Meghalaya High Court
North East Centre For Technology … vs Ankit Shrivastava on 8 July, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:585-DB
Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 4
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No. 12/2025 with
WA No. 13/2025
WA No. 14/2025
WA No. 15/2025
Date of CAV: 25.06.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2025
1. North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR),
Autonomous Society under the Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of India Campus, Bonnie
Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya.
2. The Director General, North East Centre for Technology Application
and Reach (NECTAR), Autonomous Society under the Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of
India Campus, Bonnie Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001,
Meghalaya.
3. Chairman, Governing Council, NECTAR, Shillong.
4. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Science
and Technology, 2nd floor Vishwakarma Bhawan, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi-110016. ..... Appellants
Vs
Ankit Shrivastava, S/o Shri V.K. Shrivastava, R/o Old Hospital Campus,
MG Road, Khargaon (MP). Presently residing at 101, B4 Tower,
Gardenia Glory Apartment, Sector-46 Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201303.
..... Respondent
1. North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR),
Autonomous Society under the Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of India Campus, Bonnie
Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya.
2. The Director General, North East Centre for Technology Application
and Reach (NECTAR), Autonomous Society under the Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of
India Campus, Bonnie Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001,
Meghalaya.
3. Chairman, Governing Council, NECTAR, Shillong.
Page 1 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DB
4. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Science
and Technology, 2nd floor Vishwakarma Bhawan, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi-110016. ..... Appellants
Vs
Simon Phukan, R/o House No.16, MG Road, Uznbazar, Rajbari,
Guwahati, Assam. Presently residing at F 103, Pocket A, Near Phase I,
DDA Flats, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. ..... Respondent
1. North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR),
Autonomous Society under the Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of India Campus, Bonnie
Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya.
2. The Director General, North East Centre for Technology Application
and Reach (NECTAR), Autonomous Society under the Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of
India Campus, Bonnie Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001,
Meghalaya.
3. Chairman, Governing Council, NECTAR, Shillong.
4. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Science
and Technology, 2nd floor Vishwakarma Bhawan, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi-110016. ..... Appellants
Vs
Shri Simanta Das, S/o (L) Robin Chandra Das, R/o Survey of India
Campus, Barik Point, Shillong-793001, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya. ..... Respondent
1. North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR),
Autonomous Society under the Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of India Campus, Bonnie
Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya.
2. The Director General, North East Centre for Technology Application
and Reach (NECTAR), Autonomous Society under the Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India, Headquarter at Survey of
India Campus, Bonnie Brae Estate, Barik Point, Shillong-793001,
Meghalaya.
3. Chairman, Governing Council, NECTAR, Shillong.
Page 2 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DB
4. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Science
and Technology, 2nd floor Vishwakarma Bhawan, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi-110016. ..... Appellants
Vs
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sarmah, Survey of India Campus, Barik Point,
Shillong-793001 Meghalaya. ..... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance in WA Nos. 12, 13 & 14 of 2025:
For the Appellants : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. K. Gurung, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv with
Mrs. R. Dutta, Adv.
Mr. S. Chanda, Adv.
Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv.
Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv.
Appearance in WA No. 15 of 2025:
For the Appellants : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. K. Gurung, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mrs. P.D. Bujarbaruah, Sr. Adv with
Ms. D. L. Marshilong, Adv
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
Note: For proper public information and transparency, any media
reporting this judgment is directed to mention the
composition of the bench by name of judges, while reporting
this judgment/order.
Page 3 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DB
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach
(NECTAR), is described by the Government of India as “an autonomous
society under the department of Science and Technology”. It has its
headquarters at Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. This
society has a Governing Council and an Executive Council. The appellant
No.2, the Director General is the executive head of NECTAR. This
society was set up in 2012 with a sanction for 31 regular posts.
On 10th July, 2022, this organisation issued an advertisement
inviting applications for filling up various vacant posts on
“deputation/(including short term contract)/absorption failing which by
direct recruitment”.
We are concerned with the applications made by Rakesh Kumar
Sarmah [WP (C) No.420 of 2022]; WA No.15 of 2025 for the post of Chief
Coordinator (Technical); Simanta Das [WP (C) No.430 of 2022]; WA
No.14 of 2025 for the post of Chief Radio Technologist; Simon Phukan
[WP (C) No.433 of 2022]; WA No.13 of 2025 for the post of Senior
Administrative Officer; Ankit Shrivastava [WP (C) No.112 of 2023]; WA
No.12 of 2025 for the post of Software Engineer. They were writ
petitioners in the writ petitions and are respondents in the appeals.
Page 4 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DB
All were scientific posts except the post of Senior Administrative
Officer applied by Simon Phukan. In each category, there was one vacant
post only to be filled up. Each of the respondents was called for an
interview; each was issued an offer of appointment on 23 rd November,
2021 by the respondent No.2. Each of the respondents joined the post
contemporaneously and have been drawing pay and allowances specified
in the letter of appointment.
The respondents were most intrigued and surprised by a letter
dated 7th October, 2022 by the Director General to each of them
cancelling the appointment. It referred to the directive of the Governing
Council to “scrap the recruitment process and initiate it afresh as early as
possible”. The Director General also stated that the advertisement
inviting applications was to be treated as “null and void”. The
respondents were reverted back to their original posts.
