IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of an In-charge Director must follow established procedures and guidelines, and any deviation from these norms, especially influenced by bias or favoritism, renders the appointment invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The principal issue involved in this writ petition is the appointment of the Director In-charge of the IIT Guwahati. The consequential issue is also with regard to the process of regular appointment to the said post of Director. The process adopted in the aforesaid recruitment has been assailed both on the ground of violation of the established norms as well as on the element of bias and favouritism.

2. The facts projected in the petition are that the petitioner is a Professor of the IIT Guwahati and at the relevant time was serving as the Deputy Director of the same. The post of Director had fallen vacant as the earlier Director was appointed elsewhere and there was a requirement to fill up the said post of Director on In-charge basis. The statutory rules holding the field do not contain any provision for appointment of In-charge Director. However, such procedure can be traced back to the First Meeting of the Council of the four numbers of IITs (as it was then) held on 25.05.1962. As per Item No. 7, the Chairman of the Council, which is the parent body, in consultation with the Chairman of the concerned Board of Governors, was to make such appointments. It may be mentioned that each of the IITs has got a Board of Governors.

3. It is contended that to make such appointments, three options are available, namely,

(i) to ask the Deputy Director (if in position) to take charge;

(ii) from the senior most Professor or;

(iii) Director of any other IIT to take additional responsibility.

It is the case of the petitioner that in violation of all the procedures laid down, the respondent no. 3/4 vide order dated 20.11.2022 had appointed the respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director with effect from 09.12.2022. Pursuant thereto, there were some communications and subsequently, vide an order dated 20.12.2022, a formal letter of appointment was issued in favour of the respondent no. 5 and he had joined on the same date. It is the aforesaid process of the appointment of the respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director which is the primary challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged the process of regular appointment of Director.

4. Though this writ petition was filed on 01.04.2023, in the meantime, there were further developments for appointment of the regular post of Director and the said developments were also brought to the notice of this Court.

5. I have heard Shri P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri B.D. Goswami, learned counsel. Shri P.S. Bhattacharya, learned C.G.C. appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 6. I have also heard Shri R.P. Kakoti, learned Senior Counsel for the IIT Guwahati assisted by Shri S. Sutradhar, learned counsel. Shri K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for the respondent nos. 3/4.

6. Shri Bhattacharya, the learned CGC has also produced certain information regarding the developments which have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition and such developments were also incorporated in an additionalaffidavit which filed on 10.10.2023.

7. Shri Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel has referred to the First Meeting of the Council of the four IITs held on 25.05.1962. By drawing the attention of this Court to Item No.7 of the said minutes of meeting which was in connection with the procedure to be laid down for appointment to the post of Director, a situation of the present nature has also been contemplated and a procedure has been laid down that such appointment is to be made by the Chairman of the Council in consultation with the Chairman of the concerned Board of Governors.

8. For ready reference, the relevant minute in Item No. 7 is extracted here in below :

“Item No. 7- To consider the question whether any procedure should be laid down for appointment to the post of Director [Section 17 (1)].

The Council decided that for regular appointments to the post, it should be advised by a Selection Committee consisting of the Chairma