Dr. Satyajit Das vs The Gauhati University And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5828 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Dr. Satyajit Das vs The Gauhati University And 4 Ors on 27 June, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                  Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010078682020




                                                          undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       Case No. : WP(C)/2348/2020

         DR. SATYAJIT DAS
         S/O. PROF. (DR.) MANMOHAN DAS, R/O. HOUSE NO.20, PANCHAJANYA
         PATH, MATHURA NAGAR, GUWAHATI-781006, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY AND 4 ORS.
         GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR, GUWAHATI-14, REP. BY THE VICE
         CHANCELLOR, GAUHATI UNIVERSITY.

         2:THE REGISTRAR
          GAUHATI UNIVERSITY
          GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR
          GUWAHATI-14.

         3:THE CHAIRMAN
          SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF ASSTT. PROFESSOR OF
         FOLKLORE RESEARCH DEPTT.
          GAUHATI UNIVERSITY
          GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR
          GUWAHATI-14.

         4:THE CHAIRMAN
          EXECUTIVE COUNSEL
          GAUHATI UNIVERSITY
          GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR
          GUWAHATI-14.

         5:MEGHNA CHOUDHURY
         W/O DIGANTA MADHAV GOSWAMI
          HOUSE NO. 18(B) (FLAT 101)
          LAKHIMI NAGAR
                                                                              Page No.# 2/9

             BYLANE-1
             P.O BELTOLA
             GUWAHATI- 781028

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. Y S MANNAN, MS. M BHATTACHARYYA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, G U, MR D MAHANTA (R-5)

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

For the Appellant : Shri YS Mannan, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Shri PJ Phukan, SC, Gauhati University, Shri D Mahanta, Advocate, R/5.

             Date of Hearing      :       10.06.2025.

             Date of Judgment         :   27.06.2025.



                              Judgment & Order (Oral)

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging a recruitment process initiated by the respondent-Gauhati University for filling up of the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore Research.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner claims to be a Ph.D. degree holder in Folklore having M.Phil. degree and has also got the qualification of NET from the Gauhati University. The petitioner had completed his Masters from Tejpur University and has also got teaching experience.

Page No.# 3/9

3. An Advertisement was published by the respondent-Gauhati University on 04.12.2015 for filling up of the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore Research. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied and though not having the Ph.D. degree, he was called for the interview but was not selected. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the petitioner had obtained the Ph.D. degree. Subsequently, the impugned recruitment process was initiated vide the advertisement dated 12.06.2018 and the petitioner, who claims to be qualified in all respects, had applied for the said post.

4. It is contended that the desirable qualification was Master of Music or equivalent and the petitioner had the aforesaid qualification and was eligible as per the UGC norms. It is the contention of the petitioner that though he had duly applied, there was long silence from the respondent-University and on an enquiry made after about a year, he came to know that the interview was held on 14.03.2020 in which, he was not called for. It is the aforesaid action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

5. It may be mentioned that when the writ petition was filed, the aspect of selection and appointment did not surface and subsequently, the selected candidate has been included as party respondent no. 5 vide the order dated 06.12.2021 of this Court passed in IA(C)/2013/2021. However, there was no amendment of the writ petition, as such and accordingly, the appointment of the respondent no. 5 is not the specific matter of challenge.

6. I have heard Shri YS Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri PJ Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University as well as Shri D Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

Page No.# 4/9

7. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has all the qualifications for being considered for such appointment. He submits that when the petition was instituted in the year 2020, many facts had emerged subsequently, which the petitioner could know from the materials placed on record. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent-University on 29.11.2021, the learned counsel has submitted that the reason for the rejection which appears from the remarks is "Weak Academic Career" and accordingly, the petitioner was held to be not fulfilling the criteria of the Executive Committee for being shortlisted.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 24.01.2022 in which, the UGC Regulation, 2018 has been referred to and relied upon. Clause 3.1 of the said Regulation has been pressed into service, which reads as follows:

"The direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in the Universities and Colleges, and Senior Professor in the Universities, shall be on the basis of merit through an all-India advertisement, followed by selection by a duly-constituted Selection Committee as per the provisions made under these Regulations. These provisions shall be incorporated in the Statutes/Ordinances of the university concerned. The composition of such a committee shall be as specified in these Regulations."

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent-University, the selection appears to have been done as per the UGC Regulation, 2010. He contends that the same Regulation was substituted by the Regulation of 2018 and therefore, it was the Regulation of Page No.# 5/9

2018 which should have been applied in which case, the petitioner's candidature could not have been rejected. The learned counsel has also referred to the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 22.11.2018 whereby the criteria have been prescribed. He has also referred to the response to the RTI query made by the petitioner and has submitted that from the same response, it clearly appears that a wrong criterion has been applied so far as the impugned recruitment process is concerned.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent no. 5 on 15.06.2023 and has contended that from the C.V. of the respondent no. 5, it clearly appears that the said respondent has neither a Ph.D. degree nor has the Master of Music degree. He has submitted that under the UGC Regulation of 2010, more specifically, Regulation 6.0.11, the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) has been stated in details. He has also submitted that though the appointment of the respondent no. 5 was made in the meantime, such appointment is made subject to the outcome of the writ petition. He, accordingly submits that the impugned recruitment is required to be set aside and the candidature of the petitioner be directed to be considered in a fair manner.

