Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040008332024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : PIL/10/2024 Payi Gyadi Son of Papu Gyadi, resident of Barapani, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The Union of India and 2 Ors represented by Secretary, Ministry of Education, Govt of India, Department of Higher Education, 122-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2:The Director of NIT Age: 0 Occupation : National Institute of Technology Arunachal Pradesh at Jote Itanagar PO RK Mission PS Balijan Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh 791113 3:The Registrar Age: 0 Occupation : National Institute of Technology Page No.# 2/5 Arunachal Pradesh (NIT A.P.) at Jote Itanagar PO RK Mission PS Balijan District Papumpare Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Gumto Kato, Gamken Bam,Kirmani Lollen,Nyado Karga Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, SC(NIT),Rintu Saikia,DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 23-04-2025 (M. Choudhury. J.) Heard Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India [DSGI] for the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is found absent today on call. 2. The present public interest litigation has been preferred by the sole petitioner seeking the following reliefs :- i. Writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari shall not be passed directing respondent for implementation of NIT Faculty Recruitment Rule, 2011 thereby reserve 50% of the faculty/post of NITAP for the domicile of the Arunachal Pradesh for recruitment and to laid down term and condition of 50% reservation for the faculty recruitment in advertisement of notice to be issued by NITAP. ii. To recall the previously notified advertisements notice for the recruitment process wherein rule of the 50% Faculty Recruitment process has not been complied and implemented. iii. To recruit only candidate of domicile of Arunachal Pradesh till position of 50% Page No.# 3/5 faculty hailing from state of Arunachal Pradesh is fulfilled at NITAP in the remaining recruitment of the faculty in NITAP. iv. Pass any other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper. v. And upon cause or causes if any as may be shown by the respondents, and on perusal of the records of the case and upon hearing the parties, Your Lordship may be pleased to make the rule absolute, and/or pass such other Order/Orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper. 3. The petitioner has stated that he is a permanent resident of Arunachal Pradesh and he is an entrepreneur and social activist. The petitioner has stated that he has the qualification of Diploma in Information Technology. 4. The petitioner has stated that the National Institute of Technology [NIT] established in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is one among the thirty-one nos. of NITs in India, which are institutes of national importance. The NIT in the State of Arunachal Pradesh started functioning from the year 2010. 5. The petitioner has referred to a set of rules, ‘Model Recruitment Rules for Faculties of NITs’, published by the Ministry of Human Resources Development [MoHRD] Department of Higher Education, Government of India [GoI] to contend that as per the Model Recruitment Rules, 50% faculty at NIT, Arunachal Pradesh are reserved for the people who are domiciles of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner has further asserted that the Model Recruitment Rules are being implemented in the NITs all over the country. The petitioner has not, however, placed any documentary evidence regarding implementation of the Model Recruitment Rules in every NITs of the country including the NIT, Arunachal Pradesh. To buttress his point, the petitioner has harped on the provisions contained in Rule 22 of the Model Recruitment Rules. 6. As per Rule 22 of the Model Recruitment Rules for Faculty of NITs, the concerned NIT shall strive to recruit 50% faculty not domicile of the State in which the institute is located. 7. As per Rule 1 of the Model Recruitment Rules, annexed as Annexure-1 to the PIL petition, the Page No.# 4/5 Model Recruitment Rules are to come into force from the date of their notification, following their acceptance by the Board of Governors of the concerned institute. The petitioner has neither averred nor been able to show that the Board of Governors of the NIT, Arunachal Pradesh has adopted the Model Recruitment Rules. 8. In support of his submissions on the point of maintainability of the PIL from the standpoint of locus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, reported in 1981 [Supp] SCC 87. 9. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta [supra] has deliberated on the locus to institute a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is held to be well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of person by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons. 10. A set of Model Recruitment Rules itself are not enforceable unless it is adopted, notified and published through the proper mode. This Court is not inclined to interpret Rule 22 of the Model Recruitment Rules. In such view of the matter, this Court is also not inclined to go into the issue regarding 50% reservation for domiciles of Arunachal Pradesh in the NIT, Arunachal Pradesh as contended by the petitioner. 11. On the question of locus of the petitioner, we find that the petitioner is espousing the cause Page No.# 5/5 of the class of persons who could be appointed as faculties as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc., in the NIT. From the Advertisement published by the NIT, Arunachal Pradesh on 17.02.2022 for recruitment of faculty positions of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in various departments, it is noticed that for the post of Assistant Professor, Ph.D is an essential qualification and the same goes to indicate that persons having minimum qualification of Ph.D can only apply for the faculty positions of Assistant Professor and above, in an NIT. 12. It is also well settled that a PIL in service matters is not maintainable. The cause for the class of persons for whose cause the petitioner seems to be espousing in this PIL are neither poor nor illiterate nor belong to socially or economically disadvantageous section of the society. In B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Association, [2006] 11 SCC 731[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. In service matters, only the non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure. In Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, [2010] 9 SCC 655, it has been held that except in a case of writ of quo warranto, PIL in service matter is not maintainable. In view of such settled position, this PIL which is in respect of service matters, is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant