H.S. Gupta Vs. The Chairman, Board of Governors, I.I T, Delhi & Ors 
INSC 562 (8 July 1997)
RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK
8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present:
Mr. Justice G.N. Ray Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. B. Pattanaik Appellant in person.
Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
RAY, J Leave granted. heard the appellant appearing in person and the learned
counsel for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 15, 1988 passed by the Division Bench of
Delhi High Court in C.W.P No. 109 of 1988.
appellant moved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
in Delhi high Court which was numbered as
C.W.P NO . 109 of 1988 assailing the decision of the Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi as Contained in memo No. 1303 dated April 17, 1986 rejecting
the representation of the appellant for the post of Senior Scientific Officer
(Grade I) and Memo No 8553 dated March 25, 1987 and Memo No. 1639 dated
18.5.1987 rejecting the appellants's further representation and also assailing
the decision of the respondents in not calling the appellant for interview on
January 15, 1988 for the post of Assistant professor in the civil engineering department.
By the impugned order, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition.
appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor on July 20, 1987 in the department of Civil
Engineering of I.I.T Delhi in response to the advertisement No. 11/87 (E-1).
The appellant was not called for interview because his name was not short
listed by the concerned authority. The appellant had also applied earlier for
the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Grade I) in the said department pursuant
to the advertisement No. 12/85 for such post. He has not called for interview
for the said post of S.S.O (I) as he was not short listed. The appellant made
representations for being excluded in the short listing for which he was not
called for interview. Such representations were rejected. The appellant sought
for personal interview with the Governor of the Board of management of I.I.T.
Delhi but such request was turned down.
appellant is M.Sc in Mathematics and also a Ph.D in Mathematic. He is serving
as Senior Scientific Officer Grade II in I.I.T. Delhi since 1982 in the Civil
Engineering Department. The appellant joined in Civil Engineering Department of
I.I.T, Delhi in 1979 under Indo-U.K.
Project on flood forecasting and the appellant has averred in the writ petition
that he was selected through open advertisement and competing with other
candidates including candidates having engineering degree.
appellant has stated that he has contributed in developing mathematical models
in the area of Water Resources which according to the appellant, was possible
with the background training and skill in the discipline of mathematics coupled
with computer and technology. The appellant has contended that on line Real
Time flood forecasting model developed by him is known internationally and the
Institute has earned name for such model. According to the appellant, he has
already taught core courses at M.Tech level of water Course Engineering and has
also supervised Projects at the level of B.Tech. and M.Tech.
of Civil Engineering. The appellant also claims to have served the Civil
Engineering Department of I.I., Delhi as its officer in charge of one of its laboratories for several years
and has also held assignment for computer counselling to graduate students,
research students and faculty colleagues. It may be indicated that the
experience of the appellant as indicated by him has not been disputed.
appears that the appellant's grievance is that the appellant is M.sc. and Ph.D.
in Mathematics and even though he does not possess degree in engineering, he is
fully qualified backed by long experience in the department of Civil
engineering in I.I.T. Delhi to hold the post of Senior Scientific Officer grade
I and also the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Civil
appellant is aggrieved because although as per advertisement for the post of
Senior Scientific Officer Grade I (Advertisement No 12/85(E.I) in the Civil
Engineering Department of I.I.T. Delhi, minimum qualification needed was good
bachelor's degree in appropriate field of Science with five years' experience
in research and development and the appellant squarely fulfilled the criteria,
he was not short listed and called for interview even though candidate not
having Ph.D degree was called for interview and selected for the post. The
appellant is also aggrieved for not being short listed and called for interview
for the post of Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering Department
although he was qualified for the said post.
contention of the appellant has been seriously disputed by the respondents by
filing a counter-affidavit before this Court. It has been contended by the
respondents that the posts in I.I.T, Delhi are advertised and filled up depending on the actual need of the
particular department and in the particular specialisation. It has been
contended in the counter affidavit that the posts of Proffessor/Lecturer/ SSO
in the department of Civil Engineering were advertised under the following specialisation
"Structural Engineering including off shore structure solid and rock machanics,
water resources engineering, transpiration systems and engineering surveyings,
construction management". It has been stated in the counter affidavit that
the area of specialisation of the appellant has been water resources/forecastig
and not off shore structures. Since the post of SSO In the civil engineering
department was to be filled up by a person having specialisation in off shore
structure, the appellant's name was not short listed by the professorial
Committee of the institute duly approved by the Director of the Institute being
the Chairman of the Selection Committee.
also been contended in the affidavit that for the appointment to the staff
posts in the department of civil engineering, the candidate should have
engineering qualification. The appellant does not possess any degree in
engineering but he is holder of M.Sc and Ph. D. Degree in Mathematics and has specialised
in the area of Water Resources Forecasting. Hence, he was not called for
interview. It has been stated in counter affidavit that the Selection committee
selected Dr. N.K. Garg and Dr. A.K. Gossain as Assistant professors on the
basis of their specialisation in water resources. Sri A.K. Jain and Sri Ashok
Gupta were selected as SSO I because of their specialisation of structures
including off shore strictures including off shore structures. Hence, the
appellant has no occasion to feel aggrieved for not being selected.
