Page No.# 1/28 GAHC010146182023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3937/2023 SURENDRA MOHAN SALOI SON OF LATE BALIRAM SALOI, RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. B.2, IIT COMPLEX, GUWAHATI- 781039, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION) TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2:THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI REPRESENTED HEREIN THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN GUWAHATI 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GUWAHATI 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:THE DIRECTOR (I/C) Page No.# 2/28 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI GUWAHATI- 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 5:THE REGISTRAR (I/C) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI GUWAHATI- 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 6:THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE OF THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF ADDITIONAL VACANCY OF THE POST OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IN PURSUANCE TO THE INTERNAL ADVERTISEMENT DATED 12/12/2022 REPRESENTED THROUGH HE REGISTRAR OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI GUWAHATI- 781039 KAMRUP. 7:MANASH JYOTI PATHAK ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (AS APPROVED) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI GUWAHATI 781039 DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM Linked Case : WP(C)/3423/2023 SURENDRA MOHAN SALOI SON OF LATE BALIRAM SALOI RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. B.2 IIT COMPLEX GUWAHATI 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. Page No.# 3/28 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION) TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. 2:THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GUWAHATI- 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:THE DIRECTOR (I/C) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI GUWAHATI- 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:THE REGISTRAR (I/C) INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI GUWAHATI- 781039 DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM. 5:THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE OF THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI FOR SELECTION TO THE ADDITIONAL VACANCY OF THE POST OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IN PURSUANCE TO THE INTERNAL ADVERTISEMENT DATED 12/12/2022 REPRESENTED THROUGH THE REGISTRAR OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI GUWAHATI- 781039 KAMRUP. ------------ Page No.# 4/28 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioner :Mr. B.,D Goswami, Advocate Mr. J.M. Gogoi, Advocate Advocate for the respondents:Mrs. A Gayan, CGC for R-1 Mr. R.P Kakoti, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S Sutradhar, Advocate and Mr A.B Dey, Standing Counsel, IIT, Guwahati for R- 2 to 6 Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. P. Bhattacharya, Advocate for R-7 · Date on which Judgment was reserved : 02.04.2026 · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 14.07.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced : No JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV) Both these writ petitions are filed by the writ petitioners and the issues in which are connected. Therefore, both the two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Senior Superintendent in the IIT Guwahati. Pursuant to an internal advertisement dated 05.01.2022 issued by the IIT, Guwahati for filling up the 4 unreserved posts of Assistant Registrar in IIT Guwahati. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for in terms of the said internal advertisement. The DPC was held on 18.02.2022 and ultimately four (4) names were recommended in the select list. The said DPC also recommended 4 other names in the waitlisted panel. Name of the petitioner was at serial No. 1 Page No.# 5/28 of the waitlist and the name of the private respondent No. 7 was at serial No. 2 of the waitlist. The said list of selected candidates was approved by the Board of Governors and the promotions or appointments were made to the four (4) selected candidates. 3. It is the case projected by the petitioner that this select list as also the waiting list in which the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 1 was never communicated to the petitioner or that the authorities took any steps to publish the said select list and the waitlist in any manner. As such, the petitioner was not aware that his name had appeared in the serial No. 1 of the waitlist. Subsequently, the IIT, Guwahati again by another advertisement dated 12.12.2022, invited online applications from eligible internal candidates for different posts including one post of Assistant Registrar. The petitioner being eligible again applied for and appeared in the selection process. The Private respondent No. 7 also appeared in the said selection process and on the recommendation by the DPC and accepted by the Board of Governors, the private respondent No. 7 was selected and promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar in the recruitment process initiated by way of the internal advertisement dated 12.12.2022. 4. The case projected by the petitioner that it is only at the time when he had appeared in the subsequent recruitment process initiated by internal advertisement dated 12/12/2022 that he came to be aware that his name was already enlisted at serial No. 1 of the waitlist, which was issued by the DPC in terms of the selection process undertaken by the notice dated 18.02.2022. According to the writ petitioner, as per the recruitment and promotion Rules, it is provided that the panel drawn up by the DPC would be valid for 1 year, and if during that period any post falls vacant, the candidates from that panel will be Page No.