Dr. Subhadeep Bhattacharjee vs National Institute of Technology(NIT) and 3 Ors.
- Court
- Tripura High Court
TRHC010005292024 2026:THC:721
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
A G A R T A L A
W.P(C) No.263 of 2024
Dr. Subhadeep Bhattacharjee,
Son of Late Renuj Mohan Bhattacharjee, resident of „Matrikutir‟, Akhaura
Road, PO – Ramnagar, PS-West Agartala, District, West Tripura, Pin-
799002.
............Petitioner(s);
V E R S U S
1. National Institute of Technology (NIT),
Agartala, represented by its Director, Barjala, Jirania, District – West
Tripura, Pin-799046.
2. The Director,
National Institute of Technology (NIT) (Chairman of Selection Committee),
Agartala, Barjala, Jirania, District – West Tripura, Pin-799046.
3. The Registrar,
National Institute of Technology (NIT), Agartala, Barjala, Jirania, District –
West Tripura, Pin-799046.
...... Official Respondent(s);
4. Dr. Arvind Kumar Jain,
Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of
Technology (NIT), Agartala, Barjala, Jirania, District – West Tripura, Pin-
799046.
...... Private Respondent(s);
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. S.G.I.,
Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. J. Ahmed, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 06.04.2026.
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 26.05.2026.
Whether fit for reporting :
YES NO
✔ √
Page 2 of 21
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
A rolling advertisement was issued by the National Institute of
Technology (NIT), Agartala on 11.04.2022 (Annexure 2) for filling up
different posts including post of Professor (Electrical Engineering) and in
continuation of that advertisement, another advertisement was later on
issued by NIT on 10.10.2023 (Annexure 4) for filling up the said posts of
Electrical Engineering and also of other disciplines. Experience and other
criteria for selection of faculty positions, according to advertisement, shall be
as per Schedule “E” of the First Statutes of NIT (Amendment Statutes),
2017 and subsequent clarifications received from Ministry of HRD, New
Delhi. In the second advertisement dated 10.10.2023, same clause was
again repeated.
[2] The statute of National Institute of Technology was once
amended on 21.07.2017 (Annexure 6) under the nomenclature „The First
Statutes of the National Institute of Technology (Amendment) Statutes,
2017. As per said statute, the required qualification for the post of Professor
as described is as follows:
“ten years after Ph.D. or thirteen years total working
experience, out of which seven years should be after Ph.D. At least
three years at the level of Associate professor with Academic Grade
Pay of Rs.9500 or four years at the level of Associate Professor with
academic Grade Pay of Rs.9000 or combination of Rs.9000 and
Rs.9500 or equivalent in an Institution of repute or Research &
Development lab or relevant industry.”
[3] Thereafter, another amendment was made vide notification
dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure-9) called as the First Statute of National
Institute Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2023 which replaced the
previous criteria of academic qualification in the following terms:
Page 3 of 21
(e)…………………..
(i)………………...
(ii) for entries in column (4), the following entries shall be
substituted, namely:-
“Ten years after Ph.D. or thirteen years total working
experience, out of which seven years shall be after Ph.D. and with
three years experience at the level of Associate Professor in Level-
th
13A2 of the Pay Matrix of the 7 Central Pay Commission or four
years at the level of Associate Professor in Level-13A1 or
combination of Level-13A1 and Level-13A2 or equivalent in an
Institution of repute or Research and Development lab or relevant
industry.”
[4] In said subsequent amendment of the statute also, against
serial No.8, the following were mentioned:
“(8) The qualifications and other terms and conditions of
appointment of academic staff as specified under Schedule „E‟ shall
be read in conjunction with the guidelines or clarifications issued
th th
with the approval of the Council on 13 September, 2017; 30
th st th
November, 2017; 4 December, 2017; 31 January, 2018; 20 April,
th
2018; and 16 April, 2019.
[5] On 30.11.2017, Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of Higher Education while answering to the clarifications sought
by some of the NITS regarding implementation of the Recruitment Rules,
stated that the total working experience/length of mandatory service
requirements could be combination of services in NITs & other Institute of
repute and in such cases, the Board may define the experience
proportionally. Further clarificatory note was also issued by them through
letter dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure 10) by replacing the same with the
words- “the total working experience/length of mandatory service
requirements as mentioned in above cited communications could be
combination of services in NITs & other Institute of repute” and there by the
words „in such cases, the Board may define the experience proportionally‟
was deleted.
