Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 757
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Dr. Satyajit Das, S/o. Prof. (Dr.) Manmohan Das – Appellant
Versus
The Gauhati University, Rep. By The Vice Chancellor And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.2348 Of 2020
Decided On : 27-06-2025
For the Appellant :Shri Y.S. Mannan, Advocate, MS. M. Bhattacharyya.
For the Respondents:Shri PJ Phukan, SC, Gauhati University, Shri D Mahanta, Advocate, R/5.
The court upheld the validity of applying UGC Regulations from 2010 for recruitment, affirming that criteria must be based on regulations in effect at the time of application submission.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment process challenge - Petitioner, holding a Ph.D. in Folklore, contested non-selection for the post of Assistant Professor at the University despite qualifications aligning with UGC norms. Court ruled that the University correctly applied UGC Regulations from 2010, prevailing at the application submission time, dismissing the petitioner's claims regarding the 2018 Regulations. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 16, 20)
(B) Recruitment Procedure - University obligations - Selection adhered to UGC standards for academic quality ensuring candidates meet set criteria. Decisions should not be challenged post facto unless fraud or significant irregularity is demonstrated. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner applied for Assistant Professor position based on qualifications and experience, yet was excluded from the interview process held in March 2020. University cited 'Weak Academic Career' for rejection, which the petitioner contested leading to this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
Court found that the selection adhered to the relevant regulations, thus ruling out claims based on later amended guidelines. The criteria set were deemed valid and necessary to uphold academic standards.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around the applicability of UGC Regulations and the grounds for the petitioner's non-selection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that regulations in effect at the time of recruitment govern the selection process, dismissing arguments based on newly adopted guidelines. The criteria established by the Executive Committee were upheld as legitimate and appropriate.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to recruitment process by appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's qualifications and lack of consideration. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner argues qualifications meet criteria. (Para 6) |
| 4. regulatory framework and its application by university. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. defendant's opposition and credential arguments. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. response to accusations and process validity. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. court's analysis on regulation applicability. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. case dismissal and conclusion. (Para 20) |
Judgment :
(SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.)
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging a recruitment process initiated by the respondent-Gauhati University for filling up of the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore Research.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner claims to be a Ph.D. degree holder in Folklore having M.Phil. degree and has also got the qualification of NET from the Gauhati University. The petitioner had completed his Masters from Tejpur University and has also got teaching experience.
3. An Advertisement was published by the respondent-Gauhati University on 04.12.2015 for filling up of the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore Research. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied and though not having the Ph.D. degree, he was called for the interview but was not selected. Thereafter, in the year 2016, the petitioner had obtained the Ph.D. degree. Subsequently, the impugned recruitment process was initiated vide the advertisement dated 12.06.2018 and the petitioner, who claims to be qualified in all respects, had applied for the said post.
4. It is contended that the desirable qualification was Master of Music or equivalent and the petitioner had the aforesaid qualification and was eligible as per the UGC norms. It is the contention of the petitioner that though he had duly applied, there was long silence from the respondent-University and on an enquiry made after about a year, he came to know that the interview was held on 14.03.2020 in which, he was not called for. It is the aforesaid action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
5. It may be mentioned that when the writ petition was filed, the aspect of selection and appointment did not surface and subsequently, the selected candidate has been included as party respondent no. 5 vide the order dated 06.12.2021 of this Court passed in IA(C)/2013/2021. However, there was no amendment of the writ petition, as such and accordingly, the appointment of the respondent no. 5 is not the specific matter of challenge.
6. I have heard Shri YS Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri PJ Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University as well as Shri D Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
7. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has all the qualifications for being considered for such appointment. He submits that when the petition was instituted in the year 2020, many facts had emerged subsequently, which the petitioner could know from the materials placed on record. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent-University on 29.11.2021, the learned counsel has submitted that the reason for the rejection which appears from the remarks is “Weak Academic Career” and accordingly, the petitioner was held to be not fulfilling the criteria of the Executive Committee for being shortlisted.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 24.01.2022 in which, the UGC Regulation, 2018 has been referred to and relied upon. Clause 3.1 of the said Regulation has been pressed into service, which reads as follows:
“The direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in the Universities and Colleges, and Senior Professor in the Univ