# 6/28 promoted as per merit considering the category of vacant post. However, this will not be applicable in case of fresh sanction of posts which takes place after the advertisement. According to the petitioner, the post which was subsequently advertised by both advertisements, in respect of the Assistant Registrar and in which selection although the petitioner had participated, the private respondent No. 7 was promoted or appointed, the vacancy in respect of that particular post was available during the currency of the validity of the earlier select list dated 18/02/2022 and in which select list, name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 1 of the waitlisted candidates. It is submitted that in terms of the Rules, the post for which the subsequent internal advertisement dated 12/12/2022 was issued and recruitment was initiated and in respect of the post of Assistant Registrar, the private respondent was selected and promoted, the IITG authorities, ought not to have initiated the subsequent advertisement and consequently, the writ petitioner ought to have been considered in the vacant post of Assistant Registrar as his name had already appeared at serial No. 1 of the waitlist of candidates as per the select list published by the selection committee dated 18/02/2022. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the post of Assistant Registrar to which the subsequent recruitment process was undertaken and to which post ultimately the private respondent No. 7 was appointed, the vacancy arose during the currency of the validity of the select list dated 18/02/2022. Therefore, as per the Rules of recruitment followed by the IITG, this vacancy ought to have been filled up from the waitlisted candidates. This, however, was not done by the respondent IITG, and the fact that the petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 1 of the waitlisted candidates was also not published by the IITG, and therefore this position on facts was not known to the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, he had applied for the recruitment Page No.# 7/28 process initiated the subsequent internal advertisement. dated 12/12/202, and it was during the selection process that he came to be aware that his name was already there at serial No. 1 of the waitlisted candidates in the select list dated 18/02/2022. It is therefore submitted that the appointment of the private respondent No. 7 should be interfered with, set aside and the writ petitioner should be considered in his place. Alternatively, the writ petitioner submits that he should be given The notional benefit, as his name had indeed appeared at serial No. 1 of the waitlist that candidates in the list published by the DPC on 18th February 2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and relies upon following judgments in support of his contentions: 1. Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 (II); 2. Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 111; 3. State of Assam and Anr Vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, reported in 1967 SCC OnLine SC 1; 4. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17; 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the court to the relevant Rules governing the recruitment process to submit that the rules categorically provide that once a vacancy arises during the validity of the select list then the vacancies have to be filled up from that list. It is only in respect of freshly sanctioned post that this rule is not applicable. It is strenuously urged before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vacancy with regard to the Assistant Registrar which arose subsequently and for which the recruitment was undertaken by the subsequent internal advertisement dated 12/12/2022, was not a freshly sanctioned post, and this vacancy was already available. It is only re-nomenclature of the vacancies between promotees and direct recruits, that resultant in an additional Page No.# 8/28 vacancy in the post of Assistant Registrar. Therefore, this vacancy cannot be considered to be arising out of a fresh sanction post, and this vacancy being already available with the IITG, the same ought to have been filled up in terms of the rules governing the service conditions and recruitment. 6. The IIT, Guwahati disputes the case projected by the petitioner. It is submitted that this rule is not applicable for the petitioner to give him the benefit of being considered for the subsequent vacancy which arose in the post of Assistant Registrar as claimed, as this was a freshly sanctioned vacancy, and therefore no such claim can be made by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be considered for the subsequent vacancy arising in the post of Assistant Registrar by virtue of the name of the petitioner's name appearing at serial No. 1 of the waitlist. It is submitted that this vacancy is a freshly sanctioned post and therefore the rule itself excludes the vacancies to freshly sanctioned posts to be outside the purview of the rule. The further submission of the learned senior counsel for the IITG is that the writ petitioner had participated in the subsequent recruitment initiated by the internal advertisement for filling up the post of Assistant Registrar. That being so, he having participated and having failed to get selected cannot now be permitted to turn around and assailed the recruitment process initiated by the IITG, or even challenge the appointment or promotion given to the private respondent No. 7. It is submitted that the subsequent recruitment process is not under challenge, save and except the recommendation of the DPC made in pursuance to the second advertisement. It is submitted that the subsequent vacancy had arisen upon a decision taken by the Board of Governors on the basis of representation received from the various employees that the quota for promotional posts should be increased. Earlier, for the post of Assistant Page No.# 9/28 Registrar, the quota for promotion and direct recruits was in the ratio 75% for direct recruits and 25% for promotion. Subsequent to the decision of the Board of Governors (BoG) taken on the basis of representations made by the employees who are seeking promotion to next higher post, the ratio was re- organized as 50% for directly recruits and 50% for the promotees. It is pursuant to this reorganized ratio that the One of the posts was found to be available for the promotees quota, and therefore the subsequent advertisement was issued to fill up the same through promotion. Therefore, this post was not available at the time when the first recruitment process was undertaken by way of the advertisement dated 12.12.2022. Therefore, the subsequent vacancy to be post of Assistant Registrar having arisen pursuant to the Board of Governors decision by reorganizing the ratio of vacancies to be filled up between direct recruits and promotees, the claim made by the writ petitioner that these vacancies ought to have been filled up by the waitlisted candidate, namely the writ petitioner. It is totally contrary to the recruitment rules which clearly specify that freshly sanctioned posts are excluded from the purview of the rule. It is further submitted that waitlisted candidates are normally available to be appointed or promoted when any of the regularly selected candidate fails to join within the stipulated time or refuses to join in the post for which they were selected. In the recruitment Process undertaken by the IITG, the selected candidates had already joined and no further vacancy was available for the waitlisted candidates to claim such a post. These therefore, the claim made by the petitioner is totally contrary to the rules as also to the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgment. Therefore, he submits that there being no merit in the writ petition, the same should be dismissed. 7. Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. P Bhattacharya, Page No.# 10/28 learned counsel appears for the private No. 7. He is strongly disputes the contentions of the petitioner. It is submitted that the private respondent No. 7 as also the petitioner responded to the subsequent internal advertisement dated 12/12/2022 and had underwent the selection process and the respondent No. 7 was selected and subsequently promoted. It is submitted that the petitioner, having subjected himself to the selection process, now cannot be permitted to turn around and question that very selection process merely because he failed to secure the selection to the post. In any view of the matter, the post which has been subsequently advertised, the petitioner does not fulfill the required criteria. It is further submitted that the selection of the private respondent is not under challenge. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present proceeding in the present form. In support of his contentions, he is relied upon the following Judgments: 1. Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493; 2. Karnati Ravi & Anr Vs. Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records and ors, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 635; 3. The Union of India Vs. Subit Kumar Das, reported in 2025 INSC 1235; 4. State of Rajasthan Vs. R Dayal and Ors, reported in (1997) 10 SCC 419; 5. Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers Association Vs State of Gujarat, reported in (1994) 3 SCR 983 8. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. Pursuant to orders of the court, the records pertaining to the selection have been reconstructed and placed before the court for due examination by the court. Page No.# 11/28 9. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to the recruitment rules being, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Non- Teaching Posts. The Indian Institute of Technology was established in terms of Indian Institute of Technologies Act, 1961. The institutes are body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by its name can sue or be sued. The said body corporate constituting each of the institutes shall comprise of a chairman, a director, other members of the board of the institute. There are several authorities of an institute, including that of the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors shall comprise of a chairman to be nominated by the visitor, the director as the ex officio, one person to be nominated by the government of each of the states comprising the zone in which the institute is situated, 4 persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of education, engineering, or science, and 2 professors of the institute to be nominated by a Senate. The functions of the board as prescribed under Section 13 of the Act of 1961 provides inter alia for the institute to appoint persons to academic as well as other posts in the institute. The Recruitment and promotion Rules for non-teaching posts are to be undertaken in terms of the rules which are called the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Non-Teaching Position of the IIT, Guwahati. The recruitment process is to be undertaken by direct recruitment, by promotion, by selection and by contract. Insofar as recruitment by promotion is concerned, it is provided that Promotion and selection from identified feeder grades from amongst the employees of the institute to a higher post. Any available vacant post earmarked by the recruitment rules to be promotional may be filled up by promotion. This promotion shall be made as per the criteria prescribed in the recruitment rules regarding qualification, number of years or qualifying years service, percentage Page No.# 12/28 of posts to be filled. Procedure by which promotion is to be initiated are detailed under Clause 6.2. Clause 6.2.2 provides that all candidates who fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the recruitment rules will fall in the zone of consideration in case of promotional post. Clause 6.2.3 provides for the validity of the panel/waitlist. Under the said clause, it is provided that the panel drawn up by the departmental promotional committee would be valid for 1 year. However, this will not be applicable in case of fresh sanction of posts which takes place after the advertisement. The relevant clauses are extracted below: 6. Recruitment Process: The Institute with the prior approval of the Director shall initiate process for recruitment as per the Recruitment Rules approved by the BOG from time to time soon after the vacancies arise following resignation/retirement/death/on sanction of new posts. The following methods for recruitment shall be applicable to the Institute: · Direct Recruitment · Promotion by selection · Contract 6.2 Promotion: Promotion is selection from identified feeder grades from among employees of the Institute to a higher post. Any available vacant position earmarked by recruitment Rules to be promotional may be filled by Promotion. The promotion shall be made as per the criteria prescribed in the Recruitment Rules regarding qualification, number of years of qualifying service, percentage of posts to be filled by promotion as per the following procedure: Page No.# 13/28 i. The institute shall invite application(s) for internal posts through advertisement in intranet. ii. Applications received pursuant to the advertisement as mentioned in (i) above, shall be scrutinized for eligibility by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to be constituted as per the Recruitment Rules of IIT Guwahati. iii. The Short-listed applicants shall be placed before the Director for approval. After due approval, the shortlisted applicants will be called for Written Test / Interview and selection shall be done accordingly as per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the approval of the Competent Authority. iv. The Departmental Promotion Committee will be constituted by the Director as per the Recruitment Rules. 6.2.2 Zone of consideration: All candidates, who fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules will fall the zone of consideration in case of promotional posts. 6.2.3 Validity of Panel/Waitlist: The panel drawn up by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) would be valid for one year. The date of commencement of validity of the panel shall be the approval date of the Competent Authority on the Panel forwarded by DPC. If any post falls vacant this period, candidates will be promoted as per merit and considering the category of the vacant post. This will not be applicable in case of fresh sanction of posts which takes place after the advertisement. In case, there is a tie, the DPC shall consider the Length of Service in present post and immediate lower post of the tied candidates for the selection. 10. According to the writ petitioner, the vacancy in which the promotion was Page No.# 14/28 ultimately effected to the respondent No. 7 was a vacancy available during the currency of the validity of the select list recommended by the DPC dated 18th June 2022. According to the petitioner, this vacancy being available during the validity of the select list recommended by the DPC pursuant to the internal advertisement dated 5/1/2022, the validity of the select list will expire on 5/1/2023. However, the respondent authorities, by way of a subsequent Recruitment process initiated by advertisement dated 12/12/2022 proceeded to fill up the vacancy of the Assistant Registrar by initiating a separate recruitment process. This, according to the petitioner, is in conflict with the Rule 6.2.3 and the petitioner's name being reflected in the waitlist, he ought to have been considered for that vacancy and however, that was not done. According to the petitioner, since he was unaware about this position in the waitlist list that candidates as the same was not published by the IITG, he was not aware of this position, and therefore he participated in the subsequent recruitment process. It is only during the subsequent recruitment process that he came to be aware that his name appeared in the waitlist at serial No. 1. The further case of the petitioner is that the vacancy to which the subsequent advertisement was initiated was not a freshly sanctioned post. 11. Par contra, the respondents IITG that the subsequent vacancy has to be accepted to be a freshly sanctioned post as on the date of the earlier advertisement dated 3/1/2022, the available vacancies were all filled up by the process undertaken and therefore, after re-arrangement, one more vacancy was considered to be available for being filled up by way of promotion. Therefore, on a day when the DPC had recommended the select list dated 18/02/2022, this vacancy was not available, and therefore on that day the petitioner did not have any claim. The private respondent No. 7, on the other hand, questions the Page No.# 15/28 maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner had participated in the selection process initiated by the subsequent advertisement dated 12.12.2022. 12. The thrust of the petitioner's claim are based besides the Rule is also based on the Office Memorandum dated 27th of March 2023, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. It is the claim of the petitioner that this OM being issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, is equally binding on institutes like the IITG. The relevant clauses of the said OM are reads as under: 1.3.1 Cases of promotion: …… …… (d) The officers who have already been empanelled or placed in the extended panel but could not be promoted due to these vacancies not actually becoming available; need not be re-assessed by the supplementary DPC as the assessment matrix remains the same. They may be appointed against the additional vacancies of the same vacancy year as per recommendation of the earlier DPC. In such situation the number of vacancies for supplementary DPC shall be accordingly adjusted. (e) While calculating the regular vacancies for a DPC, it is incumbent upon administrative department to ensure that there is no arbitrariness in calculation of anticipated vacancies. 13. A perusal of the clause extracted of the office memorandum makes it abundantly clear that the claim of the petitioner seeking promotion from the empanelled lists in respect of vacancies which have arisen during the currency of the validity of the select list are in respect of vacancies arising due to death, Page No.