Uttarakhand High Court
Indian Institute Of Technology vs Shailendra Kumar Singh And Another on 4 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
2025:UHC:9894-DB
Reserved on 29.10.2025
Delivered on 04.11.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.216 of 2018
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee and Another
...........Appellants
Versus
Shailendra Kumar Singh and Another ............Respondent
With
Special Appeal No.210 of 2018
Pradeep Kumar Barve ............Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Kumar Singh and Others ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants in SPA No. 2016 of
2018.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondents and appellants in
SPA No.210 of 2018.
Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for respondent no.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per.)
Both these intra-court appeals have been preferred
against the common judgment and order dated 08.03.2018
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.
764 of 2017, Shailendra Kumar Singh vs. Indian Institute of
Technology, Roorkee, District Haridwar through its Registrar
and others, whereby the writ petition was allowed with cost of
₹25,000/-. The learned Single Judge set aside the selection of
appellant Pradeep Kumar Barve for the post of Junior
Technical Superintendent (Radiology) and directed the IIT
2025:UHC:9894-DB
Roorkee to re-advertise the post in accordance with law.
Further, the learned Single Judge directed initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar, IIT Roorkee,
and the members of the Selection Committee, observing that
the selection process was carried out in an illegal and
arbitrary manner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-IIT
Roorkee issued an advertisement dated 21.08.2015 inviting
applications for various posts, including one post of Junior
Technical Superintendent (Radiology) reserved for Scheduled
Caste category. The essential qualification prescribed was
M.Sc. (Radiology) or B.Sc. (Radiology/Radiography) from a
recognized University/Institute with two years' relevant
experience. Both Pradeep Kumar Barve (appellant in SPA No.
210 of 2018) and Shailendra Kumar Singh (writ petitioner)
applied for the said post. After the screening process, both
candidates were found eligible and were called to appear in
the written test. Upon evaluation, Pradeep Kumar Barve
secured 40.5 marks out of 100, whereas Shailendra Kumar
Singh secured 30.5 marks. As per the recruitment norms, the
minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to
Scheduled Caste category were 40. Consequently, the
appellant-Pradeep Kumar Barve was declared successful and
was issued an appointment letter dated 16.03.2017. This
appointment was challenged before the learned Single Judge,
who by the impugned order, set aside the selection.
3. Since common issues of fact and law arise in both
2025:UHC:9894-DB
appeals, they are being decided together. For convenience, the
facts of Special Appeal No. 216 of 2018 are taken into
consideration.
4. It is submitted by the appellants that the learned
Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition as the
petitioner Shailendra Kumar Singh had himself participated
in the selection process and, after being declared
unsuccessful, challenged the same. Such a course is
impermissible under the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, as
settled in D. Sarojakumar v. R. Helen Thilakom and Others
(2017) 9 SCC 478. It is contended that there was no pleading
in the writ petition questioning the equivalence of the degree
of Pradeep Kumar Barve (B.Sc. in Radiation Technology) vis-à-
vis B.Sc. in Radiology/Radiography, and in the absence of
such pleading, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that
the appellant lacked the requisite qualification. Reliance was
placed on Bacchaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC
491, wherein it was held that courts cannot base findings on
facts not pleaded.
5. It is further urged that appellant-Pradeep Kumar
Barve possessed the requisite educational qualification and
experience as per the advertisement. He was employed as a
Radiographic Technician in the Department of Radio-
Diagnosis at AIIMS, Raipur, and had more than two years and
nine months' experience in the field of Radiography. The
Screening and Selection Committee, comprising medical
experts, had duly examined the equivalence of the degrees
2025:UHC:9894-DB
and found no substantive difference except in nomenclature.
The syllabus of B.Sc. Radiation Technology was found
substantially identical to that of B.Sc. Radiology/
Radiography.
6. It is further submitted that the learned Single
Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by substituting his opinion for
that of the expert Selection Committee, contrary to the settled
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others (2010) 8 SCC 372,
holding that courts should refrain from sitting in appeal over
the decisions of expert bodies unless mala fides are
established. No allegation of mala fide was made against the
Selection Committee or any of its members. It is also
contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as a
Public Interest Litigation. Service matters, being personal in
nature, can be challenged only by an aggrieved candidate, not
by way of PIL, as held in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others Vs.
Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others (1998) 7 SCC 273, B.
Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage
Board Employees' Association (2006) 11 SCC 731 and Girish
Srivastava and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010)
105 SCC 707.
7. It is also urged that although the appellant-
Pradeep Kumar Barve had mentioned the word "pursuing"
against his undergraduate degree in the application form, he
had already submitted his second-year marksheet and, prior
to the written test held on 27.02.2017, had obtained his final
2025:UHC:9894-DB
degree. Therefore, as on the date of consideration by the
Selection Committee and keeping in view that, under Clauses
13(9) and 13(11) of the Statute, the Committee may consider
applications received after the date specified in the
advertisement and may also consider any other suitable
candidates suggested by a Committee member or otherwise
brought to its notice that he fulfilled the essential
qualification. The IIT Statutes further empower the Selection
Committee to consider candidates who acquire the requisite
qualification before the date of selection.
