Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Ors. Represented ... on 22 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010113762025
2025:GAU-AS:14006-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/215/2025
DR SONU KUMAR
S/O TEJPAL SINGH, R/O 643,
SHAKTI NAGAR, NEAR DURGAPUR RAILWAY STATION, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN, PIN 302018, PERMANENT ADDRESS JANDKHERA,
SAHARANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN 247341
VERSUS
1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER
EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006
2: SRI SRI ANIRUDDHADEVA SPORTS UNIVERSITY CHABUA
REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM PIN 786184
3:THE VICE CHANCELLOR, SRI SRI ANIRUDDHADEVA SPORTS
UNIVERSITY CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 786184
4:THE REGISTRAR, SRI SRI ANIRUDDHADEVA SPORTS UNIVERSITY
CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 78618
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T.H. Hazarika, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Das, Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department for
respondent No.1.
: Mr. K. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports
University for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4.
Page No.# 2/4
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
22.10.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned advocate for the
appellant; Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher)
Department for respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing
Counsel, Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports University for respondent Nos.2, 3 &
4.
The appellant had participated in the recruitment process
against an advertisement for the post of Librarian, where the minimum/
threshold qualification was fixed at "at least 10 years experience as a
Librarian at any level in a University Library or 10 years of teaching as an
Assistant/Associate Professor experience as a College Librarian". The
appellant was returned successful and was also offered an appointment
letter, which later was cancelled, ostensibly on the ground of the
appellant not meeting the eligibility criterion and also for
misrepresentation.
The contention of the appellant is that he had a composite/
consolidated experience of more than 10(ten) years as a Librarian, in
support of which he had furnished a certificate from Mahaveer Institute
of Technology, certifying that he had worked as a Librarian from
03.07.2006 to 13.08.2015 in the Pay Scale of Rs.15,600/- - Rs.39,100/- plus
AGP Rs.6,000/-. The certificate further revealed that the appellant was a
permanent employee of the Institute and his Basic Pay was Rs.21,600/-.
Apart from this, the appellant also furnished an experience certificate of
Page No.# 3/4
the Amity University, Rajasthan certifying that he had been working as
Deputy Librarian since 14.08.2015 on the Pay Scale of Rs.15,600/- to
Rs.39,100/- plus AGP of Rs.8,000/- and his total salary in the Amity
University was Rs.42,387/- per month.
The requirement, according to Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for
the Sports University, was 10(ten) years experience as a Librarian at any
level in a University Library.
The appellant had more than 10(ten) years of experience but
only in a College called Mahaveer Institute of Technology and
experience as a Deputy Librarian in a University but for lesser number of
years than the cut-off 10(ten) years experience. Apart from that, on
enquiry, it was found that different Pay Scales received by the appellant
were intimated to the University. Though there has been no finding of the
expert body which had examined the certificates issued to the appellant
that those were not issued by the concerned University/College but
because different Pay Scales/Grade Pay at different times, were
furnished by the appellant, the same were found to be an attempt on
the part of the appellant to misrepresent before the University for seeking
his appointment.
Hence, the cancellation of the offer letter of appointment.
The learned Single Judge, relying on the contention of the
University that 3(three) system generated salary slips were furnished by
the appellant which did not show his academic Grade Pay and that the
documents furnished by the appellant in respect of his salary indicated
that at different points of time, different documents were submitted,
found that the decision of the University in cancelling the offer of
Page No.# 4/4
appointment was justified. Though the case laws cited by the learned
Single Judge, in our respectful estimation, are not germane to the issue
but on our finding that the appellant did not have the necessary
minimum academic qualification, as specified in the advertisement, the
appointment letter was justifiably cancelled.
We have been informed at the Bar that a fresh recruitment
process is to be started.
While upholding the judgment impugned, which upholds the
cancellation of the offer of appointment to the appellant, we would like
to observe that in the fresh recruitment/selection process, the appellant
must be allowed to participate, without holding such cancellation of his
earlier offer of appointment as stigmatic of his having misrepresented.
We say so for the reason that we have not found any concrete proof of
any misrepresentation on the part of the appellant.
With the afore-noted observation, the appeal stands disposed
off accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Mukut
Comparing Assistant
