Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 438
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S. Datta Purkayastha, J
Debasish Datta – Appellant
Versus
National Institute Of Technology Agartala – Respondent
WP(C) No.308 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arijit Bhowmik, I. Chakma
For the Respondents: Somik Deb, A. Chakraborty
Public authorities may refine selection procedures mid-recruitment if reserved in the advertisement and applied uniformly. Candidates participating in a process with full knowledge of the procedures are estopped from challenging them after an unsuccessful outcome, especially if the process remains transparent and non-arbitrary.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Recruitment process - Selection for faculty position - Challenge to the introduction of a secondary short-listing criterion during the selection process - Court held that administrative authorities may devise appropriate, transparent, and non-arbitrary procedures to bring a recruitment process to its logical conclusion, provided such powers are reserved in the recruitment advertisement - If the recruiting body reserves the right to set higher norms for short-listing to meet specific departmental requirements, such procedures are legally valid provided they are applied uniformly and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness. (Paras 16, 26, 27)
(B) Recruitment Law - Principles of Estoppel and Suppression - A candidate who has full knowledge of the selection criteria and procedures, and participates in the process without protest, is estopped from challenging the legality of the procedure solely after failing to succeed - The principle of 'approbate and reprobate' prevents an unsuccessful candidate from questioning the selection process after having taken a calculated chance and participated therein - Suppression of material facts, such as failing to challenge or disclose relevant notices issued prior to an examination, warrants dismissal of the petition. (Paras 12, 14, 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a faculty position under an open advertisement. The recruiting body reserved the right to conduct written tests and verify documents, followed by presentations and interviews. A subsequent notification specified that candidates would be further screened based on their seminar presentation performance before being interviewed. The petitioner participated in the document verification and seminar presentation but was not called for the personal interview. The petitioner challenged the secondary short-listing process as an illegal change to the recruitment rules midway.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recruitment advertisement expressly reserved the institution's right to set higher norms than the minimum eligibility criteria and perform further short-listing. The secondary screening process was applied uniformly to all candidates and was not arbitrary. The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the criteria prior to participating and failed to challenge them before taking the assessment. The institutional procedure was found to be consistent with the authority's right to ensure merit-based selection.
Issues: The main issues were whether the introduction of a secondary evaluation stage mid-process violated the established rules of the game and whether a candidate who participates in a selection process is estopped from challenging its procedure after an unsuccessful result.
Ratio Decidendi: Administrative bodies possess the discretion to refine selection procedures during an ongoing recruitment process if the authority is reserved in the advertisement and the procedure is non-discriminatory. Furthermore, a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection is estopped from challenging the validity of the procedure upon receipt of an unfavorable result. Result : Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history of the recruitment process and petitioner's participation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. allegation that respondent illegally changed selection criteria midway. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. respondent's contention that selection terms were transparent and binding. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. assessment of recruitment advertisement terms, suppression of facts, and estoppel. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. authority to modify recruitment procedures and dismissal of petition. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
The National Institute Technology, Agartala, issued an advertisement dated 22.04.2022 for filling up the post of Assistant Professor (Grade-I) and Assistant Professor (Grade-II) in different disciplines. In the general instructions of such recruitment process as was published by NIT, it is mentioned at Sl. No.15 that written tests may be conducted for candidates in the specified department(s) for the post of faculty positions. It is further mentioned therein that based on the performance in the written test, candidates will be shortlisted for the subsequent selection process i.e. for presentation and interview, after the documents verification. The institute may, however, call candidates directly for presentation and interview, without any written test and in this regard, the decision of the institute shall be final and binding. The said clause under Sl. No.15 of the general instructions, as discussed above, is extracted hereunder:
“15. If required, written tests may be conducted for candidates in the specified department(s) for the post of faculty positions. The date and time may be found in the intimation mail sent to the candidates and also available in the recruitment website i.e. https://www.nita.ac.in. In that case, based on the performance in the Written Test, candidates will be shortlisted for the subsequent selection process i.e., Presentation and Interview after documents verification.
The Institute may, however, call the candidates directly for presentation and Interview, without any written test. With regard to the above, the decision of Institute shall be final and binding.”
[2] According to the petitioner, there were four stages of the said selection process with respect to the discipline of mathematics for which he applied and they are- written examination, document verification, presentation and interview. It is also asserted by him that he appeared in a written examination and qualified the same. His name was placed at Sl. No.97 of the merit list and he secured 77 marks out of total 120 marks.
[3] Thereafter, a notification was issued by the respondents on 25.04.2025 (Annexure 7) whereby dates of seminar presentations and document verification for the candidates of the discipline ‘Mathematics’ were scheduled on 28.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 and dates of interview were scheduled on 29.05.2025 and 30.05.2025. The list of candidates who were called for the seminar presentation followed by interview before the Selection Committee was also mentioned therein, wherein the roll number of present petitioner was also reflected under the discipline of mathematics. It was further mentioned therein that only those candidates who were recommended based on evaluation of the seminar presentation would be interviewed by the Selection Committee and the same procedure was made applicable to the shortlisted candidates for both pay level 10 and pay level 12. The petitioner was within the category of pay level 10. The relevant clause as mentioned in said notification (Annexure 7) is also extracted hereunder:
“The list of candidates being called for seminar presentation followed by interview by selection Committee is given below for pay level 10. It should be noted that only those candidates, who are recommended based on evaluation of seminar presentation will be interviewed by the selection Committee. This is applicable for shortlis
