Mandatory Minimum Experience Must be from Institues of Repute as Defined by MHRD Guidelines

The Petitioner, a Ph.D. holder since 2009, challenged the selection of Respondent No. 4 (Dr. Arvind Kumar Jain) for the post of Professor (Electrical Engineering) at NIT Agartala

Recruitment was conducted via a rolling advertisement dated 11.04.2022 and a subsequent notice dated 10.10.2023

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 lacked the mandatory work experience from an "institute of repute," specifically questioning his tenure at Rustamji Institute of Technology (a BSF-run self-financing institute)

Further, the Petitioner contended that his superior "credit points" (186.05 vs. 105) were ignored during final selection and that the 2023 Statutory Amendments should have applied

1. Whether the subsequent 2023 Amendment to the NIT Statutes applied to the recruitment process initiated in 2022

2. Whether higher credit points entitle a candidate to selection over another

3. Whether Respondent No. 4 satisfied the mandatory criteria of experience in an "institute of repute" as per MHRD clarifications

The Court applied Schedule "E" of the First Statutes of NIT (Amendment Statutes), 2017, which prescribes 10 years post-Ph.D. or 13 years total experience, including specific levels of Associate Professorship in an "institution of repute"

It relied on the "Rules of the Game" principle from Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, holding that eligibility criteria cannot be changed midway unless the rules permit

It followed Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, establishing that candidates participating in a process waive the right to challenge the methodology afterward

Regarding judicial review of expert selections, it cited Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, stating courts should not act as appellate bodies over selection committees

The Court clarified that while the 2023 Statutory Amendment did not apply retrospectively to the 2022 advertisement, the recruitment notice itself incorporated the MHRD clarification dated 04.12.2017, which mandates experience in an "institute of repute"

Regarding credit points, the court found that the advertisement explicitly stated points were only for "shortlisting" and did not guarantee final selection; thus, the Petitioner, having participated/failed, could not challenge this after the results

The court determined that whether this institution constitutes an "institute of repute" under MHRD guidelines is a technical matter requiring expert verification

It directed NIT Agartala to constitute an Expert Committee within two weeks to verify if Respondent No. 4 possessed the requisite experience from an "institute of repute" at the time of application; if the Committee finds Respondent No. 4 ineligible, his appointment must be cancelled