Page 4 of 21
[6] On 16.04.2019 (part of Annexure 10), said MHRD Department
of Higher Education also issued further guidelines on the basis of
clarifications sought by NITs/faculties of NITs and the words „institute of
repute” was clarified in the following manner:
“7. Experience (including prior to implementation of NIRF) in
the following Institutions will be considered:
(i) Fully funded Central Educational Institutions
(ii) IIMS and other management Institutions ranked by NIRF upto
50 for any two years;
(iii) State Educational Institutions funded by respective State
Governments;
(iv) Other Educational Institutions ranked by NIRF upto 100 in
overall, Universities, Engineering, upto 50 for Pharmacy and 10 for
Architecture, for any two years.
However, with regard to recommendation on Institute of
repute, the BoGs of respective Institute may take a call on relaxing
the criteria, if needed, with recorded justification.”
[7] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel submits firstly that
the credit points which were scored by both the petitioner and the private
respondent i.e. respondent No.4 were not taken into consideration at the
time of final selection. According to him, the petitioner scored 186.05 credit
points whereas, the private respondent scored 105 credit points.
[8] The next issue as raised by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior
counsel is that the petitioner obtained Ph.D. degree on 08.07.2009
(Annexure 1) whereas the private respondent acquired Ph.D. degree on
08.02.2013 i.e. almost 4 years thereafter. Referring to personal-data of the
private respondent (Annexure 12), Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
submits that he worked as Associate Professor in the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Rustamji Institute of Technology, Border Security
Force (BSF) Academy, Tekanpur, Gwalior from 01.07.2013 to 24.04.2019
Page 5 of 21
which was not an institute of repute, as said institute is run as a self-
financing institute and it is neither a Centrally funded, nor, State funded. In
this regard, Mr. Roy Barman refers to an information downloaded from
website placed at Annexure 13. According to him, said Institute was never
ranked by NIRF upto 100 on any occasion. Learned senior counsel in this
regard tries to rely on one document published by National Institute Ranking
Framework, Ministry of Education under Annexure 15.
[9] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman, further referring to
the documents filed with additional affidavit of the petitioner submits that
Border Security Force Education Fund which runs Rustamji Institute of
Technology is an unaided, private and self-financing institute and from time
to time approval was given to said institute by All India Council for Technical
Education and last approval as was given for the academic year 2021-22
showed that it still remains private and self-financing institute.
[10] Learned senior counsel also refers to affidavit sworn by one
S.S. Dabas, DIG (Welfare) affirming that the BSF Schools being run by the
BSF Education Fund Society, are not getting any aid from government or
any other government agency and the source of income of BSF Education
Fund is voluntary contribution by BSF Jawans and fees collected from
students.
[11] It is also submitted by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
that though initial rolling advertisement was issued on 11.04.2022
(Annexure 4) and the petitioner applied against said advertisement and the
private respondent applied for the said post of Professor in pursuance of
Page 6 of 21
advertisement dated 10.10.2023, but their selection process was taken up
after the second advertisement was issued in 2023.
[12] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel therefore contends
that the terms and conditions as embodied in advertisement dated
10.10.2023 will be applicable in cases of both the parties and as such, the
notification dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure 9) by which said First Statute was
amended, will applicable in the case along with other related notifications
issued in relation thereto. Thus, according to Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Roy
Barman, as per the said amended statute dated 17.07.2023 read with the
instruction dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure 10), the total required experience of
ten years or thirteen years, as the case may be, should be from a institute of
repute, which according to the petitioner, the private respondent is not
having.
[13] Referring to notification dated 21.07.2017 (Annexure 6), Mr.
Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further submits that the determination
of credit points has got certain statutory flavour and therefore, at the time of
final selection, such points ought to have been taken into consideration.
Learned senior counsel also refers to instruction No.12 of faculty recruitment
notice dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure 4) and submits that said condition was
inserted by the recruiting authority in contradiction to the statute.
