Rangchak Tripura vs Tripura University & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 325 Tri

Tripura High Court

Rangchak Tripura vs Tripura University & Others on 6 August, 2025

                                            Page 1 of 6




                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                   AGARTALA
                                WP(C) No.167 of 2025

Rangchak Tripura
                                                                             ......Petitioner(s).
                                                 Vs.
Tripura University & others
                                                                          ......Respondent(s).

For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.

Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.P. Sahu, Senior Advocate.

Ms. L. Liriina, Advocate.

Ms. Kunjeswari Devi, Advocate.

Date of hearing                 :         25.7.2025

Date of pronouncement           :         6.8.2025
of Order

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

                                       _O_R_D_E_R_


               The     petitioner,        pursuant        to   an     advertisement       dated

04.10.2024 issued by Tripura University for filling up of certain non-

teaching posts, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The

last date of submission of online applications was 10.11.2024 and the

required academic qualification was as follows:

"Essential qualification of Non-teaching positions

Sl. Name of the Post Educational qualification and other criterion No. 1 Assistant Engineer (Civil) Essential Qualifications:

i) First Class Bachelor's Degree in relevant field from a recognised Institute/University or equivalent.

ii) Three years' experience in the relevant field as Junior Engineer or Equivalent in State Government PWD services or similar organized services/Statutory or Autonomous organization/University System or reputed private organizations with an annual turnover of at least Rs.200/-

Crores or more.

Age Limit : 35 years"

2. Thereafter, the University issued one addendum on

08.11.2024, which is prior to the last date of submission of online

applications, by waiving of the condition of required working experience

in a private company/bank "having a minimum annual turnover of at

least Rs.200/- crores or more". The petitioner participated in the

recruitment process but was unsuccessful. However, according to him,

the son of the Vice-Chancellor of the University (Respondent No.4) was

favoured with that job and just with an intention to recruit respondent

No.4 against said post, suddenly that requirement of working experience

in any private company/bank of having a minimum annual turnover of

at least Rs.200/- crores or more was waived off. The petitioner alleges

that such a change in the eligibility criteria was made to provide some

unfair advantage to the person selected against the post of Assistant

Engineer, and therefore, the entire selection process stands vitiated due

to favouritism. Another plea is also raised by the petitioner that the

University had no authority to change the rule of game in the midst of

the recruitment process.

3. The University authority has submitted one affidavit

challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that the

petitioner, himself knowing fully well the terms of the recruitment

procedure, applied for the post and participated in the process, and

therefore, he is now barred from challenging the said process. According

to them, having taken part in the selection process knowing well about

the procedure laid down therein, the petitioner is not entitled to

question it just because the result of the selection process was not

favourable to him.

4. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel during hearing in

support of such contention of the University, relies on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India

& Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 294, Dhananjay Malik & Ors. vs. State of

Uttaranchal & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 171, Ramesh Chandra Shah &

Ors. vs. Anil Joshi & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 309 and Manish Kumar

Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 576. In all these

cases, the principle that a person who consciously takes part in the

process of selection cannot thereafter turn around and question the

method of selection and its outcome, was reiterated. Learned senior

counsel contends that when the petitioner consciously participated in the

selection process, just because he was not favoured with the job cannot

now question the legality or propriety of such selection process. Learned

senior counsel also contends that entire selection process was

transparent, based on written examination, and therefore, there cannot

be any doubt regarding the fairness of the recruitment process. Based

on such submissions, Mr. Sahu, learned senior counsel submits that it

will be an abuse of the process of law and wastage of time of the Court

to continue with the writ proceeding, and therefore, it may be dismissed

in limine, being not maintainable.

5. Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel

appearing for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the

challenge regarding the recruitment process, as put forward by the

petitioner, is twofold: firstly, that in the midst of the recruitment

process, the rule of the game was changed; and secondly, that the said

alteration was dmade with mala fide intention, just to enable respondent

No.4, who is the son of respondent No.3 (Vice-Chancellor), to

participate in the selection process and thus in a complete unfair way,

he was favoured with the job, and therefore, the entire recruitment

process is vitiated by unfairness, favouritism as well as arbitrariness.

According to learned senior counsel, the writ petition cannot be disposed

of merely on the ground that once a person participated in the selection

process cannot challenge its procedure. According to Mr. Roy Barman,

learned senior counsel, even if a person participates in a selection

process, he has the right to challenge such process if the said selection

process is not conducted in fairness and with transparency, as required

under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned senior counsel in

this regard also relies on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2019)

20 SCC 17, wherein at para No.17, it was observed that a candidate by

agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the

prescribed selection procedure and not the illegality in it and in a

situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory Rules

and its discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot

be condoned merely because a candidate has taken part in it. The

relevant para No.17 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

"17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process."

6. Mr. Barman, learned senior counsel also relies on another

Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.,

(2025) 2 SCC 1, wherein at Para No.65, it was reiterated that eligibility

criteria for being placed in the select list, as was notified at the

commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway

unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not

contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. It is also further observed by

the Apex Court that 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. Finally, learned senior counsel submits that the petition is

well maintainable, keeping in view the challenges made by the petitioner

regarding the recruitment of respondent No.4, being result of favoritism,

unfairness and arbitrariness.

7. This Court has gone through the aforesaid decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred by the parties, and also the

allegations as well as contentions of the parties. As per the writ

petitioner, his challenge is not merely the change of Rules of the

selection process in the midway, rather, he has also challenged the

entire selection process on the ground of arbitrariness, biasness and

favouritism. Therefore, the issues as has been raised in the writ petition

are not only the change of the Rules but also the misapplication of the

same by way of discrimination and biasness. Therefore, the writ petition

cannot be rejected at this stage merely on the ground that the petitioner

has no right to challenge the alteration of the eligibility criteria of the

candidate after issuance of said advertisement, inasmuch as, he has

challenged the entire selection process not only on the ground of the

change of rules but also on the grounds of favouritism and biasness.

8. In view of the above discussions, the affidavit submitted by

the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 challenging the maintainability of the writ

petition is rejected at this stage. However, it will be open for the

respondents to argue on this point of maintainability at the time of final

hearing.

9. Respondents are directed to submit counter affidavit on the

next date positively.

List the matter after 3(three) weeks.

JUDGE

SATABD Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA

I DUTTA 16:16:22 +05'30' Date: 2025.08.06

Dinashree