The Tripura HC quashed Tripura University’s 2021 notification cancelling the Professor in Pharmacy recruitment process and directed the university to conduct the shortlisted candidate’s interview within two months, ruling the cancellation had no legal basis and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Tripura High Court has set aside Tripura University’s notification cancelling the long-pending recruitment process for the post of Professor in Pharmacy and directed the university to complete the selection by conducting the interview of the shortlisted candidate within two months. The court held that the university’s 2021 communication terminating the recruitment process had no legal foundation and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Biswajit Palit of the Tripura High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Dr. Biplab De, who had challenged the university’s decision to discontinue the recruitment process that had begun in 2016. The court observed that the notification issued by the Registrar of Tripura University on March 16, 2021, lacked any legal basis and therefore could not be sustained in law.
The recruitment process originated from an advertisement issued by Tripura University on May 5, 2016, inviting applications for several teaching positions, including one unreserved post of Professor in Pharmacy with specialization in Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Medicinal Chemistry. Dr. De, who is currently serving as Professor at the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (RIPSAT), applied for the position and was subsequently shortlisted for an interview scheduled for October 31, 2017.
However, the interview could not take place as planned after subject experts informed the university that they were unable to assess candidates because their areas of specialization did not correspond with the discipline mentioned in the advertisement. As a result, the university deferred the interview without announcing a revised schedule.
Following the postponement, Dr. De repeatedly submitted representations requesting the university to complete the recruitment process and hold the pending interview. Despite these representations, no interview was conducted. Instead, in March 2021, the university informed him that the recruitment process had been affected by the implementation of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation policy and the issuance of fresh recruitment advertisements.
Defending its decision before the High Court, Tripura University argued that the implementation of the EWS reservation policy and subsequent directions from the Union Government required the initiation of a fresh recruitment process. The university also contended that the writ petition had been filed after considerable delay.
The High Court, however, rejected both arguments. Justice Palit observed that the university failed to produce any official order or document demonstrating that the recruitment process initiated through the 2016 advertisement had ever been formally cancelled.
The court remarked that despite repeated submissions, the university could not substantiate its claim with documentary evidence. This absence of any formal cancellation order significantly weakened the university’s defence.
The judgment also highlighted that Tripura University had successfully completed recruitment for several other teaching posts advertised under the same 2016 notification. The court noted that appointments had been made against those vacancies, making the university’s contention that the entire recruitment process had been cancelled inconsistent and untenable.
Justice Palit further observed that the university could not indefinitely postpone the interview merely because suitable subject experts were unavailable. The court pointed out that the institution had the option of inviting experts from other states to ensure that the selection process was completed in a fair and timely manner but failed to do so.
The High Court further ruled that the university’s reliance on the EWS reservation policy was misplaced. It observed that the policy came into force only on February 1, 2019, nearly three years after the recruitment notification had been issued in 2016. Therefore, the reservation policy could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate an already initiated recruitment process.
Holding that the university’s March 16, 2021 communication violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law, the High Court quashed the notification in its entirety.
| Also Read: THRC Orders Revenue Probe into RTI Appeal Hearing Complaint |
In its final directions, the court ordered Tripura University to conduct Dr. Biplab De’s personal interview for the post of Professor in Pharmacy within two months from the date the university receives a copy of the judgment. The ruling brings significant relief to the petitioner after years of uncertainty and reinforces the principle that recruitment processes must be conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with established legal procedures. The judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent for ensuring accountability in public recruitment and preventing arbitrary administrative decisions affecting eligible candidates.
