IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Principal Seat at Guwahati WP(C)/1808/2024 Dr. Sonu Kumar, S/o - Mr. Tejpal Singh, R/o - 643, Shanti Nagar, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur, Rajasthan, PIN- 302018, Permanent Address - Jandkhera, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, PIN – 247341. ……..Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006. 2. Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports University, Chabua, represented by the Vice-Chancellor, Chabua, Dist.- Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 786184. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports University, Chabua, Dist. – Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 786184. 4. The Registrar, Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports University, Chabua, Dist. - Dibrugarh, Assam PIN – 786184. …….Respondents GAHC010064462024 - B E F O R E- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. T.H. Hazarika. Advocates for the respondents : Mr. S. Bhuyan; Mr. K. Gogoi. Date of hearing : 28.02.2025 Date of judgment : 28.04.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Dr. Sonu Kumar, has prayed for setting aside and quashing the letter No. SASU/CHB/31/2020/1831, dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure-8), issued by the respondent No. 4, with approval of the respondent No. 3. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned letter, dated 29.02.2024, the appointment of the petitioner as Librarian of the respondent No. 2 University, was cancelled. 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “Pursuant to an advertisement, dated 15.09.2023, (Annexure-1), issued by the Registrar, Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports University („SASU‟, for short), Chabua, Diburgarh for filling up the post of Librarian, the petitioner had applied for the same and participated in the selection process, and he was selected for the said post also. Thereafter, an offer letter, dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-4) was issued to him. Thereafter, another letter (Annexure-7) was issued on 24.01.2024, by which he was informed that his joining to the said post of Librarian was kept in abeyance until further order and that the documents submitted by him, against the letter, dated 28.12.2023, were under verification. Thereafter, vide impugned letter, No. SASU/CHB/31/2020/1831, dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure-8), his appointment was cancelled without giving any reason. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, seeking the relief as aforesaid.” 5. The respondent No. 4/Registrar of SASU, had filed affidavit-in- opposition, wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner has neither completed 10 years as Deputy Librarian in Amity University, wherein he is presently serving, nor completed 10 years as Librarian in Mahaveer Institute of Technology, Meerut. And that the letter, dated 28.12.2023, was an offer letter for appointment, not an appointment letter, which is self-explanatory and in point No. (xii) of the offer letter, it is clearly stated that formal appointment letter will be issued on acceptance of offer letter and upon fulfilment of the terms and conditions as thereto, and further in point No. (xiv) of the said letter, it is being mentioned that any information/documents submitted during the entire selection process and at the time of joining, if found false and fabricated, will lead to cancellation of the appointment and legal action will be taken as per law. 5.1. It is also stated that the petitioner had suppressed material facts during the entire period i.e. from filing application for the post of Librarian, till his selection and at the time of reporting for joining also, and that the petitioner had submitted three system generated pay slips, issued by Amity Edu Group, and perusal of the same indicates that his basic pay is Rs. 19,500/-, conveyance allowance is Rs. 1,600/-, special allowance is Rs. 21,287/-, which makes his total amount of salary Rs. 42,387/-. 5.2. Then again on 23.01.2024, the petitioner had submitted another salary certificate, issued by the Director HR, Amity University, dated 22.01.2024, certifying the service duration and salary breakup of the petitioner in the salary grade of Rs. 15600- 39100-AGP-8000. And at the time of interview on 16.12.2023, he had submitted experience certificate, dated 16.12.2023, issued by the Director HR, Amity University that he has been working as Deputy Librarian since 14.08.2015, in the pay scale of Rs. 15000- 39100/- AGP 8000 and his total salary is Rs. 42,387/- per month. But, the salary certificate, submitted by him on 23.01.2024, the word used was salary grade, instead of pay scale, as mentioned in the experience certificate, dated 16.12.2023. Page 5 of 19 5.3. It is also stated that there was discrepancy in respect of the scale of pay of the petitioner and he had submitted different form of documents from time to time, with regard to his pay structure. And since discrepancy is noticed in various pay slips, salary certificates and the statement in application form, the University authority had kept in abeyance the joining of the petitioner in the University and constituted a committee to examine the documents submitted by the petitioner comprising of Prof. H.C. Gautam, Ex. Prof. & Head of the Department of Commerce, Gauhati University as Chairman; Prof. Deb Kumar Chakraborty, Dept. of Economics, Dibrugarh University as Member and Sri Kamaleswar Kalita, FAO, SASU as a presenting officer in the committee, and that the reasons for cancellation are specifically mentioned in the letter, dated 29.02.2024. 5.4. It is also stated that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit all his relevant documents including his last salary certificate to confirm his offer and as such, the decision of the authority is neither arbitrary nor illegal. 5.5. It is further stated that in the advertisement, it was categorically mentioned at Clause 3(ii) that at least 10 years experience as Librarian at any level in a University Library and as per the letter No. 1-7/2015-U.II(1), dated 02.11.2017, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education and as implemented by the Government of Assam, vide notification No. FPC.60/2017/52, dated 04.09.2018, the different pay structures are made available, and that the petitioner does not fall in any of the category mentioned in the said notification dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure-R12), and that the salary slips/certificates as well as statements in his application reveal gross dissimilarities and contradictory to each other and the same are misleading documents/information for wrongful gain, and it amounts to misrepresentation of facts. And therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 6. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein possess the requisite qualification as per advertisement and he possess the requisite norms for being appointed as Librarian of a university and though some minor discrepancies were there in the salary slips submitted by him, in fact those were not discrepancies and in page No. 67, of his petition the breakup of his salary structure was shown and in page Nos. 68 and 69 also the salary structures were shown, and in view of the offer letter, issued by the respondent authorities, he had already resigned from the post of Librarian of Amity University and as such the impugned termination letter is illegal and is an arbitrary action on the part of the respondent authorities, and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 6.1. Mr. Hazarika further submits that in the impugned termination letter, no reason for termination was mentioned and the same has been supplemented in the affidavit-in-opposition, which is impermissible in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. Mr. Hazarika has also referred to a decision of this Court in Kapili Nadi Matshyajibi Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 911, in support of his submission. 7. Per contra, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post and at different stages, he had submitted different documents in respect of his pay and the same are contradictory to each other and the same amounts to misrepresentation of facts, and that after issuance of the offer letter, to check his documents, a committee was constituted and as per report of the committee, the offer letter was cancelled by the respondent authorities. Referring to the documents submitted by the petitioner, Mr. Gogoi submits that as per advertisement, he must possess 10 years experience, in the academic level 13A which is determined on the basis of AGP, but, the three system generated salary slip for the month of October, November and December 2023, furnished by him and also in his application form(Annexure- R4) there is no indication of his AGP and that the petitioner did not possess the said qualification and that in view of the discrepancy in his salary slips/certificates, there is no illegality or infirmity in the termination letter, dated 29.02.2024. Referring to a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rati Pal Saroj and Anr., reported in AIR 1998 SC 1117, Mr. Gogoi submits that if the authority discovers subsequently that the prospective employee is unsuitable for the post, the offer of appointment can be cancelled. Referring to another decision in Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363, Mr. Gogoi submits that dishonesty cannot be permitted to bear the fruit. Mr. Gogoi further submits that the language of the advertisement and the Rule for the post of Librarian are clear in this case and the employer has to decide the essential qualification and the employer is the best judge to decide the requirement of a candidate and the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has referred to a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Ors., reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362. 7.1. Referring to another decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India and Ors. vs. Madhukar Kumar and Ors., reported in (2022) 14 SCC 661, Mr. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the respondent authorities, submits that the authority is not duty bound to give reason and in absence of any reason, the court is not clothed with power to strike down the administrative action. And that there is no merit in this petition and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. In support of his submission, Mr. Gogoi has referred to the following decisions: (i) Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation and Anr. vs. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar and Anr., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 739. Page 9 of 19 (ii) Shri Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1992) 2 SCC 428. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions, referred by learned Advocates of both sides. 9. The basic facts here in this case are not disputed. The petitioner herein had applied for the post of Librarian, pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.09.2023, and he was selected for the aforementioned post and thereafter, the offer letter was issued on 28.12.2023. In the said offer letter, the petitioner was also asked to submit some of the documents and accordingly, he had submitted the documents. However, vide another letter dated 24.01.2024, his joining to the said post was kept in abeyance and ultimately, vide impugned letter dated 29.02.2024, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent authorities. 10. A perusal of the advertisement dated 15.09.2023, reveals that the essential qualification and experience for the post of Librarian is mentioned in Clause-3, which reads as under: “3. POST: LIBRARIAN i. Master's Degree in Library Science/ Information Science/ Documentation Science with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent grade on a point scale wherever the grading system is followed. ii. At least 10 years as a Librarian at any level in a University Library or Ten (10) years of teaching as an Assistant / Associate Professor experience as a College Librarian. iii. Evidence of innovative Library services, including the integration of ICT in a library. iv. A Ph.D. degree in Library Science/ Documentation/archives and manuscript keeping.” 