Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040015912025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/446/2025 Dr Yankee Modi Daughter of Late Jokut Modi, a permanent resident of Napit village, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791002 presently residing at Hunters Hill, Sydney, NSW, Australia. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors through the Secretary, Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Honorable Minister of Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Chancellor Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh University Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Vice Chancellor Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh University Page No.# 2/4 Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Higher and Technical Education Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 7:The Registrar Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh University Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Muk Pertin, Senior Advocate, Dusu Rillung,Karyom Dabi,Rimo Riba,Tshering Yangzom Bhutia,Dakjum Riba,Mukbang Pertin Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Arunachal Pradesh University),Tamar Gadi,SC (Education) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 15.09.2025 Heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mukbang Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner responded to the advertisement dated 17.07.2025 issued by the Arunachal Pradesh University (University) for the post of Professor in the subject of Tribal Studies. The vacancy notified was only one post and that also for unreserved candidates. The learned senior counsel submits that as per the eligibility criteria for the said post, there are two choices i.e. A and B. Page No.# 3/4 The petitioner applied for the post as per choice-B. The petitioner despite having submitted all the relevant documents in support of her application for the said post, she was found to be not eligible on the ground that there was no evidence or documents for having successfully guided a doctorate candidate vide Notification dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-5). The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner had clearly applied for the eligibility for the said post as per eligibility-B and not as per eligibility- A. 2. To the surprise of the petitioner, she has been rejected for not fulfilling the conditions prescribed for eligibility-A. The petitioner therefore, approached the Grievances Redressal Committee of the University, but again vide an observation of the said Committee dated 27.08.2025, she was found to be not eligible on the ground that there was no proof of being an outstanding professional in the concerned field. 3. The learned senior counsel submits that the University is guided by the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in the form of Regulations. He submits that the criteria given in this regard for selecting a Professor in a University is provided under Regulation 6 and 6.1 of the UGC Regulation. Further, table-2 of Appendix-II of the Regulation provides for the methodology for University and College Teachers for calculating academic research score. However, the University apparently has not followed the criteria according to the learned senior counsel. Therefore, the petitioner has been wrongly found to be ineligible for the said post. The learned senior counsel submits that the interview/viva-voce for the post in question has been scheduled on 21st Page No.# 4/4 and 22nd of September, 2025 as per the Notification dated 29.08.2025 and therefore, the learned senior counsel submits that pending consideration of the writ petition, the petitioner may either be allowed to participate in the interview process or the interview process for the post of Professor in Tribal Studies be stayed. 4. At this stage, Mr. T. Gadi, learned standing counsel, Arunachal Pradesh University submits that he has received instructions which is to the effect that the petitioner will be allowed to face the interview on the scheduled date and that Court may not take up the matter on merit at this stage. 5. Considering the submissions made by the parties and the instructions received by the learned standing counsel of the University, without expressing anything on merit, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the University authorities to allow the petitioner to face the interview on the scheduled date and for which, appropriate call letter be issued to her without delay. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant