A Gauhati High Court Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi has quashed the appointment of the Director In-charge of IIT Guwahati, while condemning the bias and favouritism in play as the person appointed was ineligible.

In that context, the Court observed that, "The justification given by the respondent no. 3/4 for his decision is that the respondent no. 5 is younger, energetic and has many accomplishments to his credit. While such factors may look to be attractive, those are not amongst the relevant factors which are to be taken into consideration. When the respondent no. 5 was not even eligible for such appointment, the aforesaid factors would be extraneous. Further, all such factors are subjective in nature in which the element of bias and favouritism cannot be ruled out."

Counsel PK Goswami and Counsel BD Goswami appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocate RP Kakoti, CGC PS Bhattacharyya and Senior Advocate KN Choudhury appeared for the respondents.

In this case, a writ petition was filed where the principle issue was the appointment of the Director In-charge of IIT Guwahati, with a consequential concern regarding the regular appointment process for the Director's post.

The petitioner, a Professor at IIT Guwahati and the Deputy Director at the time, challenged the appointment procedure. The statutory rules did not provide for an In-charge Director. The procedure dated back to a 1962 Council meeting, allowing the Chairman of the Council, in consultation with the Chairman of the concerned Board of Governors, to make such appointments.

The petitioner alleged that the appointment of respondent no. 5 as In-charge Director in violation of the established procedures was the primary issue. The petitioner also contested the process for the regular Director's appointment. He made the categorical case that respondent no. 5 did not have an engineering background and was, therefore, not eligible for appointment.

On hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record, the Court noted that the appointment of the In-charge Director is to be made by the Chairman of the Council in consultation with the Chairman of the concerned Board of Governors. It was observed that clearly, such appointments were to be made from from three options namely, i) from the Deputy Director ii) the senior most Professor and iii) by giving the responsibility to the Director of another IIT.

With that background, the Court noted that, "In the instant case, while the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was the Deputy Director and was amongst the incumbents who could be considered for such appointment on Incharge basis, the respondent no. 5 was not even amongst the eligible candidates."

In the same vein, it was further said that, "Even if for argument's sake, the aforesaid contention is taken into consideration and the order dated 20.12.2022 issued by the Department of Higher Education is examined, the aspect of ineligibility of the respondent no. 5 will not get cured as he does not fall within the three categories from which a I/C Director can be appointed."

In light of the same, the authorities were directed to re-do the entire exercise e of shortlisting of candidates for the post of Director from amongst only the eligible candidates strictly in terms of the advertisement and the laws governing such appointment.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Cause Title: Prof. Sashindra Kumar Kakoty vs The Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Gauhati High CourtJustice Sanjay Kumar MedhiIIT Gauhati

Verdictum News Desk