10.1. In the said advertisement, it is also indicated that the age of the candidate for the post of Librarian should be preferably below 55 years and his scale of pay is indicated as Rs. 1,44,200-2,18,200 + other allowances as admissible. It also appears from the notification No. FPC.60/2017/52, dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure-R12), issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (PRU) Department, following different pay structure are available:- Name of post Existing Scale Academic Grade Pay Revised Pay Academic level Remark Librarian 37,000- 67,000 10,000 1,44,200- 2,18,200 14 Deputy Librarian/ Asstt. Librarian (Selection Grade)/College Librarian (Selection Grade) 15,600- 39,100 8,000 79,800- 2,11,500 12 Academic level of 13A for those who had completed 3 years in pre- revised scale on 01.04.2016 37,400- 67,000 9,000 1,31,400- 2,17,100 13A Assistant Librarian/College Librarian (Senior Grade) 15,600- 39,100 7,000 68,900- 2,05,500 11 Assistant Librarian/ College Librarian 15,600- 39,100 6,000 57,700- 1,82,400 10 Direct Recruitment will be in Academic Level 10. Page 11 of 19 10.2. It also appears from the Clause 3 (ii) of the advertisement that the candidate must serve at least 10 years as a Librarian at any level in a University Library or 10 years of teaching as an Assistant/Associate Professor experience as a College Librarian. It also appears that since there is mention of „level‟, which has been categorised on the basis of Academic Grade Pay (AGP). The academic level for Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian(senior), Assistant Librarian of colleges and universities, who had completed 3 years in pre-revised scale on 01.04.2016, their academic level is level 13A and his pay scale should be 15,600-39,100, with academic grade pay 8,000, and revised pay scale is 79,800-2,11,500 and academic level is 12. 10.3. However, the three system generated salary slip furnished by the petitioner does not show his Academic Grade Pay(AGP). Further, from the documents furnished by the petitioner in respect of his salary, indicates that at different points of time, he had submitted different documents indicating his scale of pay as under:- (a) In his application, he had mentioned his basic pay per month, pay band, GP/AGP as - consolidated and his gross salary, per month as Rs. 42,387/- . (b) And thereafter, on the date of interview, on 16.12.2023, he had produced one certificate showing his pay scale as Rs. 15600-39100/AGP 8000/ in the Amity University and his total salary is Rs. 42,387/- per month. Page 12 of 19 (c) But, the system generate salary slips, submitted by him for the month of October, November and December, 2023, indicate his basic pay Rs. 19,500/-, conveyance allowance Rs. 1,600/- and special allowance Rs. 21,287/- , total being Rs. 42,387/-. (d) Thereafter, he had submitted another pay certificate, dated 22.01.2024, via email, wherein it is indicated that his basic pay + AGP is 19,500/+8000/=27500/, DA is 8280/, HRA is 4140, special allowance is 2467, total salary being Rs. 42,387/-. 10.4. And because of these discrepancies in his own documents, the respondent authorities had constituted a committee and the said committee had examined the document relating to pay and observed that the various pay/salary slip drawn by the petitioner from Amity University, Rajasthan are inconsistent with the eligibility criteria, as per the advertisement. It also appears that the committee had further observed that the petitioner had misrepresented the fact of his pay/salary for which the matter was placed before the Executive Council of the University and the Executive Council had opted for the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner, and thereafter, submitted its report and on the basis of the said report, the offer letter of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent authorities. 11. Thus, having gone through the documents placed on record, and also from the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court finds sufficient force in the submissions, so advanced by Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It appears that at different points of time, the petitioner had submitted different documents and even if the same are taken into account, the same fails to fulfil the requisite qualification for the post of Librarian in the respondent No. 2 University and as such, the impugned termination letter dated 29.02.2024, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 12. The conduct of the petitioner, thus appears to be not bona- fide one and Mr. Gogoi, the learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities, had rightly submitted that dishonesty cannot be permitted to bear the fruit and the decision referred by him in Devendra Kumar (supra), also supported his contention. Notably, in the said case it has been held that:- “18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100] this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655] observed as under:- “If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.” 13. It also appears that in the impugned letter No. SASU/CHB/ 31/2020/1831, dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure-8), issued by the respondent No. 4, with approval of the respondent No. 3, reason for cancellation has been assigned. It is incorrect to say that no reason has been assigned. It is stated in the said letter that in the impugned cancellation letter it has been mentioned that the University had constituted a committee to examine the documents as per advertisement. And the said committee had observed that the various pay/salary slip drawn by the petitioner from Amity University, Rajasthans are inconsistent with the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement. It also appears that the committee had observed that the petitioner had misrepresented the fact of his pay/salary for which the matter was placed before the Executive Council of the University and the Executive Council had opted for the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Further, the reason for cancellation has been reflected in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No.4. 13.1. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), referred by Mr. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court that action to be judged by the reason stated while making the order and supplementary reasons, in the shape of an affidavit, has to be excluded. Same principle is reiterated by this Court in the case of Kapili Nadi Matshyajibi Samiti Ltd.(supra) also. Mr. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument has rightly pointed this out. Since in the case in hand, reason has been assigned in the impugned cancellation letter, dated 29.02.2024, this Court afraid that the decision referred by Mr. Hazarika, would not come into his assistance. 13.2. Further, it has also to be looked into as to whether the respondent authority is bound to assign reason in the order or not. This aspect has been dealt with by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar Kumar (supra), in para No. 72, as under:- “73. The Constitution does not contemplate any public authority, exercising power with caprice or without any rationale. But, here again, in the absence of the duty to record reasons, the Court is not to be clothed with power to strike down administrative action for the mere reason that no reasons are to be found recorded. In certain situations, the reason for a particular decision, may be gleaned from the pleadings of the authority, when the matter is tested in a court. From the materials, including the file notings, which are made available, the court may conclude that there were reasons and the action was not illegal or arbitrary. From admitted facts, the court may conclude that there was sufficient justification, and the mere absence of reasons, would not be sufficient to invalidate the action of the public authority. Thus, reasons may, in certain situations, have to be recorded in the order. In other contexts, it would suffice that the reasons are to be found in the files. The court may, when there is no duty to record reasons, support an administrative decision, with reference to the pleadings aided by materials.” 13.3. In the case in hand, the respondent authorities had also assigned reason in the affidavit-in-opposition. Besides, Mr. Gogoi had produced the relevant file before this Court. And having carefully gone through the pleading of the respondent authorities and from the noting in the relevant file produced before the Court, this Court is inclined to glean the reason for the decision from the same, and also from the pleadings of the respondent authorities, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Madhukar Kumar (supra). 13.4. And having tested the impugned order on the touchstone of the same, this Court is inclined to hold that the action of the respondent authority cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary. Thus, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent authorities, and the decision referred by him also supported his submission. On the other hand, this Court is unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page 17 of 19 13.5. I have also considered the submission of Mr. Gogoi regarding the scope of interference of this Court in respect of administrative order and carefully gone through the other decisions referred by Mr. Gogoi, and I find sufficient force in his submission and the decisions referred by him also strengthened his submission. 13.6. As discussed above, in order to examine the issue of discrepancy noticed in various pay slips, salary certificates and the statement in application form, the respondent authorities had kept in abeyance the joining of the petitioner and constituted a committee to examine the documents submitted by him. The committee comprising of Prof. H.C. Gautam, Ex. Prof. & Head of the Department of Commerce, Gauhati University as Chairman; Prof. Deb Kumar Chakraborty, Dept. of Economics, Dibrugarh University as Member and Sri Kamaleswar Kalita, FAO, SASU as a presenting officer in the committee. The committee had submitted its report after enquiry and on the basis of the said report, the termination letter, dated 29.02.2024, was issued. 14. It is well settled that the employer is the best judge to decide the requirement of a candidate and to decide the essential qualification and the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Shriram Warade(supra) so referred by Mr. Gogoi. In the case in hand, the respondent authorities had constituted a committee comprising of some expert and the committee, having examined the various pay/salary slip drawn by the petitioner from Amity University, Rajasthan, in its wisdom arrived at a finding that the pay/salary slips inconsistent with the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement and also observed that the petitioner had misrepresented the fact of his pay/salary. Thereafter, the matter having been placed before the Executive Council of the University, the council had opted to cancel the appointment letter due to failure to fulfil the eligibility criteria. Having been the best judge to decide the requirement of a candidate and to decide the essential qualification of prospective candidate, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. 14.1 It is well settled that in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448, and in the case of J.P. Kulshreshtra v. Allahabad University, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 418 and in the State of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, etc. that in academic/educational matters Courts should be reluctant to interfere. 14.2. In the case of Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain and Others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2272, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “It is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities.” 14.3. In Dr. Ira Pandit v. University of Delhi & Ors., reported in 1994 SCC Online Del 190, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "11. These experts had satisfied themselves of the respondent No. 4 fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria including the experience qualification basing their satisfaction on the certificate dated 16th October, 1993 quoted hereinabove and which was before them. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture in reviewing the decision of the educational experts like an appellate authority.” 15. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 16. The parties have to bear their own costs. J U D G E Comparing Assistant