Gauhati High Court
Dr. Upakul Sarmah vs The Indian Institute Of Technology ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010019332025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/560/2025
DR. UPAKUL SARMAH
S/O- JANAKI NATH SARMAH, SONAKI ENCLAVE, BONGAON PATH, P.S.
BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (IIT) GUWAHATI AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, IIT GUWAHATI, P.O. IITG, AMINGAON,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781039.
2:THE DIRECTOR
IIT GUWAHATI
P.O. IITG
AMINGAON
GUWAHATI
ASSAM-781039.
3:THE REGISTRAR
IIT GUWAHATI
P.O. IITG
AMINGAON
GUWAHATI
ASSAM-781039
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA,MS B A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IITG,
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 05.02.2025
Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that
in terms of the advertisement dated 10.03.2023, issued by the Registrar (In-
Charge), Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati for filing up various posts, the
petitioner had applied for the vacant post of Deputy Registrar. As per the
advertisement, the educational and other qualifications required for a candidate
to apply for the post of Deputy Registrar was that the candidate should have
five years of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or in an equivalent
post carrying a scale of pay of level-10. The petitioner applied for the post as he
had the required five years of experience as an Assistant Registrar. However,
when the names of the shortlisted candidates were published on 17.01.2025,
the petitioner found that his name was not amongst the shortlisted candidates,
in view of the respondents having changed the eligibility criteria for a candidate
to apply for the post of Deputy Registrar. The five years experience required as
an Assistant Registrar had now been modified during the selection/recruitment
process, to the extent that eleven years of experience as an Assistant Registrar
was now required.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
cannot change the eligibility criteria midway through the recruitment process
and in support of his submission he has relied upon the constitution Bench
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and
others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, reported in 2024 INSC 847.
3. Mr. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Page No.# 3/4
interview of the short-listed candidates is to take place on 7 th February, 2025
and if no interim order is issued, the writ petition would become infructuous.
4. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in 3(three) weeks.
5. Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel accept notice on behalf of all
respondents. However, requisite copies of the writ petition be furnished to him
during the course of the day.
6. As can be seen from the contents of the writ petition, the eligibility
criteria for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar has been changed
midway through the selection/recruitment process. While the advertisement
initially required a candidate to have five years of experience as an Assistant
Registrar, the same has been changed to eleven years.
7. In the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others (supra), the
Supreme Court has held that the eligibility criteria for being placed in the select
list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be
changed midway through the recruitment process, unless the extant Rules so
permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so
permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the
advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of
the Constitution and satisfy the test of non arbitrariness.
8. On considering the fact that there is no basis shown, for the
respondents to have changed the eligibility criteria midway through the selection
process, this Court is of the view that unless the petitioner is allowed to
participate in the selection process, the writ petition may become infructuous.
9. Accordingly, as the interview is to be the held day after tomorrow,
this Court is of the view that it would not be proper for the selection process to
Page No.# 4/4
be stalled at this stage, especially when interview letters would have been
issued to various other candidates by now.
10. Accordingly, the respondents shall also interview the petitioner for
the post of Deputy Registrar, in terms of the advertisement dated 10.03.2024.
However, the result of the interview shall not be published without the leave of
this Court.
11. List the matter on 12.03.2025. In the meantime, the respondents
may file their affidavits.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