8. Learned counsel argued that the direction to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar and
members of the Selection Committee was wholly unwarranted,
as there was no finding of mala fides or procedural
impropriety. The Registrar was not even part of the Selection
Committee, nor was he responsible for issuing the
advertisement or appointment letter. The imposition of costs
of ₹25,000/- was also without justification.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned order, contending that the appellant-
Pradeep Kumar Barve did not possess the requisite
qualification on the last date of submission of application
and, therefore, was not eligible to be considered.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
11. It is not disputed that the advertisement dated
21.08.2015 prescribed M.Sc. Radiology or B.Sc.
2025:UHC:9894-DB
Radiology/Radiography as the essential qualification. It is also
undisputed that Pradeep Kumar Barve possessed a degree in
B.Sc. Radiation Technology from a recognized institution,
along with more than two years of relevant experience, and
had obtained more than the minimum qualifying marks
prescribed for SC category. The Selection Committee,
comprising experts in the medical field, after detailed
deliberation, held the said degree to be equivalent to the
prescribed qualification.
12. The writ petitioner, Shailendra Kumar Singh,
having participated in the selection process with full
knowledge of the eligibility criteria and having failed to secure
the minimum qualifying marks, was estopped from
subsequently challenging the process. It is a settled
proposition that a candidate who takes part in a selection
process without protest cannot turn around and question the
same upon being declared unsuccessful. This principle of
estoppel by conduct has been consistently upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of
J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486; D. Sarojakumar v. R.
Helen Thilakom, (2017) 9 SCC 478; Ramesh Chandra Shah
and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and Others (2013) 11 SCC 309;
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Karunesh Kumar & Others (2022)
SCC Online SC 1706. The writ petitioner, having failed to
secure even the minimum prescribed marks for the Scheduled
Caste category, could not be treated as an aggrieved person
within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2025:UHC:9894-DB
Hence, the writ petition was not maintainable.
13. It stands established that the degree held by the
appellant, B.Sc. (Radiation Technology), was from a
recognized University and was duly examined by the
Screening and Selection Committees comprising domain
experts. The said Committees found the curriculum and
syllabus of B.Sc. Radiation Technology substantially identical
to that of B.Sc. Radiology/Radiography. Once such
equivalence is determined by experts, the Court cannot sit in
appeal over their academic opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372,
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR
1965 SC 491, and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 27, has categorically held
that courts must defer to the views of expert bodies unless
mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions
are shown. No such infirmity is established here.
14. It is also evident that the writ petition contained no
specific pleading challenging the equivalence of the
appellant's degree or alleging that the Selection Committee
had acted beyond its jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, fell in manifest error in returning findings on a
point neither pleaded nor substantiated by evidence. The law
is well-settled that no relief can be founded on facts not
pleaded -- Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC
491.
2025:UHC:9894-DB
15. The learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction
by substituting his own assessment in place of that of the
expert Selection Committee, which is impermissible in law.
Judicial review of selections made by expert bodies is confined
to examining procedural fairness, mala fides, or violation of
statutory rules not to reassess academic or technical
equivalence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, and Dalpat Abasaheb
Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, (1990)
1 SCC 305, has cautioned that courts should not act as
appellate authorities over decisions involving academic or
professional expertise.
16. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Registrar and
members of the Selection Committee is found wholly
unwarranted. The record does not disclose any act of mala
fide, bias, or procedural impropriety on their part. In Union of
India and Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in absence of proven
misconduct, no punitive directions can be sustained.
Moreover, the Registrar was not even a member of the
Selection Committee, and hence the adverse direction against
him was wholly misconceived.
17. The learned Single Judge also erred in treating the
writ petition as one in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.
Service-related disputes are purely personal and cannot be
entertained as PILs. This principle is conclusively laid down in
2025:UHC:9894-DB
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC
273, B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply &
Drainage Board Employees' Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731,
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655
and Girish Srivastava & Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2010) 10 SCC 707. The petitioner had no public cause or
representative capacity and was therefore not entitled to
invoke PIL jurisdiction.
18. Accordingly, both the Special Appeals are allowed,
the judgment and order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 764 of 2017, Shailendra
Kumar Singh v. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee &
others, is set aside, the selection and appointment of
appellant Pradeep Kumar Barve to the post of Junior
Technical Superintendent (Radiology) in IIT Roorkee is
upheld, and the directions pertaining to disciplinary
proceedings and imposition of costs are quashed.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
Mamta