counter affidavit, it has been further indicated that the appellant's
representation dated July
31, 1986 was addressed
to the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Institute. The Board of Governors is
the highest governing/executive body of the Institute. As a matter of
procedure, representations addressed to the chairman of the Board of Governors
or to the Board of Governors are first placed before the Grievance Committee
and personal hearing is also given before such Committee and personal hearing
is also given before such Committee. The appellant's grievance committee
consisting of three members and personal hearing was also given to the
appellant. The representation of the appellant was thereafter forwarded to the
Board of Governors with the notions of the Grievance Committee and such
representation was considered by the Board of Governors and was rejected. The
appellant was informed about the rejection of his representation. it has also
been stated in the counter affidavit that the appellant was given one more
opportunity to make further representation for placing it before the In-charge
of the Grievance Committee of the Board of Governors as decided by the Chairman
but the appellant failed to avail of such opportunity.
as the Advertisement No. 11/87 for the recruitment to the post of Assistant
professor in the Civil Engineering Department of the institute is concerned, it
has been stated in the counter affidavit that the appellant Dr. Gupta was not
called for interview because he was not possessing he basic degree in Civil
Engineering. The candidates in the field of Structural Engineering including
buildings science and water resources engineering were called for interview as
per the advertisement having the following criteria laid down for the post of
D with 8 years of experience after B.Tech/BE. Degree in Civil Engineering
inclusive of not less than three years experience in teaching. This experience
will include the period spent for research leading to Ph.D. or M.Tech.M.E. with
10 years of experience after B.Tech. Degree in Civil Engineering of which not
less than three years' experience in teaching." As Dr. Gupta was not
holder of either Bachelor degree or Master Degree in Engineering, but he was
holder of Master Degree and Ph.D Degree in Mathematics, he lacked in basic
qualification and also specialisation required for the said post. It has also
been stated in the counter affidavit that the appellant was advised that he
would be required to apply afresh for the post mentioned in the advertisement
No. 13/89 and 17/89 which were in the specialisation of the appellant. A copy
of the letter by the Director advising the appellant to apply afresh for the
post of Assistant professor in the specialisation of water resources
engineering has been annexed to in the counter affidavit but the appellant did
not apply in response to the advertisement No. 13/89 and 17/89.
case of the appellant was initially represented by Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior
counsel, as requested by this Court in View of the fact that the appellant is
appearing in person and is not fully conversant with the procedure of the
appellant, however, later on expressed the desire to address the Court himself
and he has been given the opportunity of being heard.
appears to us that the appellant was not called for interview on two occasions
when he applied for the post of senior Scientific Officer Grade I in response
to Advertisement No. 12/85 and for the post of a Assistant Professor in
response to Advertisement No. 12/85 and for the post of Assistant professor in
response to Advertisement No. 11/87 because according to the department, the
appellant did not possess the requisite expertise which was required for the
said post. It is true that for the post of Senior scientific Officer Grade I as
contained in Advertisement No. 12/85, the appellant had requisite minimum
educational qualification but it is the case of the department that he lacked
in the specialisation in the particular field for which the Senior Scientific
Officer Grade I was required. So far as the second Advertisment for the post of
Assistant Professor is concerned, the qualification prescribe of the said post
was Bachelor or post Graduate degree in Civil engineering and admittedly the
appellant does not possess such degree. From the facts and circumstances of the
case placed before this Court, it cannot be held that arbitrarily or
capriciously the appellant's case had been considered and he was not short
listed and called for interview on both the occasions in a designed manner. Unfortunately,
when the advertisement, Nos. 13/89 and 17/89 were advertised, the appellant did
not apply. We may however state that it has not been correctly contended in the
counter affidavit that either for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Or
Assistant Professor, unless the basic degree in Civil engineering is not
possessed, a candidate cannot be considered for interview. As a matter of fact,
in the advertisement No. 12/85 it was specifically mentioned that the holder of
post Graduate Degree in the field of Science was eligible to apply. therefore,
we do not think that there would be any difficulty for the appellant to apply
in future when suitable posts with expertise in the speciality in which the
appellants has long experience are to be filled up.
he indicated here that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant was
given liberty to apply in response to further advertisements for filling the
post of senior scientific Officer Grade I/Assistant Professor Civil Engineering
Department, I.I.T., Delhi without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the appellant in this appeal.
appellant applied but has not been selected. The reason has been indicated by
the respondents that he did not have the experience or expertise in the
particular field for which advertisements were given. In the absence of any
material on the basis of which Thais court can come to the finding that the
case of the appellant has not been considered deliberately and in a calculated
manner to ensure that he would not be selected to the post of Senior Scientific
Officer Grade I/Assistant professor, we are afraid that no relief can be given
to the appellant in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
we part, we may indicate that the appellant has been serving the Institute in
Civil engineering Department for a number of years and has been rendering a
very useful service in the department by guiding under graduate and post
graduate students in the Civil Engineering department and also the research scholars.
There is no manner of doubt that apart from his qualification as M.Sc, and Ph.D
in Mathematics, the appellant has gained a long experience in the field in watt
resources management. It will be only unfortunate if his future career is
blocked for ever only on the score that he does not possess degree in civil
engineering. The appellant has been selected for the post of Senior Scientific
Officer Grade II by competing with the candidates having engineering degree. It
will not be fair and just to deny the appellant an opening or chance of future
promotion even though the appellant was selected as senior Scientific Officer
Grade II as far back as in 1982.
reasonably expect that the Board of Governors of I.I.T, Delhi will keep in mind the misfortune and
prejudice suffered by the appellant for not getting any suitable avenue for
promotion despite his long years of service in the Institute. We have no doubt
that the Board of Governors would be alive to the misery of the appellant and
would see that the experience of the appellant is properly recognised so that
he gets an opening for appropriate posting in promotional post either in the
civil engineering department or any other suitable department by inter
departmental transfer where his specialisation may be gainfully utilised in the
best possible manner.