Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010231452024 2026:GAU-AS:7085 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5637/2024 DR DHARITRI BARUAH D/O BINOD CHANDRA BARUAH R/O DHING, NEAR NAMGHAR, DIS. NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782123 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AN AUTONOMOUS ORGANIZATION UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KRISHI BHAWAN DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (DARE) AND DIRECTOR GENERAL (ICAR). 3:ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY NOWCHALIAH GAON JORHAT ASSAM- 785013 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 4:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY JORHAT PIN- 785013. Page No.# 2/18 5:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY JORHAT PIN- 785013. 6:DR. AVINASH TALUKDAR S/O KASHI RAM TALUKDAR R/O KHUDRA SHANKAR NIZ BAHJANI P.O. GOPAL THAN P.S. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781335 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocates for the petitioner: Mr. N. Deka, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Gogoi, Adv. Advocate for the respondents: Mr. S. Bhuyan, SC Higher Education Mr. K. Das, R-2 Mr. I. Borthakur, R-3, 4 and 5 Date on which judgment is reserved : 07.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 22.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(CAV) Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Gogoi, Page No.# 3/18 learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for the respondent No.1; Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. None appears for the respondent No.6 despite notice. [2.] The brief facts of the case is that the Assam Agricultural University (the University/AAU for short) published Advertisement No. 8/2023 dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure-B), inviting applications from amongst interested candidates for filling up of one post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in the Faculty of Fisheries Science amongst others. Similarly, one post each was advertised for Aquatic Animal Health Management and Fisheries Resource Management. Out of three posts, two posts were unreserved including a post reserved for women while one post was reserved for OBC. The petitioner being a Ph.D and a Master’s Degree holder in Aquaculture applied for the post in the discipline of Aquaculture and the last date for submission of the candidature was 14.01.2024. However, after a lapse of about 6(six) months, the University issued a corrigendum on the advertisement on 12.06.2024, providing that Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology will be considered equivalent to Aquaculture discipline. The Respondent No.6, who is a student of Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology, also applied for the post of Assistant Professor Page No.# 4/18 and equivalent in the faculty of Fishery Sciences in the Discipline of Aquaculture. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 vide Notification dated 09.08.2024, notified the list of eligible candidates for the post under the Faculty of Veterinary Sciences and Fishery Sciences and the respective dates of interview fixed for various posts. Accordingly, interview was held on 22.08.2024 as per the schedule and vide order dated 28.10.2024, the Respondent No 6 was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries, AAU, Raha. [3.] According to the petitioner, as per the advertisement, out of the three posts of Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Fishery Sciences, one post was reserved for women and the petitioner was the only qualified women candidate, who was called for the interview in the Faculty of Fishery Sciences. Therefore, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be appointed against the same post reserved for women in which she applied, i.e., in the Discipline of Aquaculture under the Faculty of Fishery Sciences. [4.] The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities did not specify as to which of the posts was reserved for OBC and the subsequent conduct of the respondent authorities in changing the eligibility criteria after the due date of submission of application and that too in contravention of the various Notifications and Office Memorandums of the Page No.# 5/18 Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board of the Indian Council of Agriculture Resource (ICAR) clearly reflects the malafide and biasness in favour of the respondent No. 6. He submits that it is only apparent that the Respondent No. 6 did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the original advertisement, but by the Corrigendum dated 12.6.2024, the Respondent Authorities in a most illegal manner brought the Respondent No. 6 within the eligibility criteria and thereafter gave him appointment to the said post. He submits that respondent No.6 does not even meet the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Faculty of Fishery Science, Aquaculture and as such, the issue goes to the root of the matter and the respondent No.6 could not have been appointed to the said post. He further submits that the various notifications and the detailed self study report annexed to the writ petition goes to show that the two courses of Aquaculture, Fish Nutrition, and Feed Technology are distinct and separate and not interchangeable. [5.] The learned senior counsel also submits that according to the petitioner, the respondent No.6 is working on a temporary basis in the College where he has been given appointment and shares a very close relationship with the Teachers and other authorities of the respondent University and therefore, the biasness is apparent on the face of the records. He thus submits that the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Registrar of the University insofar as the Page No.