# 16/28 voluntary retirement, new creations, etc., which could not be foreseen at the time of placing the facts and materials before the DPC and these empanelled officers who could not be promoted due to the vacancies not actually becoming available need not be reassessed by supplementary DPC as the assessment matrix remains the same. These officers may be appointed against the additional vacancies of the same vacancy year as per the recommendations of the earlier DPC. 14. In this context, it is necessary to examine the judgments referred before this court on the question of the rights of a waitlist Candidates in a panel in a list, in a select list. In Subit Kumar Das (Supra), the Apex Court held as under: 12. While considering the entitlement of the respondent to any relief on the basis of his placement in the Reserved Panel, it would be necessary to bear in mind the settled position that mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being so appointed. The right to be considered for appointment would spring only in the contingency of a selected candidate not joining on his post. The wait list operates for a limited period. It cannot extend for an indefinite period and in any event after a fresh process of recruitment has commenced. This legal position is well settled and reference can be made to the decision of a three Judge Bench in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association Vs. State of Gujarat and others8 . In paragraph 9, it has been held as under: “9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service.” Page No.# 17/28 (emphasis supplied by us) From the aforesaid, it is clear that any right that the respondent could claim as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all the selected candidates joined on their respective posts. 13. The sole basis for the claim of the respondent of seeking appointment/absorption on the post of Technician is the statement made on behalf of the appellants as recorded in the order dated 15.01.1999. As per the said statement, on a vacancy arising against the SC quota, the respondent was to be absorbed. According to the appellants, such statement cannot bind them since its compliance would result in breach of the Recruitment Rules. The respondent, however, relies upon the said statement as it was given in all solemnity before the Tribunal. For considering the binding nature of such statement made before the Tribunal, certain factual aspects would have to be borne in mind. Though the placement of the respondent was at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel, all the selected candidates had joined on the post of Technician and, thus, there was no occasion to operate the wait list is an admitted position. No vacancy from 1997 was carried forward and a vacancy, if any, that was to arise in the future would have been a fresh vacancy. The entitlement of the respondent, if any, was as a waitlisted candidate qua the select list of 1997. There was no vested right in favour of the respondent to urge that he was entitled to be considered and appointed on any fresh vacancy arising in the future. Secondly, the statement as recorded on 15.01.1999 would have a limited operation to the extent that only if any of the selected candidates for the post of Technician in the SC category failed to join on the said post, the respondent could be appointed on such vacant post being the candidate at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel. The statement as recorded that the claim of the respondent, a waitlisted candidate, would be considered as and when any vacancy would arise against the SC quota cannot operate in eternity contrary to the Recruitment Rules. Thirdly, it is necessary to note that the respondent’s challenge to his placement in the Reserved Panel and the selection of three other candidates on merit was not disturbed either by the Tribunal or by the High Court. This is clear on a perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 09.12.2004 in Original Application No.989 of 1997. The High Court in WPCT No.276 of 2005 decided on 23.02.2009 affirmed the findings of the Tribunal that a waitlisted candidate did not have any legal right to claim appointment and noted that the said finding recorded by the Tribunal was not under challenge by the respondent. These material aspects would be relevant while considering the legal effect of the statement recorded on 15.01.1999 by the High Court. 14. It is, thus, clear that having failed to assail the success of the selected candidates, the only string for the respondent to cling on was the statement Page No.# 18/28 recorded on 15.01.1999. The effect of such statement cannot result in wiping out the adjudication of the respondent’s claim on merits. In other words, the respondent cannot claim any higher right especially when it was found by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court that his placement in the Reserved Panel was correct and requiring no interference. The appellants are justified in contending that such statement as made on 15.01.1999 cannot have the effect of requiring them to act in violation of the Recruitment Rules 17. It appears that the High Court was much impressed by the fact that the statement made on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants was not being honoured. It is true that a statement made before the Court has its solemnity and the party making such statement is bound to comply with the same. At the same time, it has to be seen as to whether such statement in the form of a concession, if given effect to would result in violation of any statutory rules or regulations. If such consequence is likely to flow, it would be open for the affected party on whose behalf such concession in law was made to place before the Court the correct position of law and urge that it may not be compelled to give effect to an erroneous concession made on law. In the present case, giving effect to such statement made on 15.01.1999 would result in a waitlisted candidate being given an appointment notwithstanding the fact that all selected candidates in the said recruitment process had duly joined their posts and there was no occasion to operate the wait list. It would amount to filling in one post in the subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in the previous recruitment. This would definitely cause prejudice to the candidates seeking recruitment in the subsequent process as the vacancies would stand reduced. Moreover, it would also extend the life of the wait list though all vacancies stand filled in, which would be impermissible. In these facts therefore, we find that the appellants are justified in contending that the statement dated 15.01.1999 cannot be acted upon as it would result in conferring benefit on a waitlisted candidate to which he otherwise in law is not entitled to. The same is also not shown to be permissible under the Recruitment Rules. It appears that the High Court glossed over these vital aspects while directing the appellants to absorb the services of the respondent. The available vacancies having been filled up in 1997 resulted in exhaustion of the wait list and the said process of recruitment had come to an end. The High Court has, therefore, erred in directing the absorption of the respondent. 18. For all these reasons, the judgment of the High Court dated 25.06.2024 in WPCT No.24 of 2021 is found to be unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set-aside and the writ petition preferred by the respondent stands dismissed. The civil appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Page No.# 19/28 15. In R Dayal (Supra), the Apex Court held as under : 8. Therefore, it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that while selecting officers, minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in the relevant column, should be taken into consideration against vacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection. But since the Rules came to be amended and the amendment became effective with immediate effect and clause (11-B) of Rule 24-A indicates that options have been given to the Government or the appointing Authority, as the case may be, to revise the select list as existing as per the law as on the date of the appointment or as may be directed by a competent court, selection is required to be made by the concerned DPC. An appointment made, after selection as per the procedure, to the vacancies existing prior to the amendment, is valid. But the question is whether selection would be made, in the case of appointment to the vacancies which admittedly arose after the amendment of the Rules came into force, according to the amended Rules or in terms of Rule 9 read with Rules 23 and 24-A, as mentioned hereinbefore. This Court has considered the similar question in para 9 of the judgment above-cited. This Court has specifically laid that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. Undoubtedly, the selection came to be made prior to the amendment of the Rules in accordance with law then existing since the anticipated vacancies also must have been taken into consideration in the light of Rule 9 of the Rules. But after the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules would be required to be applied for and given effect to. But, unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case. The two courses are open to the Government or the appointing authority, viz., either to make temporary promotions for the ensuing financial year until the DPC meets or in exercise of the power under Rule 24-A(11-B), they can Page No.# 20/28 revise the panel already prepared in accordance with the Rules and make appointments in accordance therewith. 9. It is contended by Shri Das that one of the persons, namely, H.L. Meena was appointed against a carried-forward post as per the existing Rules and, therefore, his appointment cannot be challenged. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. Even a carried-forward vacancy is required to be considered in accordance with the law existing unless suitable relaxation is made by the Government. As on that date, when the appointment came to be made, the selection was required to be made on the basis of the Rules as existing on the date the vacancy arose. Since, admittedly, that has not been done, the appointment of Shri Bhatnagar and H.L. Meena must be treated to be only temporary appointments pending consideration of the claims of all the eligible persons belonging to General and Reserved quota separately as per Rules. 16. In Pradeep Kumar Rai (Supra), the apex court held that challenge to a recruitment process after participating in an interview, and declaration of an adverse result is not maintainable. Once the candidate participates in the selection process without raising any objections, they cannot be allowed to challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful. The such candidates cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Either the candidate should have participated in the interview or they should have challenged the procedure immediately after the interviews were conducted. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: 17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot Page No.# 21/28 approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted. (See Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission [Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 21] and K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345] .) 17. In Bhavnagar University (Supra), the apex Court held as under: 23. It is the basic principle of construction of statute that the same should be read as a whole, then chapter by chapter, section by section and words by words. Recourse to construction or interpretation of statute is necessary when there is ambiguity, obscurity, or inconsistency therein and not otherwise. An effort must be made to give effect to all parts of the statute and unless absolutely necessary, no part thereof shall be rendered surplusage or redundant. 25. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute. 18. In Nazir Ahmed, the Privy counsel held that the rule which applies is a different and not less well recognized rule, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This doctrine has often been applied to Courts- Taylor V. Taylor (19) and although the magistrate acting under this group of sections is not acting as a Court yet he is a judicial officer and both as a matter of construction and of good sense there are strong reasons for applying the rule in question to S. 164. Page No.