What transpired between 23rd November, 2021 and 7th October,
2022 has been very lucidly described in the impugned judgment and order
of the learned single judge dated 5th April, 2024. The selection of
candidates had been made by a selection committee/interview panel duly
approved by the Chairman of NECTAR, his lordship opined. On 21 st
February, 2022, the Executive Committee of NECTAR had approved the
Page 5 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DB
recruitments. All members of the Governing Council signified their
approval. The 8th meeting of the Governing Council was held on 18th
April, 2022. Item No.4A of the agenda was “status of recruitment process
and approval of Governing Council”. The recruitment process was
approved at this meeting. The Secretary of the Science and Technology
department who is the Chairman of the Governing Council could not
attend. It was chaired by Dr. Renu Sharma, the Chief Secretary, Mizoram.
It was reversed at the 9th meeting of the Council on 18th August, 2022. It
appears that at the instance of the Secretary, the Governing Council
resolved at the 8th meeting that the resolution be placed before him.
Thereafter, the 9th meeting was convened when the resolution was
recorded.
The learned judge went on to remark that the cancellation of
appointments of the respondents was in breach of the principles of natural
justice. The respondents were not given an opportunity of being heard.
His lordship opined that the appointments of the respondents were neither
illegal nor irregular and were to be reconsidered by the appellants for
appointments in accordance with the rules. The impugned letter dated 7th
October, 2022 was set aside and the writ petitions were allowed.
Page 6 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DB
In this appeal the grounds taken by the appellants for taking such
a drastic decision are these. By the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, the posts were required to be filled up first by deputation
and, if such candidates were not found by a selection process. Without
ruling out the fact that the posts could not be filled up on deputation, the
selection process had been undertaken. Secondly, the Director General
had no power or authority to make the appointments.
On behalf of the respondent appointees, we have heard attractive
submissions being made by Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior Advocate and
Mrs. P.D. Bujarbaruah, learned Senior Advocate. Most importantly, Mrs.
Bujuarbaruah placed before us the General By-laws of NECTAR made
under Rule 12(xiii) of the Rules of NECTAR. It is made by the Governing
Council with the prior approval of the Central government. Rule 20 under
Part-V dealing with the powers and duties of Director General. Rules 20
and 23 are set out below:
“20. The Director General shall coordinate and exercise general
supervision over all the activities of the Centre. He shall also be
competent to delegate any of the powers conferred upon him to
such officers of the Centre working under him as may be
considered necessary for effective and efficient functioning of the
Centre.
23. Subject to the provisions of Bye-Law 20 above, the Director
General shall be competent on behalf of the Centre to execute
contracts, collaboration agreement(s) general/specialPage 7 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DBinstruments, service agreements/agreements containing
arbitration clauses, indemnity bonds and deeds in respect of or
connected with sale/lease/license, mortgage, hypothecation,
pledge, or other deed(s) of a legal character of whatever
description, power(s) of Attorney to enforce guarantee(s) on any
other legal rights, to incur legal expenses and to act as agent of
the Centre for any purpose whatsoever relating to the affairs of
the Centre.”
She submitted that these rules sufficiently empowered the
Director General to make the appointments.
Mr. Paul, learned Senior Advocate submitted that at the 8th
Governing Council meeting on 18th April, 2022, an ex post facto approval
of the appointments which had been made by the Executive Council on
21st February, 2022, was made by the Governing Council.
Many of the appointees had resigned from their previous
employment and joined the post and it was most unjust when their
appointments were cancelled and they were reverted back to their original
post.
Our views:
Director General is the executive head of NECTAR. By
occupying such post, he had sufficient authority to make the subject
appointments.
Moreover, under Rules 20 and 22 under Part V of the Bye-laws
as placed by learned counsel, the Director General had sufficient
Page 8 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DBauthority to start and conclude the subject selection process. The selection
of candidates had been made by a selection committee/interview panel
duly approved by the Chairman of NECTAR on 21st February, 2022. The
Governing Council had approved the appointments. Then the Secretary,
Department of Science and Technology desired the appointments to be
placed before him. The Governing Council at the instigation of the
Secretary, should not have turned around at the 9th meeting and cancelled
the appointments. The purported exercise of power by the Secretary and
at its 9th meeting by the Governing Council was totally irregular and
arbitrary.
The appointments had every feature of legitimacy and validity. It
had thus attained finality. This final outcome which was irreversible had
been negatived at the whim and caprice of the Secretary engineered
through the Governing Council. Nothing could have been more
unfortunate. The career of aspiring scientists has been jeopardised by this
action.
More importantly, the appointees had treated the Director General
as acting under ostensible authority. There was no reason to doubt the
authenticity of a letter of appointment duly signed by the Director
General under the seal of NECTAR. The appointees had every reason to
Page 9 of 10
2025:MLHC:585-DBbelieve that the appointments were legally made through an authorised
person. Any dispute in the Department with regard to the authority of the
Director General was internecine and the appointees cannot and should
not have been made victims of it.
For all those reasons, I could go even further than the ultimate
order passed by the learned single judge and direct reversal of the
cancellation of the orders of appointment of the respondents as if they
were non est. The respondents are restored to their original appointment
by the Director General without any interruption by cancellation. They
shall be entitled to pay, allowances and all benefits without any
interruption.
The appeals are dismissed.
The writ petitions are disposed of by affirming the order of the
learned single judge together with the modifications and directions made
by us above.
(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji)
Judge Chief Justice
Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2025.07.08 03:27:43 IST
[ad_1]
Source link