Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The Indian Institute Of Technology ... on 24 March, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010019332025
2025:GAU-AS:3229
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 : 24-03-2025
Heard Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
RP Kakoti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AB Dey, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/IIT, Guwahati.
2. The petitioner's grievance is with the fact that his name was not amongst
the short listed candidates for the interview for appointment to the post of
Deputy Registrar, in terms of the advertisement dated 10.03.2023, in view of
the fact that the eligibility criteria had been changed. The 5 (five) years
experience required for an Assistant Registrar to be promoted as Deputy
Registrar had been changed from 5 (five) years to 11 (eleven) years, after the
last date for submission of applications.
3. The case of the petitioner is 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
Page No.# 3/4
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.
4. 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.
5. This Court, vide interim order dated 05.02.2025 had directed the
respondents to also interview the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement
dated 10.03.2023.
6. The respondents have submitted an affidavit dated 11.03.2025 stating
that the petitioner along with other candidates were interviewed, pursuant to
the advertisement dated 10.03.2023 and as such, they wanted this Court to
allow them to publish the result of the interview. The result of the interview
which has been kept in a sealed cover has also been produced before this
Court.
7. I have opened the same and I find that though the petitioner was
amongst the list the candidates who had appeared for the interview, the
petitioner has not been selected for the sole post of Deputy Registrar, pursuant
to the advertisement dated 10.03.2023.
8. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not been selected by the
Page No.# 4/4
selection committee, this Court is of the view that the issue raised by the
petitioner is not required to be decided, as the same would be of academic
interest only, as on date. Consequently, this Court does not intend to dispose of
this case on merit. Accordingly, the respondents are allowed to publish the
result of the interview held, pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.03.2023.
9. The writ petition is accordingly closed as infructuous.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