[14] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further argues that the
selection was made only on the basis of performance made in the
presentation and interview but no specific guidelines were earlier notified by
the selection committee that the final selection will be made only on the
basis of assessment made in the said presentation and interview.
Page 7 of 21
[15] Regarding credit points, learned senior counsel refers to letter
dated 16.04.2019 wherein clarification was issued on cumulative effect of
credit points mentioning that the points which are now non-exhaustible, in
the existing RRs (2017), are described hereunder:
Decision
Sl.
No
Activity Credit points
1. One external sponsored R&D
Projects completed or ongoing/
patent granted
8 / project or 8/ patent as inventor (in
case of more than one person in a
Project, the Principal Investigator gets 5
credit points and the rest to the divided
equally among other members)
2. Consultancy projects 2 Credit points @ Rs.5 lakhs of
consultancy, subject to maximum of 10
Credit points
3 Ph. D completed (including thesis
submitted cases)
8 per Ph.D. student. (In case there are
more than one supervisor, then the
st
Guide (1 Supervisor) gets 5 credit
points per student and the rest to be
divided equally among other supervisor
(s).
4. One Journal papers in SCI/
Scopus (Paid Journals not allowed)
4 per paper since the last promotion.
First author/ Main supervisor will get 2
and rest will be divided among others.
21. Fellow FNA, FNAE, FASc, FNASc 10 credit points
[16] In light of said clarification, according to the learned senior
counsel, the credit points have got certain statutory flavour as clarification
was given on the statute of NIT itself and thus, at the time of final evaluation
of candidature, said credit point ought to have been taken into
consideration. He also referred in this regard clause 8 of notification dated
17.07.2023 i.e. the amendment of the First Statute, 2023 (Annexure-9)
wherein the followings are noted :
“8 The qualifications and other terms and conditions of appointment
of academic staff as specified under Schedule „E‟ shall be read in
conjunction with the guidelines or clarifications issued with the approval of
th th th
the Council on 13 September, 2017; 30 November, 2017; 4 December,
st th th
2017; 31 January, 2018; 20 April, 2018; and 16 April, 2019.”
Page 8 of 21
[17] Learned senior counsel continues to argue that the relevant
statues or the statutory provisions were not followed in the selection
process, and such grievance can be agitated by a candidate at any stage
and even after the final selection list is published. In this regard, learned
senior counsel also relies on a decision of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in
case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai versus State of Bihar and others [(2019)
20 SCC 17] wherein it was observed as follows:
“17. However, we must differentiate from this
principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate
in the selection process only accepts the prescribed
procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a
candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and
discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same
cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has
partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and
its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a
candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable
illegality or derogation of the provisions of the
Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection
process.”
[18] According to Learned senior counsel, the amendment of statute
of 2023 did not change the criteria of the required qualifications and
experience, rather it only clarified the same.
[19] Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel firstly submits that in the
first advertisement issued on 11.04.2022 (Annexure-2) and the second
recruitment notice was issued on 10.10.2023 (Annexure 4) and there was
no significant change in the second advertisement regarding requisite
qualifications and experience. However, between these two advertisements,
some amendments were made to the First Statute under the nomenclature
“the First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (Amendment)
Page 9 of 21
Statues, 2023” (Annexure-9) wherein above said clause- 8 regarding
applicability of guidelines or clarification issued by the council on
13.09.2017, 30.11.2017, 04.12.2017, 31.01.2018, 20.04.2018 and
16.04.2019 were inserted.
[20] According to learned counsel, Mr. Deb, said clarificatory note
will not be applicable in the present recruitment process as consciously the
NIT authority kept that applicability of that amended provisions of First
Statute of 2023 out of consideration. Learned senior counsel contends that
if the amended provisions were applied in relation to the rolling
advertisement, there will be two sets of applicants, one being guided by the
pre-amended position when they applied in pursuance to the first
advertisement, 2022 and another set of applicants who applied in
pursuance of the second advertisement issued in the year 2023 after the
2023 amendment had come into force. Thus, according to learned senior
counsel, the NIT authority for that reason consciously in their second
advertisement did not incorporate all these notifications or clarifications as
mentioned in said clause 8 of the amendment of 2023.