11. Per contra, Shri Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University has strenuously objected to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 03.08.2023, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the date of the advertisement is 12.06.2018 and the last date for filing of candidature was fixed on 30.06.2018. He submits that the UGC Regulation of 2018 was published on 18.07.2018 and the Executive Committee of Guwahati University had adopted the same resolution only on 25.01.2020. He, accordingly submits that it was the Regulation of 2010 which had held the field at the relevant time and was, accordingly applied. The learned counsel has also referred to and relied upon an order dated 15.06.2023 passed in WP(C)/2348/2020.

Page No.# 6/9

12. By referring to the UGC Regulation of 2010, more particularly, Appendix-III Table-II(c) thereof, he has submitted that the selection criteria have been laid down and the aforesaid criteria have been followed in the present selection. He has also referred to the meeting dated 21.03.2018 in which, against Sl. No.3, it was laid down

that the candidate should have at least two 1 st Division or 1st Class. He has also referred to the meetings of the Executive Committee held on 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018. He has submitted that such criterion is in consonance with maintaining a high standard in the aspect of teaching. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Baruah (Dr.) Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in 2014 (3) GLT 382 (Division Bench) in support of his contention that the existing Rules would hold the field. For ready reference, the relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow:

"48. In Md. Raisul Islam and Ors. Vs. Gokul Mohan Hazarika and Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 560, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether a process of selection started under the un-amended Rules would have to be continued and completed under the un-amended Rules though the Rules came to be amended subsequently. After examining the matter and considering various judicial pronouncements, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once a process of selection is started on the basis of the existing rules of recruitment, the said rules will continue to govern the selection process notwithstanding any amendment which may have been affected to the said rules in the meanwhile."

13. Supporting and endorsing the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, Shri Mahanta has submitted that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 29.05.2023 followed by an additional-affidavit on 15.06.2023 as certain more facts and documents have been Page No.# 7/9

incorporated. He has submitted that his client is eligible and qualified in all respects and has also clear NET in June, 2015. It is submitted that it is the Regulation of 2010 which was applicable in the selection of the respondent no. 5. He has also referred to Regulation 6.0.2 in which, the University has been given power to devise their own method. He has submitted that pursuant to the selection of his client, the appointment order was issued on 12.03.2022 and he has joined on 24.03.2022. He has also informed that his client had to file WP(C)/3495/2021 for declaration of the results and only after such filing, the results were declared, as recorded in the order dated 03.11.2021.

14. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on record have been carefully examined.

15. The facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent-University has wrongly applied the UGC Regulation of 2010 and on the other hand, it is the UGC Regulation of 2018 which should have been applied. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has additional qualifications, including Master of Music and therefore, was liable to be considered for the said appointment.

16. So far as the application of the UGC Regulations is concerned, this Court finds force in the contention of the Gauhati University that the advertisement was published on 12.06.2018 and the last date for submission of application was fixed on 30.06.2018. On the other hand, the date of the operation of the UGC Regulation of 2018 was 18.07.2018, which, the Executive Committee of the Gauhati University had adopted on 25.01.2020. Therefore, even by overlooking the aspect of the date on which the Regulation of 2018 was adopted, it is not in dispute that the date of operation of the Regulation of 2018 is later than the date of submission of the application pursuant to the Advertisement dated 12.06.2018. This Court has noted Page No.# 8/9

that under the UGC Regulation of 2010, Appendix-III, Table-II(c), the selection criteria have been laid down.

17. Under Regulation 6.0.2 of the Regulation of 2010, it has been stipulated that the concerned University can devise its own method. In the instant case, from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent-University on 03.08.2023, the resolutions taken in the meetings dated 21.03.2018, 31.03.2018 and 24.04.2018 have been annexed. From the first meeting of 21.03.2018, it is seen that a resolution was taken under Sl. No. 3 to the effect that the candidate is required to have at least two

1st Division or 1st Class. In the opinion of this Court, such a criterion, which the University had the authority to fix, is in consonance of maintaining a high standard of education and cannot be termed as either irrelevant or arbitrary. Admittedly, the petitioner did not qualify under the aforesaid criterion laid down in the meeting dated 21.03.2018. For ready reference, Regulation 6.0.2 is extracted hereinbelow:

"6.0.2 The Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating he Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges/ affiliated colleges (Government/ Government-aided/Autonomous/ Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. An indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS shall also be sent separately by the UGC to the universities. The universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to the API criteria based PBAS prescribed in these Regulations."

Page No.# 9/9

18. It may be mentioned that such resolution was an existing resolution even before the advertisement was issued on 12.06.2018 and therefore, it cannot be said or argued that there has been a change of the Rules after the advertisement. The aspect of changing the Rules after the selection has been started has been settled by the Constitution Bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1. This Court is also considering the fact that the selection of the respondent no. 5 as such, is not the subject matter of challenge and it is only the non-consideration of the petitioner in the selection process.

19. This Court has also considered that the selection is of the year 2022 and there is no specific instance that the respondent no. 5 was either disqualified or was selected in a mala fide manner. In fact, there is no specific challenge to the appointment of the respondent no. 5 and no amendment was made to the writ petition incorporating such challenge. This Court is also of the view that a settled position should not be unsettled when the petitioner himself was not diligent to move the Court on time. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors., reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. The said principle has been reiterated in the case of H.S. Vankani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. , reported in (2010) 4 SCC 301 though it was in the context of the inter-se seniority of certain employees.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant