Page No.# 1/13 GAHC040009272023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/324/2023 Dr. Satish Kumar Son of Late Badri Nath, PO and PS Rehari, District Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir. Mobile No. 9419124218 VERSUS The Secretary and 3 Ors. University Grant Commission, Ministry of Human Resources, Govt. of India. 2:The Vice-Chancellor cum Chairman Executive Council Age: 0 Occupation : Rono Hills Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Registrar Age: 0 Occupation : Rajiv Gandhi University Rono Hills Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The HOD/DEAN Age: 0 Occupation : Faculty of Education Rajiv Gandhi University Rono Hills Page No.# 2/13 Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh - B e f o r e- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocates for the petitioner : Dr. Satish Kumar, petitioner-in- person Advocate for the respondents : Mr. R. Nabam, Standing Counsel, Rajiv Gandhi University. Arunachal Pradesh Date of which Judgment is reserved : 26.03.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 25.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Dr. Satish Kumar, petitioner-in-person and Mr. R. Nabam, learned Standing Counsel, Rajiv Gandhi University, being respondent No.2, 3 and 4. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order, dated 24.02.2023, issued vide Memo No. Page No.# 3/13 ET/145/Appt/2017/1063, dated 25.02.2023, by the Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University; and the petitioner also prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to hold a review meeting and thereafter, to promote the petitioner to the post of Professor with retrospective effect from the date of eligibility, at par with similarly situated persons, in the same department. Background facts :- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under - “The petitioner-in-person had joined at Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Doimukh, in Arunachal Pradesh, as Associate Professor, in the Department of Education, in the year 2015. The next stage of his promotion is Professor, under Career Advancement Scheme (for short, CAS); after completion of 3 (three) years of regular service in the post of Associate Professor with 110 points Academic Performance Index (for short, API). It is the contention of the petitioner that he became eligible for being promoted to the post of Professor in the year 2018, in terms of the University Grants Commission (for short, UGC) Notification, dated 04.05.2016; being No. F.1-2/2016PS/ (Amendment) and UGC Regulations, February 2018. But, the respondent authorities did not conduct interview in the years 2018, 2019 & 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner’s name was short-listed for interview in the year 2020, for being promoted to the post of Professor, but he was not called for the said interview. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the interview in the year 2023, in Page No.# 4/13 terms of UGC Rules 2016, and was accordingly promoted as Professor, w.e.f. 24.02.2023, by order dated 24.02.2023, vide Memo No. ET/145/Appt/2017/1063; issued on 25.02.2023. It is also the case of the petitioner that in view of the impugned order, issued vide Memo No. ET/145/Appt/2017/1063, dated 25.02.2023; the petitioner has submitted a series of representations to the respondent authorities ,with a request to give him retrospective promotion, i.e., w.e.f, 06.08.2018, which is the date of his eligibility for being promoted in terms of the 2016 UGC Notification and also, in terms of UGC Regulations, 2018. But, the said representations had failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities. It is also the case of the petitioner that in terms of UGC Regulations, 2016, he is entitled to retrospective promotion with effect from the year 2018 and the same is also affirmed by the letter, dated 21.06.2021, of the Joint Secretary, UGC; to the effect that financial benefits to university/college teachers on grant of CAS, will be admissible from the date of eligibility.” 4. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, a stand has been taken that the CAS interview is being held by the University at regular intervals. But, due to nationwide lockdown on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the interview could not be conducted in time and from the date of qualifying in the interview, the candidates are promoted retrospectively and the petitioner herein was found to be qualified and he has passed the interview in the year 2023. 4.1 It is also stated that in respect of not calling the petitioner for interview in the year 2020, is that under the new UGC Regulations, 2018, the evidence of Page No.# 5/13 successfully guiding a Ph.D. scholar is mandatory and in the application of the petitioner, no evidence of successfully guiding a Ph.D. scholar was enclosed and also, no scholar had been awarded Ph.D. degree under the guidance of the petitioner, at the time of screening of his CAS application and moreover, his application was found to be incomplete and consequently, he was asked to re- apply and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner could not be considered for being promoted to the post of Professor, with retrospective effect, i.e. form 2018. 4.2 It is the further contention of the respondent authorities that the University authorities, in its circular, dated 19.02.2020, had requested all the candidates to apply under the UGC Regulations form of 2016; and that the petitioner has submitted his application in the year 2018, for promotion from the post of Associate Professor to Professor, under CAS, in terms of UGC Regulations, 2018. However, the screening committee had found that, the eligibility criteria of "evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidates" was not fulfilled by the petitioner and therefore, he was found to be ineligible for interview for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor; and the petitioner, having found to be not qualified, was asked to apply afresh, as per the format of UGC Regulations, 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner and others had applied afresh, in the format of 2016, in the year 2020, under UGC Regulations, 2016, for promotion from Associate Professor, to Professor under CAS promotion. However, due to the poor performance of the petitioner in the interview held in the year 2021, the Selection Committee did not promote him from the post of Associate Professor to Professor under CAS. But, the University authority had asked the petitioner to apply in a fresh format as per UGC Regulations, 2016, and in the year 2022, he Page No.