[21] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb, submits that nowhere in the
writ petition, it has been asserted by the petitioner that amendment of 2023
of the First Statute was wrongly not considered by the NIT, or that they did
not follow the clarificatory letters issued by the NIT council as being relied
upon by the petitioner. Therefore, such plea cannot be raised during
hearing.
[22] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb, also relies on a decision of
Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others
Page 10 of 21
versus Rajasthan High Court and others [(2025) 2 SCC 1] wherein the
followings were laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court:
“65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the
following terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the
issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and
ends with filling up of vacancies;
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select
list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment
process, cannot be changed midway through the
recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or
the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant
Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under
the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would
have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good
law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash
Chander Marwaha. Subash Chander Marwaha deals with
the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K.
Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select
list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different
issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules,
may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the
recruitment process to its logical end provided the
procedure so adopted is transparent, non-
discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved;
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding
on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and
eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or
silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible
right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for
bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies.
However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality
cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the
zone of consideration in the select list.”
Page 11 of 21
[23] According to Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Deb, the eligibility criteria
which was placed in the recruitment process actually commenced in the
year 2022, cannot be changed midway by taking note of the amendments of
the Statutes made in 2023.
[24] In the statute of NIT of 2023, under clause G, according to
learned senior counsel, certain amendments were proposed whereby sub-
clause 8 was also inserted for the first time which was not present in the
earlier Schedule E after clause-7. Therefore, if it was the intention of the
statute maker to incorporate all these notifications or clarifications as
mentioned in clause 8 in the Amendment of the First Statute of 2017 itself,
certainly there would have been no necessity of incorporation of such
specific clause later on. Therefore, said sub-clause 8 which was inserted
only by said amendment of 2023, cannot be applied in the present
recruitment process and thus, the letters issued on 04.12.2017 (Annexure-
10) , 30.11.2017 , 13.09.2017 , 06.10.2017 , 17.11.2017 and 16.04.2019 will
not be applicable in the present recruitment process.
[25] Referring to the Schedule E of the statute regarding required
qualifications for the post of Professor, learned senior counsel submits that
the private respondent obtained his Ph.D on 08.02.2013. Therefore, when
the advertisement was issued in 2023, he had already completed 10 years
of service. Even he joined NIT, Agartala on 29.04.2019 in the post of
Associate Professor with academic grade pay of Rs.9,500/- per month and
had completed more than three years of service when he laid his
candidature for the said post. Therefore, according to learned senior
counsel, the bar of working in an institute of repute will not be applicable in
his case, rather, it applies to the case of those persons who are required to
Page 12 of 21
show four years of work experience at the level of Associate Professor with
academic grade pay of Rs.9,500/- or a combination of Rs.9,000/- and
Rs.9,500/- or equivalent in an institute of repute.
[26] Mr. Deb, Learned senior counsel also argues that when
advertisement was issued on 11.04.2022 and subsequently on 10.10.2023,
there was no mention that the amendment of the statute of 2023 would be
made applicable in said selection process, nor it was feasible to apply the
same, and the applicants who participated in the selection process, were
also not aware that the amended provisions of statute of 2023 would be
applied to their cases, therefore, the petitioner cannot now resort to what
has been provided in the amended statute of 2023. Being fully aware of the
relevant Statutes and notifications which are being applied in the selection
process, he participated in the selection process, and now he cannot take a
different stand. In this regard, learned senior counsel also relies on a
decision of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Shah
and others versus Anil Joshi and others [(2013) 11 SCC 309] wherein
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:
“24. In view of the propositions laid down in the
above noted judgments, it must be held that by having
taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge
that the recruitment was being made under the General
Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question
the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the
Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave
error by entertaining the grievance made by the
respondents.”
[27] Learned Deputy SGI, Mr. B. Majumder, argues that before
selection of the candidates, the Selection Committee was duly constituted
Page 13 of 21
as per statute and after holding the selection process, the committee
recommended names of the successful candidates for the post of Professor
pursuant to which the NIT appointed him. The Selection Committee also
found that the petitioner was not fit for the said post. According to learned
Deputy SGI, NIT cannot go beyond what is decided by the Selection
Committee. Moreover, there is no challenge from the side of petitioner that
the Selection Committee was not properly constituted by the NIT and there
is also no allegation of bias against the said Selection Committee in
selecting proper candidate.
