Gauhati High Court
Dipankar Das vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 21 June, 2022
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010052802017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7342/2017
DIPANKAR DAS
S/O SHRI LAKSHMI MOHAN DAS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF LUMDING
WARD NO. 1, ANANDAPALLY HOUSE NO. 619, P.O. LUMDING P.S.
LUMDING DIST. HOJAI PIN - 782447, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCE and DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SHASTRI
BHAWAN, C-WING, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:THE DIRECTOR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI
GOVT. OF INDIA
GUWAHATI- 781039
ASSAM
3:SHRI BHASKAR CHOUDHURY
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI
GOVT. OF INDIA
GUWAHATI - 781039
ASSAM
4:SHRI SUNIRMAL BHATTACHARJEE
ASSISTNAT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
GUWAHATI
GOVT. OF INDIA
GUWAHATI - 781039
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM
5:THE CHAIRMAN
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110002.
6:THE CHAIRMAN
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE)
NELSON MANDALA MARG
VASANT KUNJ
NEW DELHI-110060
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IIT
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
O R D E R
21.06.2022 Heard Ms. D Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3, Mr. S Sutradhar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner as well as the respondents No. 3 and 4 participated in a selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.11.2016 of the respondent IIT, Guwahati, for the two posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). The minimum qualification for the post as per the advertisement is Bachelor or equivalent degree in Engineering from a recognized University/Institute and that the candidate be below the age of 35 years.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bachelor degree qualification of the respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively are Page No.# 3/3 from the institutes called IASE and BITS Pilani, which are not recognized and secondly, the respondent No. 3 was above the age of 35 years.
4. Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 raises the counter contention that although initially the degree of the respondent No. 3 from IASE was not recognized, but the matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order had provided that the degree holders from the institute between the years 2001-2005 would be subjected to a further examination by the AICTE and if in such examination, the candidates come out successfully, their earlier degrees would be valid and acceptable under the law.
5. It is stated that in such process, the respondent No. 3 got his degree validated by appearing before the AICTE and successfully passed out. As regards the upper age limit of 35 years, it is contented by Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel that the respondent No. 3 was an internal candidate of the IIT, Guwahati having been earlier serving in the post of Senior Assistant Engineer and therefore, his upper age limit was condoned by the authority by exercising the enablement provided in the advertisement itself.
6. It is stated that Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel would lead the argument otherwise for the petitioner, but the learned counsel is unavailable today as he is unwell.
List the matter again on 28.06.2022 for a reply by Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant