JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Petitioner has challenged advertisement notice bearing No.NIT/Non-Teaching-Recruitment/2020/6(NT) dated 14.10.2020, issued by respondent No.3, whereby applications have been invited from eligible candidates for recruitment to certain non-teaching posts including the post of Assistant Librarian.

2. According to the petitioner he had participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Librarian that was initiated by the respondents pursuant to their earlier advertisement notice bearing No.04-F of 2018 dated 14.06.2018. It is the case of petitioner that after qualifying the written test, he along with five more candidates was shortlisted for interview which was scheduled to be held on 23.05.2019. It is averred that the petitioner appeared in the said interview and fared extremely well, as a result of which he was sure of his selection. It is contended that the respondents even after completing the selection process did not issue final select list which compelled the petitioner to file a representation dated 10.12.2019 but no action was taken by respondents on his representation. Ultimately the respondents instead of issuing the final select list, issued the impugned advertisement notice whereby the post of Assistant Librarian has been re-advertised.

3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of respondents on the ground that the issuance of fresh advertisement notice by respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable; that respondents are not justified in leaving the selection process midway and issue a fresh advertisement notice; that the respondents are bound to finalize the selection process in a time bound manner and, as such, abandoning the selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement notice of the year 2018 is unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, respondents have submitted that the minutes of the Selection Committee that was constituted pursuant to the issuance of advertisement notice of the year 2018 were placed in 99th Board of Governors meeting of respondent Institute for approval as Agenda Item No.08/99. It was observed by the Board of Governors that the Registrar of the Institute was not part of the Selection Committee which is a requirement as per the Statutes of National Institutes of Technology, as such, it was decided that a legal opinion be sought before issuing the appointment order in favour of the recommended candidate. The matter was, accordingly, taken up by the respondent Institute with two of its Standing Counsels and an opinion was received which was placed before the Board of Governors. The said opinion was considered by the Board of Governors and in terms of Resolution No.08/101 dated 19.10.2019, it was decided that the post of Assistant Librarian be re-advertised. Accordingly, the respondent Institute has issued the impugned advertisement notice.

5. In short, the contention of respondents is that constitution of the Selection Committee which undertook the selection process pursuant to the advertisement notice of 2018 was not in accordance with the provisions of National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 and the Statutes framed thereunder. It is contended that as per Clause 5 of Statute 23, the Selection Committee in the case of the post of Assistant Librarian must consist of Registrar of the Institute as well. However, in the present case, the Registrar of the Institute was not a part of the Selection Committee, as such, the Board of Governors decided not to take forward the selection process and to re-advertise the post. The respondents have taken a firm stand in their reply that the Selection Committee that was constituted to undertake selection process pursuant to the advertisement notice of 2018 did not