[28] Learned Deputy SGI, Mr. B. Majumder, in this regard, relies on
a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke,
etc. etc. versus Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc. [AIR 1990 SC 434] wherein it is
observed by the Apex Court that the Court is not to sit in appeal over the
decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the
relative merits of the candidates. It is not the function of the Court to hear
the appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to
scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates.
[29] Learned Deputy SGI, Mr. B. Majumder, also relies on another
decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and
others versus Bikash Kuanar [(2006) 8 SCC 192] wherein the followings
were observed:
“14. When a Selection Committee recommends
selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to
have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any
allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in
regard to the correctness of the official act. The party who
makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to
prove the same. In the instant case, no such allegation was
Page 14 of 21
made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated.
No illegality was brought to our notice. In this view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that the said Pitamber Majhi
by reason of higher marks obtained by him in the
matriculation examination also cannot be said to be a
better candidate than the respondent herein. In this view of
the matter, we do not find any fault with the impugned
judgment of the High Court.”
[30] Taking note of the contentions of the parties and the relevant
documents referred by them including the judicial pronouncements, the
Court now proceed to examine the issues placed by the parties before it.
Admittedly the advertisements are rolling advertisements for filing up the
posts of Professor and Associate Professor and these are not separate or
independent advertisement. In the first advertisement dated 11.4.2022
(Annexure-2) (hereinafter referred as the first advertisement ), it is mentioned
that the desired qualification, experience and other criteria shall be as per
Schedule – E of the First Statutes of NIT (Amendment Statues, 2017). The
petitioner applied for the said post in response to said first advertisement.
[31] Another advertisement in continuation of said first
advertisement was issued by NIT on 10.10.2023 similarly for filing up of
vacant posts of professor (hereinafter referred as the second advertisement )
wherein also it is noted that the candidates who have already applied
through rolling advertisement dated 11.4.2022, need not to apply again,
however they are allowed to update their information, if any, using their
earlier login credential. In this advertisement, in respect of required
academic qualification, it is similarly mentioned that same would be as per
Schedule-E of the First Statues of NIT (Amendment Statues, 2017) and
subsequent clarifications received from the Ministry of HRD, New Delhi and
the details are available in the website ( http://www.nita.ac.in/ ). This
Page 15 of 21
„ subsequent clarification….. ‟ as mentioned above is the new inclusion in the
second advertisement. The private respondent no.4 applied for the post of
professor in response to this second advertisement.
[32] As per the first advertisement, the required qualification as
mentioned in Schedule E is –
“ ten years after Ph.D. or thirteen years total working
experience, out of which seven years should be after Ph.D.
At least three years at the level of Associate Professor with
Academic Grade Pay of Rs.9500 or four years at the level of
Associate Professor with Academic Grade pay of Rs.9000
or combination of Rs.9000 and Rs.9500 or equivalent in an
Institution of repute or Research Development lab or
relevant industry .”
[33] Same criteria is contained in the second advertisement too. As
indicated earlier, before the second advertisement was issued, some
amendments were brought into force namely “The First Statutes of National
Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2023 which came into force
w.e.f. 17.7.2023 i.e. few months prior to the publication of the second
advertisement. In this amendments, at statue no.2, it is envisaged that in the
First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology (hereinafter referred to
as the principal Statutes), in Statute 1, in sub-statute (1), for the words “ The
First Statutes of the National Institutes of Technology ”, the words and figures
“ The National Institute of Technology, Agartala Statutes, 2017 ” shall be
substituted. Now, one of the controversy between the parties is whether
said subsequent amendment of 2023 can be applied in case of second
advertisement or not. The petitioner relies on this Amendment of 2023
whereas according to the private respondent, said amendment was
consciously excluded from its application while second advertisement was
issued. The second advertisement clearly depicts that the detailed
Page 16 of 21
qualification, experience and other criteria for selection of faculty position
shall be as per the „Schedule E‟ of the First Statute of NIT (Amendment
Statutes, 2017)(Ref. Gazette of India dated July, 24, 2017) and the
subsequent clarifications received from the Ministry of HRD, New Delhi,
details of which are available on the website. Nowhere in this second
advertisement, the NIT has stated that the Statue as was published on
17.7.2023 in the official gazette i.e. The National Institute of Technology,
Agartala Statutes, 2017 shall be applied. Therefore, the Amendment of the
Statutes of NIT of 2023 will have no application in the case in hand.
