Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 550
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Nich Bapu - Appellant
Versus
The Rajiv Gandhi University and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No.401 of 2024
Decided On : 12-02-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Tar Torum, J Jasmine, N Tate,Tayum Son Advocate
For the Respondent: Regum Nabam, S/C RGU
The court determined that recruitment processes may evolve from established rules to merit-based criteria, particularly for higher positions, and recognized no vested rights under prior rules unless formally repealed.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment process - Challenge to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Registrar on grounds of non-adherence to Recruitment Rules and guidelines issued by UGC - Impugned notification questioned primarily based on the requirement of written tests for promotional appointments. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 10)
(B) Employment Law - Seniority-cum-fitness - The process of filling vacancies in the promotional segment must align with established procedures as per the Rules of 2015 unless duly repealed - No vested right exists for promotion under repealed Rules. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been a Section Officer at Rajiv Gandhi University for over 20 years. The recent advertisement issued on 28.08.2024 mandated a written test for the post of Assistant Registrar which the petitioner alleges contradicts established procedures requiring seniority-based promotions.
Findings of Court:
The advertisement for the Assistant Registrar post was upheld as it followed revised recruitment processes permitted by competent authorities, dismissing the writ petition for lack of merit.
Issues: The essential issue centered around whether the recruitment process violated existing rules and guidelines, especially regarding the necessity of a written test for promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that the evolution of recruitment regulations permits modifications to the promotion criteria, especially when adhering to merit principles for higher positions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of posts must align with established rules. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding recruitment rules and processes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on promotional criteria and recruitment method. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's dismissal of the petition and order for expeditious recruitment. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in connection with an Advertisement published on 28.08.2024 by the respondent No. 3 for filing up, amongst others, for the post of Assistant Registrar in the Rajiv Gandhi University.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner has been working for the last more than 20 years as a Section Officer in the Rajiv Gandhi University (for short, ‘RGU’). As per the existing procedure, the post of Assistant Registrar are to be filled up both by direct recruitment and by promotion in the 50-50 ratio. As per the earlier Rules 2015 of the University, the post of Assistant Registrar by way of promotion was to be filled up by seniority. However, in the impugned notification/ Advertisement dated 28.08.2024 there is a prescription of a written test which according to the petitioner is not in accordance with the Rules. It is also contended that no new Recruitment Rules have been framed, the Model Rules of 2022 cannot be taken into consideration with a proper permission from the University Grant Commission (for short, ‘UGC’) .
3. I have heard Shri T. Torum, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri R. Nabam, learned Standing counsel for the RGU.
4. Shri Torum, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a communication was issued by the Ministry of Human Resource, Govt. of India dated 13.08.2015 as per which, no selection process was to be initiated within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of retirement of the Heads/Chairman of the Organization. He has submitted that the existing Vice Chancellor was appointed on 04.10.2018 for a period of 5(five) years and one year was extended. After the extended period, his term would have expired on 30.10.2024. Therefore, the Advertisement dated 28.08.2024 which has been issued within 2 (two) months from the date of such expiry of term is in conflict with the aforesaid guidelines. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court that the UGC had directed vide a communication dated 14.08.2015 to frame Recruitment Rules, wherein, the aspect of the interview should not be added. He has also submitted that in a communication of November 2017, it has been specifically clarified that for the promotional segment of the post of Assistant Registrar such promotion has to be made on the basis of seniority and written test cannot be held. The learned counsel has submitted that in this case there is an interim order which is operating and therefore, the petition may be allowed with a direction to carry out the selection process on the basis of Seniority-cum-fitness as prescribed in the Rules of 2015.
5. Per contra, Shri Nabam, the learned Standing Counsel for the University has submitted that projection made is incorrect both on facts and law. He has informed that the RGU has as many as 5 (five) numbers of sanctioned post of Assistant Registrar and going by the ratio of 50-50 for direct recruitment and promotion, 2 (two) persons have already been appointed on direct recruitment basis. Out of the 3 (three) posts on promotional quota, one had fallen vacant, for which the Advertisement was issued on 28.08.2024.
6. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned Standing Counsel for the University has referred to a communication dated 27.09.2022 issued by the UGC to all the Registrar of the Central University on the aspect of formation of a Model Cadre Recruitment Rules. He has also submitted that so far as the Rules of 2015 are concerned, those were rejected by the UGC and i
