Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8659 (UTT)

Pavan Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-03-11

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

body2026
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 169 of 2013 alone are being considered and discussed. 2. According to the petitioner, he was selected for regular appointment on the post of Associate Professor (Biotechnology) in G.B. Pant Engineering College, Ghurdauri, Pauri Garhwal, and on the recommendation of the selection committee, he was offered regular appointment, vide order dated 01.10.2011, passed by Principal of the college. In Clause No. 13 of the appointment order, it was mentioned that this offer is subject to verification of original documents, as per AICTE norms. 3. According to the petitioner, he submitted joining before the Principal of the concerned college on 10.10.2011, which was accepted also, however, Principal of the college, who also was the Vice Chairman of the selection committee, wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary, Training and Technical Education, Uttarakhand on 21.10.2011 flagging the issue that educational qualification possessed by the petitioner is not as per the notification dated 05.03.2010, issued by All India Council for Technical Education. In that letter, the Principal also stated that Biotechnology is a new course and there is dearth of suitable candidates having B. Tech. and M. Tech. qualification for appointment to senior faculty positions, which appears to be the reason for recommending petitioner for appointment as Associate Professor. 4. The Principal Secretary replied vide letter dated 20.03.2012, wherein he stated that petitioner be given contractual appointment. In terms of the communication dated 20.03.2012, issued by Principal Secretary, Training and Technical Education, petitioner was offered contractual appointment on 26.03.2012 on the post of Associate Professor (Biotechnology). 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner accepted such contractual appointment and he is continuing on contract as Associate Professor ever since then. 6. In Writ Petition (S/B) No. 169 of 2013, petitioner has sought a mandamus directing the respondents to implement the offer of regular appointment, made to him, on 01.10.2011. He has also sought a writ of mandamus in that petition to treat his tenure of contractual appointment on the post of Associate Professor as regular and to give all benefits, which are admissible to a regular incumbent. 7. He has also sought a writ of mandamus in that petition to treat his tenure of contractual appointment on the post of Associate Professor as regular and to give all benefits, which are admissible to a regular incumbent. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner was not having requisite educational qualification, therefore, his joining, submitted pursuant to the offer made to him on 01.10.2011 was not accepted and guidance was sought from the Principal Secretary of the concerned department, and in view of the instructions issued by Principal Secretary, petitioner was given appointment on contract. 8. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the college submits that petitioner is working continuously on contract ever since he was given contractual appointment in 2012. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is educationally qualified as per the advertisement dated 13.12.2010 in which the qualification needed for appointment as Associate Professor was as prescribed in AICTE notification dated 05.03.2010. He submits that AICTE has further clarified the question of qualification needed for appointment as Associate Professor, vide notification dated 20.05.2020. Clause 17 of the notification dated 20.05.2020 on which heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is extracted below:- 7. Whether a person with M. Sc. (Biotechnology/ Biochemical Engineering/ Chemistry/Mathematics) and M. Tech./Ph.D. in Biotechnology and Chemcial Technolgoy or relevant branches/ programmes/ any allied areas is eligible for CAS and/or for direct recruitment as a faculty in Degree and Diploma level Technical Institutions? Yes Existing incumbents recruited as a faculty with the basic minimum qualifications required at the time of recruitment and who had secured admissions to these courses before publication of AICTE notification dated 13th March, 2010 be considered as eligible for CAS/ promotions as well as direct recruitment in the same or the other institutions subject to fulfilment of other eligibility criteria and higher qualifications prescribed, if any, for various teaching posts. 10. We are not inclined to go into the question whether petitioner possessed all necessary qualification needed for regular appointment on the post of Associate Professor (Biotechnology) on the date of advertisement of the post. Whether the clarification issued by AICTE in 2020 would be applicable to a process of selection, which commenced in 2010 is also a question, which needs to be examined by the competent authority. 11. Whether the clarification issued by AICTE in 2020 would be applicable to a process of selection, which commenced in 2010 is also a question, which needs to be examined by the competent authority. 11. We, therefore, refer the matter to the Board of Governors of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, which shall examine the aforesaid two aspects and take a considered decision, as per law, within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Till decision is taken by the Board of Governors, petitioner shall be permitted to continue as before and shall be paid due remuneration. 12. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.