• Appointment of second-ranked candidate on the sole basis of preference is legally unsustainable.
• Claimed eligibility criterion of 10 research publications was fully met, as demonstrated in the application with requisite proofs.

Respondent (WP(C)/598/2024)

• Challenged the eligibility of the first candidate, alleging shortfall in peer-reviewed/UGC-listed publications.
• Emphasized that preference is to be given to BTR candidates as per the advertisement, regardless of marks difference.
• Filed writ petition after receiving information under RTI about the research publications.
• Sought inquiry into selection process due to alleged anomalies.

Other Parties (Bodoland University, Government Authorities)

• Supported procedure of the Selection Committee as per UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010.
• Stated that publications were duly scrutinized and marks correctly awarded.
• Claimed that preference was validly exercised based on residency status as per Clause 10.

Factual Background

An advertisement dated 01.01.2023 invited applications for the post of Principal, Goreswar College, specifying UGC-mandated research publication requirements and stating preference for BTR candidates. Two main candidates participated; one non-BTR (WP(C)/3543/2023) and one resident of BTR (WP(C)/598/2024). The Selection Committee ranked the non-BTR candidate higher in merit. However, the appointing authority invoked “preference” and selected the BTR candidate. Both parties initiated writ petitions challenging appointment, eligibility, and selection criteria, leading to common adjudication.

Statutory Analysis

• Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010: Prescribed the procedure for appointment and the role of the Selection Committee.
• UGC Regulations, 2018: Specified minimum eligibility, including 10 research publications in peer-reviewed/UGC-listed journals and minimum research score.
• Interpretation: The requirement for “preference” was narrowly construed—invocable only when other merit metrics are equal—following Supreme Court authority.
• No reading down or reading in applied; criteria interpreted as per plain and judicially established meaning.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinion appears in the judgment; single-judge decision.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural precedents or innovations identified in this judgment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law affirmed regarding the application of “preference” clauses in public employment.

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
• Banashree Bharaddash @ Banashree Bhardwaj v. State of Assam, 2015 5 GLR 56
• Judgment dated 03.10.2024 in Writ Appeal No. 27/2019 (Shehnaz Begum v. State of Assam & Ors.)