[34] In the said amended statute of 2023, against statute no.8, it has
been incorporated that the qualifications and other terms and conditions of
appointment of academic staff as specified under Schedule E shall be read
in conjunction with the guidelines or clarifications issued with the approval of
the Council on 13.9.2017, 30.11.2017, 04.12.2017, 31.1.2018, 20.4.2018
and 16.4.2019. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Roy Barman laid much emphasis on
this statute and the related clarification issued under above said guidelines,
more particularly the letter dated 4.12.2017 (Annexure-10) issued by MHRD
wherein it was clarified that the total working experience/length of mandatory
service could be combination of services in NITS and other Institute of
repute. Said clarification was issued in partial modification of earlier letter
dated 30.11.2017. There said Statute no.8 or said letter dated 4.12.2017
cannot be applied herein by virtue of said amendment of 2023, unless the
same is otherwise made applicable.
[35] There is no dispute between the parties regarding educational
qualifications of the petitioner or of the respondent no.4. They possess
requisite academic qualification. The petitioner is basically disputing with the
Page 17 of 21
working experience of the respondent no.4. Both in the first advertisement
(Annexure-2) against instruction no.33 as well as in the second
advertisement (Annexure-4) against the instruction no. 32, it is clearly stated
that said communication bearing no. 33-9/2011- TS.III dated 4.12.2017
(Annexure-10) for implementation of recruitment rules for faculties of NITs
and IIEST will be followed. The said instruction no.33 or no.32 above, for
clarity of discussion, is reproduced hereunder:
“32. MoE notification F.No.33-9/2011-TS.III dated: 04-
12-2017 for implementation of recruitment rules for faculty of
NITs and IIEST will be followed .”
[36] Thus, even if said Amended Statute of 2023 or Statute no.8
thereof are not applicable in respect of the present recruitment process, still
as per the terms and conditions of said second advertisement, said
clarification of MHRD dated 4.12.2017 is made applicable by the recruitment
authority.
[37] Thus, as per said clarificatory communication dated 4.12.2017,
the total working experience/length of mandatory service of a candidate
should be combination of services in NITs and other Institute of repute.
[38] It is the specific challenge of the petitioner that respondent no.4
did not have the requisite total experience from any institute of repute. In this
regard, he also relies on a communication of MHRD dated 16.4.2019
wherein at clarification no.7, the “Institute of repute” has been explained by
the MHRD in the following manner-
“i) Fully funded Central Educational Institutes, ii) IIMs
and other management institutions ranked by NIRF upto 50
for any two years, iii) State Educational institutions funded by
respective State Governments, iv) Other Educational
Institutions ranked by NIRF upto 100 in overall, Universities,
Engineering, upto 50 for pharmacy and 10 for architecture, for
Page 18 of 21
any two years. However, with regard to recommendation on
institute of repute, the BoG of respective institute may take a
call on relaxing the criteria, if needed, with recorded
justification .”
[39] As per pleading of the respondent no.4, he completed his Ph.D.
from IIT, Kanpur on 8.2.2013 in Electronic Engineering. Therefore, when
second advertisement was issued, he already completed 10 years of
service. According to him, initially he joined as Lecturer w.e.f.17.4.2000 at
Rustamji Institute of Technology, an institute of BSF, Tekanpur, Gowalior,
MP. From 18.4.2006 he was moved to the higher post of Lecturer (Senior
Scale) under CAS benefit and from 1.7.2011 he was moved to the next
higher post of Assistant Professor with academic grade pay of Rs.8,000/- in
said institute. Then he was appointed as Associate Professor from 1.7.2013
in the pay scale of Rs.37,400 - Rs.67,000/- with grade pay of Rs.9,000/- and
on 29.4.2019 he joined the NIT, Agartala as Associate Professor with the
pay scale of Rs.1,39,600 – 2,11,300/- with AGP Rs.9,500/-, Pay level-13 A-2
th
(7 CPC).