# 22/28 19. In Raghava Rajgopalachari (Supra), the Apex Court held that the respondent in the petition cannot be permitted to allow to attack its own order as a respondent. 20. Again in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (Supra), the apex Court held as under: 17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process. 21. Having carefully noted the judgments pressed into service, it is clear from the judgments that ordinarily, a person who participates into the selection process and results having been declared which are adverse to the person, cannot be permitted to turn around and question such a selection process. There is no quarrel with this proposition that this is ordinarily the rule. However, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner has essentially not challenged the selection process initiated by the subsequent advertisement dated 12/12/2022. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was unaware that his position as serial No. 1 in the waitlist ought to have been taken into consideration by the authorities in view of the subsequent additional vacancy of Assistant Registrar, which fell vacant, admittedly, during the currency of the select list published on 18/02/2022, and in terms of Para 6.2.3 and also the OM dated 27.03.2023, it was open to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in respect of the vacancies which fell vacant during the currency of the select list. The Page No.# 23/28 attempt made by the respondent authorities to project before the court that the subsequent vacancy in the post of Assistant Registrar was a freshly sanctioned post cannot be accepted as the records placed before the court, having been carefully perused, does not reflect anywhere that a fresh post was sanctioned in the category of Assistant Registrar. What is rather seen from the pleadings and also supported by the records is that the Board of Governors, vide its meeting had taken a decision to rearrange the quota between the promotees and the direct recruits on the basis of such representations and applications received from the affected parties. Earlier, quota for filling up the posts between direct recruitment and promotees was in the ratio of 75% to 25%, where 75% is in favor of the direct recruits and 25% in favor of the promotees. However, By the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors, this was altered and the vacancies were required to be filled up in equal proportion, namely 50% for the Direct recruits and 50% for the promotees. It is subsequent to such a rearrangement of the percentage fixed vis-à-vis the sources of promotion or recruitment, that an additional post was found to be vacant, which in terms of the new ratio was required to be filled up by the promotees. There are additional alterations to the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondents that these additional vacancies in the category of Assistant Registrar was pursuant to a fresh sanction of post cannot be accepted, as this post was already in existence. It is only because of the alteration of the manner of recruitment that the vacancy has subsequently become available to be filled up by way of promotion. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that it is a freshly sanctioned post is belied by the records and is therefore, cannot be accepted and therefore rejected. It is also equally necessary to note that the writ petitioner has not challenged the subsequent selection process and/or the Page No.# 24/28 appointment orders to private respondent No. 7.What is under challenge is the order of the recommendation of the DPC, which pursuant to the order of appointment granted to the respondent No. 7 has lost its force. Therefore, in the present proceeding before this court, it is clear that there is no specific challenge made to the appointment of private respondent No. 7, nor is there any specific prayer that the appointment/promotion of respondent No.7 should be interfered with and the writ petitioner be promoted in his place. In the absence of any specific prayers coming from the writ petitioner, there is no occasion to the court to examine on this issue, and no orders are called for from this court to that extent. 22. The only question is left to be open to be decided is whether the subsequent participation of the writ petitioner in the subsequent recruitment process will operate as a bar for a challenge made to the said selection process also is not necessary to be answered in view of the fact that there is no specific challenge made by the petitioner to the subsequent selection process, save and except the challenge made to the recommendation by the DPC and which, pursuant to the orders of appointment passed in favor of respondent No. 7 has lost its force, and therefore no orders can be passed in the present facts and circumstances of the case interfering with the recommendation of the DPC when the consequential order of appointment of the respondent is not even under challenge. 23. The claim of the writ petitioner that the benefit that was accrued to him under the Notification under the rules 6.2.3, and the OM dated 27.03.2023 is not granted is the only question left to be decided by this court. 24. After examining the records and also the rules it is seen that it was incumbent on the IIT Guwahati to examine the availability of the vacancy in the Page No.# 25/28 post of Assistant Registrar, which subsequently became available to the promotees after reorganization of the percentage towards resources or recruitment as per the Board of Governors decision. From the records made available before the court, it is seen that no such material is available from the records to show that the matter was examined from that perspective. There is also no specific averment made by the respondent authorities that the OM dated 27th of March, 2023, not applicable to the IIT Guwahati, notwithstanding that it is issued by the Ministry of Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. If the said OM dated 27.03.2023 read with the rules of recruitment are to be read in conjunction, then it appears that the validity of a select list would operate for 1 year and in the event of any vacancies made available during the currency of the vacancy, then the cases of such employees whose names appear in the select list ought to be considered without resorting to a separate selection process. 