Gauhati HC Upholds Cancellation Of IIT-G Appointment Over Unrecognised WILP Degree | Holds BITS Pilani Qualification Not Equivalent To B.E./B.Tech Under UGC Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi delivered a significant judgment holding that the appointment of a candidate to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) at the Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati (IIT-G), was invalid due to possession of a degree obtained through Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP) not recognized by statutory bodies. The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the earlier decision of the Single Judge which had invalidated the appointment on grounds of the degree being unrecognized under law. Simultaneously, the Division Bench set aside the part of the judgment directing appointment of the writ petitioner as the next meritorious candidate, citing expiration of the select list's validity.
The writ petition originated when the petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of two internal candidates for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) at IIT-G following an employment advertisement dated 25.11.2016. The petitioner, along with several others, had applied for the post. Six candidates were shortlisted, and four appeared for interviews held on 11.04.2017. Following the process, two candidates from within IIT-G were selected.
The appointments under challenge were of Bhaskar Choudhury and Sunirmal Bhattacharjee. The writ petitioner contended that both appointees did not possess valid qualifications. Specifically, Bhattacharjee held a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology from BITS, Pilani through the WILP mode, while Choudhury obtained a B.Tech (Civil) degree from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), a deemed university in Rajasthan, through distance education.
The petitioner contended that these modes of education were not recognized for technical degrees by either the UGC or the AICTE. As per the petitioner, the acceptance of such qualifications was in contravention of prescribed educational requirements and led to unfair exclusion of meritorious candidates from the selection process.
The matter was initially heard in W.P.(C) 7342/2017. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and invalidated Bhattacharjee's appointment. The judgment recorded that the BITS Pilani degree was not recognized by the UGC and AICTE and held that the candidate was not qualified under the advertisement's terms. The selection and appointment were declared "non est and invalid in law."
The aggrieved appointee, Sunirmal Bhattacharjee, filed an appeal numbered WA 350/2022, while IIT-G filed a connected appeal numbered WA 142/2023.
In his defense, Bhattacharjee's counsel argued that the employer, IIT-G, had the discretion to determine degree equivalency. They maintained that BITS, Pilani, as an Institution of Eminence, had autonomy in course design and that the WILP degree was valid. They also pointed out that the UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2017, granted BITS, Pilani the authority to issue degrees. The counsel stated that Bhattacharjee had already retired on 31.12.2022 and was receiving a reduced grade pay while his retiral benefits remained withheld, justifying continuation of the appeal.
Further, it was argued that the judgment was passed in the absence of BITS, Pilani as a party and that no challenge was made to the validity of the degree itself in the original writ petition.
On behalf of the writ petitioner, it was argued that internal candidates were granted undue preference and the degrees in question were not valid as per the notifications issued by UGC. The petitioner relied on UGC notification no. F.1-52/97 (CPPP-II) to contend that qualifications obtained through unapproved distance or off-campus modes could not be treated as equivalent to regular engineering degrees.
The UGC and AICTE, who were impleaded pursuant to court directions, filed affidavits supporting the petitioner’s stance. The UGC stated unequivocally that it never approved the WILP degree of BITS, Pilani, for technical education and that the Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology was not among its specified degrees under Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956. It also denied recognition to IASE for technical courses beyond the academic year 2007-08.
AICTE in its affidavit clarified that the WILP program of BITS, Pilani, was not approved. It termed the program a unique mode for working professionals conducted without AICTE approval. Though BITS may be a deemed university, it could not offer technical degrees without regulatory authorization.
The appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench. The Court considered arguments from all parties and perused the judgment of the Single Judge along with statutory materials, affidavits of UGC and AICTE, and relevant precedents cited.
The Court observed, "The appellant has not been able to dispel the stand of the UGC in its affidavit-in-opposition that the Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology of BITS, Pilani has never been a specified degree of UGC under Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and therefore, the said degree cannot be treated as a recognised degree."
It recorded, "The appellant has miserably failed to show that WILP form of off-campus education has been approved either by the UGC or by the AICTE."
Referring to the Single Judge's findings, the Court stated, "We concur with the said part of the decision by the learned Single Judge."
Addressing the argument that BITS, Pilani was not impleaded, the Court clarified, "The learned Single Judge has not declared all degrees granted by BITS, Pilani under WILP Mode to be invalid. However, it was held by the learned Single Judge that as per views and inputs by the AICTE and UGC, the qualification of Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology is not a recognised degree."
The Court analysed the precedents cited, particularly Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 468 and noted:
"No deemed university can start study centres/ franchises without prior approval of the UGC. Moreover, for starting any UGC approved degree course through distance mode, prior approval of the Distance Education Council is mandatory."
In evaluating the continued validity of the select list, the Bench referred to Ali Hossain Mandal v. State of West Bengal, 2024 INSC 453 and observed:
"A panel or a merit list cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity... When the panel expires or after the selection process is over with most posts being filled, the benefit of appointments cannot be given unless the panel's validity is legally extended."
Accordingly, the direction for granting appointment to the writ petitioner was held untenable. The Court stated, "After the appellant in W.A. 350/2022 had joined in the post... the validity of the select list dated 11.04.2017, had come to an end."
The Court stated that fresh recruitment was the only permissible method. "When the validity of the select list is lost, the only way that the post... can be filled up is by way of a fresh advertisement and selection process."
The Division Bench disposed of the appeals in the following terms:
"The appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 7342/2017, being W.A. 350/2022 and W.A. 142/2023, are partly dismissed by holding that the impugned judgment, holding that the appellant in WA 350/2022 did not have the minimum required qualification... as non-est and invalid in law, warrants no interference whatsoever."
Regarding the consequential benefit to the writ petitioner, the Court stated:
"However, both the appeals are partly allowed insofar as that part of the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 is concerned, whereby direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner, namely, Dipankar Das, is required to be construed to be the second candidate as per order of merit and provide for the consequential order and benefits, with further directing that a reasoned order be passed within a period of four months from the date of the order."
As a result, that portion of the Single Judge’s directive was set aside. The Court concluded:
"The writ petitioner, namely, Sri Dipankar Das [i.e. respondent no. 6 in W.A. 350/2022, and respondent no. 1 in W.A. 142/2023] is found entitled to a cost of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to be paid by the appellant in W.A. 142/2023 [i.e. Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, represented by its Registrar]. The said cost shall be paid within outer period of 45 (forty-five) days... failing which the same shall become recoverable in accordance with law."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Senior Advocate; Ms. N. Begum, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Medhi, CGC; Mr. S. Sutradhar, Advocate; Ms. J. Das, Advocate; Mr. A. Chamuah, Standing Counsel;
Case Title: Sunirmal Bhattacharjee v. Union of India and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:8059-DB
Case Number: WA 350/2022 and WA 142/2023
Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, Justice Malasri Nandi
[Read/Download order]