[40] The petitioner, to establish his claim that said Rustamji Institute
of Technology is not an institute of repute, has also relied on some
documents such as the approval process 2021-22 of All India Council for
Technical Education (for short, AICTE) wherein it is mentioned that Rustamji
Institute of Technology is a private and self-financing institution. In the last
AICTE approved institution in Engineering and Technology for the academic
year 2023-24 also said Rustamji Institute of Technology has been shown as
private and self –financing institution. The petitioner also submitted copy of
one affidavit sworn by one Mr. S. S. Dabas, DIG (Welfare), BSF, dated
25.04.2024 (Annexure-C) wherein he has affirmed that the BSF Schools
being run by the BSF Education fund Society are not getting any aid from
Page 19 of 21
Government or any other Government Agency. The source of income of
BSF Education fund is voluntary contribution by BSF Jawans and fee
collected from students. According to the petitioner, the said institution also
is not ranked by NIFR up to 100 for two years or on any occasion. In this
regard, the Court feels that the matter as to whether said Rustamji Institute
of Technology is an institute of repute or not and whether, the respondent
no.4 has requisite working experience in terms of said communication dated
4.12.2017 are required to be verified by an expert committee.
[41] The next point of argument of the petitioner was that the credit
points as earned by a candidate should be taken into consideration at the
time of final selection. As stated earlier, the petitioner earned credit points of
186.05 which was much higher than the requisite credit point of 80 and the
private respondent also earned only 106 credit points which is much lesser
than the credit points of the petitioner . However, it appears from the first
advertisement that in the requisite chapter of general instructions of said
advertisement, against serial no.12, it is clearly stipulated that essential
qualification, requirements and credit points are the minimum criteria only for
deciding the eligibility and this shall not ensure shortlisting for further
selection process. The Institute reserves rights to set higher criteria for
shortlisting and mere fulfilling the prescribed conditions would not entitle the
candidates to be called for presentation and interview. A similar clause is
also incorporated in the second advertisement. The petitioner consciously
participated in the selection process, fully aware of the terms and conditions
of such selection, and therefore, he cannot challenge now the same by
claiming that the credit points should be taken into consideration in the final
selection. Moreover, nothing could be shown from the side of the petitioner
Page 20 of 21
that it is obligatory for the recruitment authority to consider such credit points
at the time of final selection. Thus, such claim of the petitioner cannot be
entertained.
[42] However, in the light of the discussions made above, the Court
is of the view that when there are prima facie materials placed by the
petitioner in support of his claim that the respondent no.4 does not possess
requisite working experience for his selection in the post of Professor, same
is required to be re-examined by an expert committee.
[43] In view of above, the instant writ petition is partly allowed.
Respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are directed to constitute an expert committee of
not less than three members, within 2 weeks of receipt of copy of this
judgment, to examine whether the respondent no.4 possessed requisite
working experience in terms of the First Statute of National Institute of
Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2017 and other applicable instructions
as issued by MHRD including said MoE notification F.No.33-9/2011-TS.III
dated: 04-12-2017, at the time of submission of his candidature for the post
of Professor.
The petitioner in this regard shall submit a representation with
all the necessary documents, within said two weeks of receipt of copy of this
judgment to the respondent no.3, which he intends to rely upon to fortify his
claim that the respondent no.4 did not possess such required working
experience or that as per the guidelines, said Rustamji Institute of
Technology is not an Institute of repute. It is also clarified that the expert
committee will examine this limited issue only and no other issue or dispute
Page 21 of 21
shall be entertained by the said respondents or by the expert committee
which are already decided in this writ petition.
However, on submission of such representation by the
petitioner in this regard, the respondent no.4 will have the liberty to place his
defence with necessary documents, if any, to be relied upon by him, to the
respondent no.3 within two weeks of receipt of copies of said representation
and document(s) of the petitioner.
Thereafter, said committee will decide the said issue within one
month, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner
and respondent no.4, if they so desire.
If, on receipt of the report of the expert committee, it is found
that the respondent no.4 did not have the requisite working experience at the
time of his filing of candidature, his appointment shall be cancelled.
With such observations and directions, the instant writ petition is
disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SUJAY GHOSH
Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2026.05.26 17:24:25 +05'30'
Munna