25. As discussed above, from the records, it is seen that this aspect could not even discussed by the authorities as to whether any benefit would accrue to the petitioner by virtue of his name being included in the waitlisted candidates and placed at serial number 1, and when the subsequent vacancy of Assistant Registrar. Under such circumstances, reading the rules, particularly Rule 6.2.3 read with the OM dated 27.03.2023, it is clear that the intention of the IITG, as also Government of India, is not to have frequent DPCs for filling up vacancies which arise in short intervals. Therefore, under the rules, the select list would extend for a period of one year, and the DPC had, besides recommending the shortlisted candidates, had also recommended 4 candidates in the waitlist, at which the petitioner's name appears at serial No. 1. Whether this select list was Page No.# 26/28 published or not, this position was known to the respondent IITG. Since there is no specific denial in the pleadings that the OM dated 27.03.2023 is not applicable to IITG, or that the rules being Rule 6.2.3 is not applicable in case of the petitioner, as sought to be interpreted by the petitioner, it will have to be held that reading Rule 6.2.3 read with the OM dated 27.03.2026, the validity of the select list would be available for a period of 1 year from the date of publication. Therefore, the recommendations of the DPC or the select list published on 18th February 2022 will be available for the period of 1 year, and which would expire on 17.02.2023. It is therefore clear that the subsequent vacancy in the post of Assistant Registrar became available due to re- arrangement of the percentage to be filled up by promotion or by recruitment in terms of the Board of Governors decision was during the currency of the selected list of the DPC recommendation. It was incumbent on the respondents to consider the candidates available in the waitlist in terms of the provisions of Rule 6.2.3. The attempt by the respondent IITG to persuade the court that the subsequent vacancy in the category of Assistant Registrar was available because of the fresh sanction of post, and therefore outside the purview of Rule 6.2.3 itself reflects that the IITG is conscious of the rigors of the rule, that any subsequent vacancy available during the currency of the select list from the date of recommendation of the DPC are to be filled up from the said list without resorting to a fresh DPC or selection process, unless it is necessary to resort to the said to fill up a post which has been subsequently or freshly sanctioned. 26. As discussed above, the subsequent vacancy in the category of Assistant Registrar does not appear to be a freshly sanctioned list from the records made available before the court. This post was already available in the cadre of Assistant Registrar and became available to be filled up by promotion Page No.# 27/28 subsequent to the rearrangement of the percentage fixed for direct recruits and promotes. Therefore, strictly speaking, the subsequent vacancy cannot be said to be a fresh sanction of post. The fact that the IITG was desirous of filling up the vacancy is evident from the subsequent recruitment process resorted to, and it cannot be said that there was no decision taken at the relevant point in time by the IITG to fill up this post. Therefore, within a very limited scope, the claim made by the petitioner for being considered in the post of, Assistant Registrar, which fell vacant subsequent to the re-arrangement of the percentage reserved for filling up vacancies between direct recruitment and promotees in the cadre of Assistant Registrar, and which was during the currency of the select list/the list for recommendation, cannot be denied. Whether the petitioner is eligible in terms of the qualifications which may have been altered by the BOG is another aspect altogether. Therefore, the respondents will now reconsider the claim of the petitioner by constituting a review DPC to examine the claims of the petitioner as to whether his claim as a waitlisted candidate in the select list/the list recommended by the DPC is available in terms of the eligibility criteria as it existed then. If review DPC considers that the petitioners' claims are justified, then consequential orders will be passed, giving notional benefit to the writ petitioner to the next higher post of Assistant Registrar with effect from the date the vacancy in the post of a Assistant registrar was identified to be available by the IITG authorities. 27. It is made clear that in terms of the directions of the court for holding a review DPC to examine the benefits of the writ petitioner, if the writ petitioner is found to be eligible to such benefits then he shall not be entitled to any arrear or back wages, save and except the service benefits of seniority and any enhancement in the scale of pay and any pensionary benefits as may be Page No.# 28/28 available to the petitioner, as and when he demits his office. The review DPC to be conducted by the respondent authorities will not affect the promotion already given to the respondent No. 7 as it has already been discussed above as there is no challenge made to the appointment/promotion of the respondent No. 7 by the writ petitioner. In terms of the above observation, writ petitions stand is disposed of. 28. Interim orders if any stands merged. Pending IAs, if any, are also dismissed. 29. The directions of this court to reconstitute the DPC and pass appropriate orders will be carried out within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 30. In the event the petitioner's claims are found to be justified by the Review DPC, then consequential orders will be passed by the appointing authorities within a further period of 30 days from the date of such Review DPC. 31. The records be given to the Court are returned to the learned Standing Counsel, IIT, Guwahati through the Court Master. JUDGE Comparing Assistant