# 6/18 appointment of the respondent No.6 is concerned, should be set aside after holding that the Corrigendum dated 12.06.2024 is nonest in law and thereafter, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Aquaculture instead. [6.] The learner senior counsel further submits that the Respondent University has filed an affidavit-in-opposition by enclosing the resolution of the 249th meeting of the Academic Council held on 02.05.2024 and which was notified vide Notification dated 06.06.2024 as Annexure-C in the said affidavit. He submits that as per the resolution, candidate with Master’s in Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology will be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Aquaculture), considering the interrelatedness of the discipline and the fact that there is no separate Department of Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology in College of Fisheries, Raha and in view of the openness of higher education. He submits that the resolution so adopted is not only beyond the powers conferred upon the Academic Council but the same is also self-contradictory inasmuch as, if there is no Department of Fish Nutrition and Feed Technology, it is not understood as to whom a Master’s Degree holder in Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology would teach in the College. He submits that it is only an admitted position that Aquaculture and Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology are two distinct Page No.# 7/18 and separate discipline in Fishery Sciences which is evident from the syllabus issued for the National Eligibility Test (NET) Examination. There is no question of a candidate having qualification in a particular discipline be made eligible to teach a different discipline. [7.] The learned Senior counsel submits that the ICAR Notification dated 17.5.2023 is for recruitment to the post of Scientist in Agriculture Research Service (ARS) Examination, 2023, where the discipline of Fish Nutrition & Feed Technology, Fish Nutrition, Fish Nutrition & Biochemistry, Aquatic Animal Health Management, Fish Health Management, Fish Genetics & Breeding were grouped along with Aquaculture. He submits that recruitment of Scientists through ARS is done for conducting research, in alignment with the research training and field practice. All the aforesaid disciplines are grouped to achieve sustainable aquaculture research. Further, the discipline of Aquatic Animal Health Management was also grouped in the ARS recruitment, 2023 in the discipline of Aquaculture. However, the discipline of Aquatic Animal Health Management was not made part of the eligibility criteria in the corrigendum dated 12.06.2024 for the post of Assistant Professor of Aquaculture. Instead, one post in the discipline of Aquatic Animal Health Management was advertised in the Advertisement dated 11.12.2023. Page No.# 8/18 [8.] That in the year 2023, the minimum eligibility criteria for ARS examination was revised from Master’s Degree to Ph.D in relevant subject, which has necessitated the revision of the syllabus and grouping of different disciplines. This is evident from the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.2023 issued by the ICAR. In the ARS examination, 2025, the minimum educational qualification for eligibility again restored to Master's degree in the relevant discipline and the disciplines are not grouped in the examination of 2025. Thus, the grouping of disciplines in the ARS examination, 2023 do not have any relevance to the present case as relied upon by the respondent University. The learned senior counsel thus submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment of the respondent No.6 be set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the petitioner for the post in question. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relies upon the following authorities: 1/Dr. Biren Das Vs. Tezpur University and Ors. (2003) 3 GLR 714; 2/The order dated 05.04.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C)/958/2019 (Naznin Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors.); 3/The Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji 1951 SCC 1088; Page No.# 9/18 4/Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405; 5/ Tej Prakash Pathak and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. (2025) 2 SCC 1 and 6/ Krishna Rai (through LRS) and Ors. Vs.Banaras Hindu University Through Registrar and Ors. (2022) 8 SCC 713. [9.] Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No.4 filed on 11.08.2025, submits that the 249th Academic Council which was held on 02.05.2024, was within its rights and jurisdiction to hold that candidates with Master’s in Fish Biotechnology and Master’s in Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology shall be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor Aquaculture considering the interrelatedness of the discipline and the fact that there is no separate division/department of Fish Nutrition & Fish Technology and Fish Genetics & Biotechnology in the College of Fisheries, Raha and also for openness of higher education and for the greater interest of the University. The said notification also makes similar order for eligibility to the post of Assistant Professor in other departments. Accordingly, a corrigendum through the Page No.# 10/18 advertisement was issued, wherein, the discipline of Fish Nutrition & Fish Technology and Fish Biotechnology were included in addition to the essential qualification published in their Advertisement No.8/2023 as relevant subjects for the post of Assistant Professor in the Discipline of Aquaculture of Faculty of Fisheries Sciences along with other three relevant disciplines in the Faculty of Agriculture. He submits that duly constituted Screening Committee had shortlisted the candidates to appear in the interview under the Faculty of Fishery Sciences for the post of Assistant Professor notified on 09.08.2024. The short listed names of the post of Assistant Professor in Aquaculture included the names of the petitioner and that of the respondent No.6 along with others. Consequently, respondent No.6 was selected for the post in question. [10.] Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel also submits that by issuing the corrigendum, more candidates who were having their Master’s Degree in Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition, Fish Technology could participate for the post in question and therefore, none of the petitioner's right have been infringed upon. The petitioner in fact participated in the selection process and finding herself to be not selected cannot now turn around and challenge the selection process. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 further submits that as per the notification for ARS Examination, 2023, the discipline of Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology apart from others are included Page No.# 11/18 in the discipline of Aquaculture. He therefore submits that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance to make and the writ petition may be dismissed. [11.] Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel submits that the corrigendum was issued which enabled those having the degree in Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology are also eligible to apply for the post in question and therefore, it cannot be said that the rules of the game has been changed in the recruitment process. In other words, the Process Server recruitment was at the very initial stage and participation of the petitioner or any other persons had not been curtailed and instead, more candidates could participate in the recruitment process. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the rules of the game have been changed in the midst of recruitment process cannot be accepted. [12.] Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department and Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, adopt the arguments made by Mr. I. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, 4 and 5. [13.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties, and I have perused the materials available on record. From the above projection, the issue to be decided is as to whether the respondent Page No.# 12/18 University having advertised the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in Department of Aquaculture, can come up with a corrigendum after issuing an advertisement about 6(six) months earlier by providing that those having Master’s degree in the discipline of Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology will also be eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Aquaculture. Further, in doing so, whether the University has changed the rules of the game. [14.] The further issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner can be said to have a legitimate grievance in view of the fact that she had participated in the selection process with the knowledge that the said corrigendum was issued which enabled participation of the private respondent No. 6 in the selection process. Therefore, having participated in the selection and having found herself to be unsuccessful, it would be open for her to challenge the selection process and the appointment of the respondent No. 6. [15.] As per the Advertisement dated 11.12.2023, the last date for submission of the application by those interested was on or before 4:00 p.m. of 14.01.2024 through online. Thereafter, on 12.06.2024, a corrigendum of the advertisement came to be issued by which the discipline of Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology were notified to be the relevant disciplines Page No.# 13/18 for eligibility apart from the discipline of Aquaculture. Further, the time for submission of online application was open on 13.06.2024 from 11:00 a.m. onwards till 5:00 p.m. of 22.06.2024. That is how the respondent No.6 who is said to have a degree in Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology became eligible to apply for the post in question. The petitioner without challenging the corrigendum or even by objecting to the same by way of a complaint/representation participated in the selection process. It was only when the respondent No.6 came to be selected and appointed vide order dated 28.10.2024 that she has filed the instant writ petition on 02.11.2024. [16.] On the above issue, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Dr. Biren Das (Supra) wherein, it was held that non-raising of objection or protest at the relevant time may not operate as an estoppel in the event, it is shown that the very composition of the Selection Committee was in complete violation of the statute. The facts of the case in the referred case was that the writ petitioner who was an Assistant Registrar of the Tezpur University having requisite qualification applied for the post of Deputy Director (training and placement), 12 candidates including the writ petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee. According to the petitioner, although he participated in the selection process, the composition of the Selection Committee surpassed the number of members prescribed as per Page No.# 14/18 the provision of Section 9 of the statute-2 of the University. The Court therefore held that the challenge was not on the ground of biasness or malafide on the part of any member of the Committee but on the illegal composition of the Selection Committee in complete violation of the provisions of the statute and therefore, the Court by adopting the principles laid down in Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 and Ramachandran Keshav Adke Vs. Govind Joti Chavare And Ors. AIR 1975 SC 915 held that participation in the selection process would not operate as an estoppel. [17.] However, in the present case, it may be seen that the issue in question is not with regard to the composition of the Selection Committee, but with regard to the addition of more disciplines as relevant apart from the discipline of Aquaculture. The petitioner ought to have raised objections and/or challenged the corrigendum at the first opportunity available to her. Instead she has participated in the selection process after the issuance of the Corrigendum on 12.06.2024 without any protest. It was only when the respondent No.6 came to be recommended and appointed vide the order dated 28.10.2024, that she decided to file the instant writ petition. Therefore, the action of the petitioner in the considered view of this Court is barred by the principles of acquiescence. Further, the corrigendum was introduced at a time when applications were being invited for consideration and not during the process of screening or interview. Page No.# 15/18 Therefore, the introduction made by the corrigendum enlarging the discipline for participation to the post in question in the considered view of this Court cannot be termed as changing the rules of the game. [18.] Despite the above finding, we may proceed to examine the other issue involved as well. According to the petitioner, the discipline of Aquaculture is distinct to that of Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition and Feed Technology and therefore, the three disciplines could not have been introduced through the corrigendum providing that those having a degree in these disciplines will be eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in Aquaculture Department. [19.] The respondent University has contended in their affidavit-in- opposition that the corrigendum was issued pursuant to the 249th meeting of the Academic Council held on 02.05.2024, providing that as there is no separate Department of Fish Nutrition and Fish Technology in College of Fisheries and due to openness of Higher Education candidates with Master’s in Fish Nutrition and Feed Technology would be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, Aquaculture. [20.] Reliance has also been placed on the notification of ARS examination, 2023 for appointment as Scientist in ARS of ICAR. The discipline of Aquaculture amongst others is made comparable to that of Fish Technology, Fish Nutrition, Page No.# 16/18 Fish Technology. While such is the position in the notification issued for NET, ARS etc., examination, 2025, the disciplines and their eligibility qualification have been provided in the appended annexure wherein, Aquaculture and Fish Nutrition have been shown to be separate discipline. While discipline of Aquaculture is shown as it is, the discipline of Fish Nutrition is said to include Fish Nutrition and Biochemistry, Fish Nutrition and Feed Technology amongst others. However, by taking a holistic view of the manner in which NET and ARS examinations have been notified from time to time, there appears to be interrelation of the disciplines as was resolved by the Academic Council of the University in its 249th meeting. The same can be appreciated from the notification for ARS examination notified by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, Department of Agriculture Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare on 17.05.2023. Although the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the said notification is for appointment as Scientist while the present post in question is with regard to Assistant Professor and equivalent. It may be noticed that the corrigendum itself provides the name of the post as Assistant Professor/Scientist. [21.] Therefore, under the circumstance, in absence of a specific challenge to the fact that post of Assistant Professor is different to the post of Scientist Page No.# 17/18 and are not similar, it would not be possible for this Court to accept the submission in this regard. Although an affidavit-in-opposition has not been filed by the respondent ICAR (RespondentNo.2), but as already noted above, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. [22.] Another aspect of the matter is that the writ petitioner has not challenged the decision taken by the Academic Council in its 249th meeting, but only the outcome of the decision through corrigendum dated 12.06.2024. Therefore, in the absence of specific challenge to the source of the corrigendum, the same cannot be said to be an effective challenge as the decision itself will remain even if the corrigendum is set aside. [23.] The learned senior counsel has relied upon the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (Supra) to contend that public orders made by the public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. This decision has been relied upon to show that the reasoning given by the Academic Council in its meeting does not include the justification made in the affidavit-in-opposition that the ARS Page No.# 18/18 examination of 2023 encompasses the discipline of Fish Biotechnology, Fish Nutrition and Feed Technology. However, the fact remains that such a condition is only in addition to what has been resolved in the Academic Council meeting and therefore cannot be said to attract the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the said case. [24.] Similarly, on the same principle, the reliance placed on the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another (Supra) would also be not attracted. Further, the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. (Supra) will also not apply in the instant case in view of the fact that this Court has already held that the selection process was only at the initial stage, i.e., the stage of submission of application. Therefore, the condition that the rules of the game has been changed in the midst of selection process cannot be accepted. [25.] Thus upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance under the given facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, the writ petition found to be without merit and is therefore dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant