WP(C) 6440/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. H K Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W P (C) No.5588/2007, W P (C) No.6440/2007 and W P (C) No.698/ 2008. Also heard Mr . N Choudhury, learned counsel representing the Assam University. None appears for the petitioner in W P (C) No.728/2008. 2. As all the 4 writ petitions raise common issues and have been heard and considered together, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sa ke of convenience, the essential facts are being noted from the W P (C) No.698/ 2008. 3. Petitioners, the Assam University Non-Teaching Employees Association, on e Dal Bahadur Rai and one Sabil Ahmed Barbhuiya have filed the present petitions , primarily to challenge the advertisements issued by the Assam University, Silc har, inviting applications for direct recruitment to various categories of non-t eaching posts in the University. The advertisements pertains to posts in the Sil char campus as well as in the Diphu Campus of the University. 4. The main contentions of the petitioners is that as per the promotion and recruitment policy adopted on 21/22.08.2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 20 03 Policy ), a decision was taken to make appointment to different non-teaching posts such as Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Section Officer, Assistants , etc. on the basis of promotion to be effected from amongst the serving employe es of the University on the basis of the promotion policy marked as Annexure 1A to the writ petition. The promotion policy reveals that the concerned posts are to be filled up exclusively by promotion, although different modes of recruitmen t are prescribed indicating different categories of feeder posts. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that earlier a large number of appointment to different posts in the University has been made on the basis of the 2003 Promotion Policy and in fact by resolution ad opted on 18.5.2007 in the 53rd meeting of the Executive Council of the Universit y under item No.73, it has been decided to give promotion to Dal Bahadur Rai, th e writ petitioner in W P (C) No.5588/2007 serving as Section Officer to the post of Assistant Registrar on the basis of the said promotion policy notified in th e year 2003. By referring to the various clauses in the policy, it is contended that the impugned advertisement issued by the University for making direct recruitmen t on the basis of applications being invited for open competition would be clear ly contrary to the recruitment process notified to be made from in-house candida tes under the 2003 Promotion Policy and accordingly the impugned advertisements are required to be interfered with by this Court and the promotions to the petit ioners should be ordered to be given on the basis of promotion, as per the polic y notified in the year 2003. 6. Mr. N Choudhury, learned counsel representing the University on the othe r hand submits that the Assam University came to be constituted by the Assam Uni versity Act, 1993 and the promotion policy relied upon by the petitioners was er roneously framed by the University Authorities in the year 2003. They are also c ontrary to the guidelines given by the University Grants Commission (UGC). It is further submitted that the 2003 Policy was never approved by the UGC and when c ommunication was addressed seeking approval for the said 2003 policy, the UGC by its letter dated 13.8.2007 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University c learly indicated that the Central Universities are required to strictly adhere t o the UGC guidelines with regard to the qualifications and appointment for diffe rent posts under the University and the University was warned that if it takes a decision on financial matters which are contrary to UGS’s advice and instructio ns, the entitlement of the University for financial assistance would be put to j eopardy and steps may be taken for recovery of salary expenditure made through u napproved process. 7. In the UGC’s communication, the existing guidelines issued by the Minist ry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India was also referred to and a copy of the said guidelines was also made available for compliance by the Assam Univ ersity. In the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India guidelines dated 2.11.1988 it was clearly indicated that the recruitments are to be made o n the basis of all India advertisement and selection process through written tes t and interview for 50% of the posts at the level of Assistant Registrar are to be made by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion. 8. Mr. N Choudhury, learned counsel has also referred to the UGC communicat ion dated 1.10.2007 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the Assam Unive rsity where advice was given to prepare the Cadre Recruitment Rules as per the G ovt. of India format. Various clauses with regard to recruitment in the administ rative cadre, ministerial cadre, secretarial cadre, library cadre, laboratory ca dre, maintenance cadre and Group D cadre were referred to in the said communicat ion dated 1.10.2007 of the UGC, whereby it has been directed that only limited p ercentage of the posts available can be filled up on the basis of promotion of t he existing eligible employees working under the University and the majority of the posts are to be filled up through the prescribed direct recruitment process. 9. The Universities are required to function under the guidelines issued by the UGC as it is the UGC which decide on the affiliation of a particular Univer sity and also the recognition of the academic degrees issued by the affiliated U niversity. The Universities are also depended for their expenditures including t he salary expenditures, on grants received by them from the UGC and the Governme nt and it is not possible for any University to frame any recruitment policy, co ntrary to the guidelines issued by the UGC. In case of breach, the very function ing of an University may be put to jeopardy. 10. It is also seen that 2003 policy of the respondent University was never approved by the UGC and in fact when the approval was sought for the said policy , strongly worded communication was addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the Assa m University by the UGC Authorities, threatening them with dire consequences if the UGC guidelines in the matter of recruitment is not adhered to by the Assam U niversity. 11. Under such circumstances, the Assam University has no option but to fra me recruitment Rules and policy in consonance with the guidelines of the UGC and it is understood that the University Authorities have now framed recruitment ru les and policy in consonance with the guidelines issued by the UGC. 12. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the University has choic e to make its own recruitment policy as it has done in 2003 without reference to the UGC. Therefore, to make appointment on the basis of 100% promotion from amo ngst the existing employees as unilaterally decided earlier in 2003 would not be warranted, as the Assam University authorities, by very nature of its affiliati on is required to function under the UGC guidelines and contrary mode and manner of functioning is neither permitted nor would be justified under the circumstan ce. In fact any departure from the prescribed mode and manner of recruitment can only be made at serious risk to the Assam University including a threat to its functioning and existence. 13. Therefore, even though the 2003 Promotion Policy envisages recruitment b y in-house promotion and certain resolutions in favour of individual writ petiti oners have been taken for effecting promotion as per the said policy, no enforce able rights can be declared in favour of the petitioners, on the basis of the 20 03 Policy as the Policy at no time, was approved by the UGC. 14. In view of above position, I am of the considered opinion that the dire ction sought in these petitions cannot be given as it is apparent that the affil iated University is required to make recruitment as per the qualification and ma nner laid down by the UGC and a contrary position could not be shown by the peti tioners. The petitioners do not also contend that the 2003 Policy is consistent with the policy laid down by the UGC. 15. Accordingly, these 4 writ petitions are held to be without any merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. 16. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, the interim orders stand recalled. No cost.