# 6/13 had applied for the said post again as per the format of UGC Regulations, 2016, and he was found to be successful in the interview and the Selection Committee had selected him for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor under CAS. 5. The petitioner has filed his affidavit-in-reply in response to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent authorities, denying the statements and averments made by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-opposition. According to him, similarly situated teachers of the University have been granted CAS promotion, with effect from the date of their eligibility, but the petitioner-in-person herein has been denied such benefit; and that the respondent authorities, with mala-fide intention, have declared him unsuccessful. 5.1. His further contention is that he has not applied for promotion under UGC Regulations, 2018, but, he had applied under UGC Regulations, 2016 and under the said Regulations, the requirement of being a guide for Ph.D. candidates is not necessary; and that, the decision of the University authorities of denying him the benefit of CAS, with effect from the date of his eligibility, is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be interfered with. 5.2. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit, wherein, he has annexed the copies of the Order, dated 22.10.2025, as Annexure- 4 (Series); by which, 9 (Nine) applicants, namely, Dr. Miazi Hazam, Dr. Marpe Sora, Dr. (Mrs.) Joram Yalam Nabam, Dr. Lijum Nochi, Dr. Prasenjit Bujar Baruah, Dr. Nipen Saikia, Dr. Anup Kumar Das, Dr. (Mrs.) Punyo Yarang and Dr. Tabang Mibang; were given promotion from the date of their eligibility, instead of the date of interview and therefore, the petitioner has prayed for granting similar benefit to Page No.# 7/13 him. Submission of the Petitioner-in-Person:- 6. Mr. Satish Kumar, the petitioner-in-person submits that he became eligible for being promoted to the post of Professor in the year 2018, under the CAS. But, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the University authorities did not conduct the interview, during the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, and though, he had applied in the year 2020 and also appeared in the interview, he was declared un-successful, with melafide intention of promoting only the local candidates. Subsequently, he had again applied and that time, he was promoted to the post of Professor, and after his promotion, he had requested the respondent authorities to give effect of the same from the date of his eligibility, but the same has been denied by the respondent authorities. 6.1 The petitioner-in-person also submits that similarly situated Professors of the University have been promoted from the date of their eligibility; and that, he had applied for being promoted in the format, given under UGC Regulations, 2016 and he had never applied in the format, given under UGC Regulations, 2018; which requires the experience of being a Ph.D. guide, but the same is not a requirement of the UGC Regulations, 2016. And under such circumstances, he has contended to allow this petition, by giving him the benefit from the date of his eligibility. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent:- 7. Per contra, Mr. Nabam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University has vehemently opposed the petition. Referring to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent authorities, Mr. Nabam submits that on account of COVID-19 pandemic, interview of the teachers, for being promoted Page No.# 8/13 to Professor, from Associate Professor, could not be conducted and it was subsequently conducted in the year 2020 and in that interview, the petitioner was found to be ineligible, as he had applied in the format given under UGC Regulations, 2018; which requires the experience of guiding a Ph.D. candidate, which, admittedly, the petitioner does not possess and thereafter, the respondent authorities had advised the petitioner to apply in the format given under UGC Regulations, 2016 and accordingly, the petitioner had applied in the said format and also appeared in the interview and he was accordingly promoted to Professor. 7.1 Mr. Nabam also submits that the benefit of retrospective promotion could not be given to the petitioner, as he was found to be unqualified in the interview earlier. He also submits that there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, he has contended to dismiss the same. 8. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and perused the UGC Regulations, 2016 and also, the UGC Regulations, 2018. Discussion and Analysis: - 9. The basic facts herein this case is not in dispute. The petitioner has joined as Associate Professor, in the department of Education, of Rajiv Gandhi University, in the year 2015. As per the required qualification under the CAS, 3 (three) years of regular service as Associate Professor, with 110 points API is required. And the petitioner herein, became eligible in the year 2018, in terms of the UGC Notification, dated 04.05.2016, and UGC Regulations, February 2018. However, the interview could not be conducted in the years 2018, 2019 Page No.# 9/13 and 2020, on account of COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, the interview was conducted in the year 2020, but the petitioner was not called for the interview. Subsequently, he had appeared in the interview in 2023, in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2016 and he was promoted as Professor, w.e.f., 24.02.2023. 10. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, the petitioner has filed several representations for giving the benefit of promotion with retrospective effect, but the same have failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities. 11. It is also not in dispute that under the UGC Regulations, 2018, in order to be promoted from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor, the teacher must possess an expertise of guiding a Ph.D. scholar and it is the contention of the respondent authorities that the petitioner did not possessed the same, for which, his CAS could not be considered for being promoted to the post of Professor. But, he was advised to apply in the format given under the Regulations, 2016 and after applying in the said format, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor. 12. Further, from the letter, dated 21.06.2021, issued by the Joint Secretary, UGC, the University/College teachers for grant of CAS, will be admissible from the date of eligibility. But, in spite of the same, the petitioner has not been given the benefit, from the date of his eligibility. 13. Even though the respondent authorities have taken a stand that the petitioner could not be given the benefit of retrospective promotion, as he had applied in the format prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2018; but the same has left this Court unimpressed. 14. Though, another contention is being made by the respondent authorities in Page No.# 10/13 the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner was found ineligible in the interview, on account of poor performance in the interview boars, held on May/June 2021 yet, the ‘Annexure 2’ of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, yet the EC Resolution, being EC: 39:06, dated 10.06.2021; indicates that the Committee did not recommend the name of Dr. Satish Kumar, for being promoted to the post of Professor under CAS. It was held that the future eligibility will be as per UGC Regulation. But, no reason has been recorded as to why the name of the petitioner could not be considered. It is well settled that when the E.C. Resolution is silent as to why the petitioner’s name could be considered, the reason cannot be supplied in the form of an affidavit. This proposition is laid down in the case of Moninder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978)1 SCC 405, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held in paragraph 8 that reasons for an administrative order cannot later be supplied through affidavits or explanations in court. The validity of an order must be judged by the reasons stated in the order itself. 15. Further, from the Minutes of the Meeting of the 63rd Executive Council, held on 18.09.2025, which is annexed to the additional affidavit, dated 31.01.2026, filed by the petitioner-in-person, as ‘Annexure-3’; indicates that as many as 9 (nine) teachers have been given the CAS promotion from the date of their CAS eligibility, instead of the date of their interview, pursuant to the Resolution No. EC:63:12, held on 18.09.2025, in the 63rd meeting of the Executive Council. It is also stated that similar practice is being adopted by Maulana Azad National Urdu University. Notably, these averments are not being controverted by the respondents in Rajiv Gandhi University and as such the same deemed to have been accepted by the respondent authorities, in view of Page No.# 11/13 Doctrine of Non-Traverse. 16. If as many as 9 (nine) teachers have been given the CAS promotion from the date of their CAS eligibility, instead of the date of their interview, pursuant to the Resolution No. EC:63:12, held on 18.09.2025, in the 63rd meeting of the Executive Council, and if the petitioner is similarly situated with those 9 teachers, such benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. Else it would violate the right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 14 and also by Article 16 of the petitioner. 16.1. It is also well settled in the case of Manager, Government Branch Press and Another vs. D.B. Belliappa, reported in (1979) 1 SCC 477, that the expression ‘matters relating to employment’ under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India is not confined to initial matters prior to the act of employment, but comprehends all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment, such as provisions as to salary, increments, leave, gratuity, pension, age of superannuation, promotion and even termination of employment. It is further well established that Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1) of the Constitution of India form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other and if any authority is needed for the above enunciation, reference may be made to the observations made in the case of General Manager Southern Railway vs. Rangachari, reported in (1962) 2 SCR 586. 16.2. Thus, the decision of the respondent authorities, declining to grant the CAS benefit from the date of interview instead of the date eligibility suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and as such, it is violative of Article 14 of the Page No.# 12/13 Constitution. It is worth mentioning in this context that in the case of S.G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427], a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “14. … absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. … the rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law.” 16.3. It is to be noted here that while dealing with the issue of arbitrariness, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436, held as under:- “59. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated. The decision-making process remains bad.” 17. Under the abovementioned facts and circumstances, granting the benefit of CAS to the petitioner from the date of his interview instead of the date Page No.# 13/13 eligibility; is liable to be interfered with on account of the same being illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, that part of the impugned order, dated 24.02.2023; by which the benefit of CAS is granted to the petitioner, w.e.f., 24.02.2023, i.e., from the date of his interview; instead of the date of eligibility, is set aside and quashed. It is being clarified that except what has been interfered with, as indicated above, rest of the part of the impugned order, is not interfered with. 18. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to give the benefit of the CAS, with effect from the date of his becoming eligible for being promoted to the post of Professor. 19. Let the abovementioned exercise shall be carried out within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of 1 (one) week from today. 20. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant