[1] Heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar and Ms. Uttara Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases. Also heard Mr. Rajeev Kr. Tiwari, learned senior counsel for respondent-Tripura University in WP(C) No.289 of 2025 and Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Tripura University in WP(C) No.353 of 2025 and Mr. P. Gautam, learned senior G.A. for the respondent-State in both the cases.

[2] Common question of facts and laws being involved, both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For reference, WP(C) No.289 of 2025 will be treated as the lead case.

[3] Tripura University issued an advertisement for filling up of different non-teaching posts including the post of Assistant Registrar vide their advertisement dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-1 of the lead case). Accordingly, both the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Registrar and participated in the selection process. They also appeared in the written examination conducted by the University on 18.01.2025. Earlier thereto, a notice was issued by the University Authority on 20.12.2024 (Annexure-3 of the lead case) that the result of the written examination would be declared within one month from the date of written examination.

[4] Now, it is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the examination conducted in the month of January, 2025, till date the result has not been published. It is also mentioned by them that earlier regarding the selection process for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, an FIR was lodged by a third party alleging that a contractual employee of the University had taken certain amount of bribe from said person for providing him a job in the said selection process and consequently, an FIR was registered as Amtali PS case No.22 of 2025 under Section 318/115(2)/304(2)/351 of BNS. All the related documents of the examination were thereafter sealed by the investigating officer.

[5] Therefore, in the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the said FIR as well as for issuing a direction to the University to publish the result.

[6] During hearing, both the learned counsel of the petitioners have not pressed for the said relief no.(i) i.e. the matter of quashing of FIR of said criminal case. Both of them submit that a direction may only be issued to the University to publish the result of their examination at the earliest.

[7] Learned counsel of the University in both the cases submit that with all fairness and in transparent manner the recruitment process was conducted by the University and there was no allegation regarding the recruitment process in relation to the filling up of post of Assistant Registrar. However, earlier on several occasions, the investigating officer issued notices to the Registrar of the University asking him to appear before him and all the documents relating to entire selection process were also sealed for which University could not issue the result in time and ultimately, by a decision taken by the 45th meeting of Executive Council of the University held on 10.06.2025, the recruitment process initiated for the post of Assistant Registrar was cancelled subject to decision of the Court to be passed in present writ petitions. Both learned senior counsel also submit that if any direction is issued by the Court asking the University to publish the result of the written examination held in respect of the post of Assistant Registrar, University will have no impediment to publish it.

[8] Mr. P. Gautam, learned senior G.A. submits that earlier one Sanjit Dey lodged above said FIR against one Sukanta Chowdhury who was an employee of Tripura University, alleging that said person had taken an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for providing a job there and in relation to the investigation of that case, the materials and answer scripts were sealed by the investigating officer. However, by a letter dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure F of the counter affidavit of the lead case), the investigating officer already informed the University Authority that said investigation was carried out only in respect of recruitment for the post of Multi Tasking Staff and therefore, the selection process may be proceeded with by the University for the other posts and if for that purpose unsealing of the relevant documents is required, it may be so done upon the request made by the University in this regard and after seeking approval from the competent Court by the investigating officer. From the said letter, it appears that the investigating authority has no objection regarding publishing of result of other posts including the post of Assistant Registrar.

[9] Court has taken into consideration the submission of both sides.

[10] It is the settled position of law that the appointing or selecting authority has always the liberty to cancel the recruitment process for any genuine reason and just because some persons are found fit for selection, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to get appointment. Simultaneously, it should also be borne in mind that a fair and reasonable process of selection is always the demand of Article 16(1) of the Constitution as well as Article 14 and while pursuing such selection process, sanctity of the same should invariably be maintained.

[11] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. and others vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and others; (1994) 6 SCC 151 has held the followings:

                  “5. It is not in dispute that Statutory Rules have been made introducing Degree in Science or Engineering or Diploma in Technology as qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Wrights and Measures. It is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment. Here is a case that pursuant to amended Rules, the Government has withdrawn the earlier notification and wants to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It is not a case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have only prospective operation. The Government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.”

[12] In Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India; (1991) 3 SCC 47, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:

                  “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122.”

[13] Later on in Sachin Kumar and others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and others; (2021) 4 SCC 631, it has also been held by the Apex Court that where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systematic scale and it is difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process, the entire recruitment process may be cancelled but where it is possible to segregate the persons who are guilty of wrongdoing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process, in such a case, those who are innocent of wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in the irregularities. The relevant paragraph No.35 of the said decision is also reproduced hereinbelow:

                  “35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not reinvent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of malpractices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large-scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrongdoing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrongdoers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them for their wrong doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrongdoing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field.”

[14] Admittedly in the present cases in hand, there is no allegation of adopting any unfair means in the recruitment process conducted by the University with reference to filling up of post of Assistant Registrar. Allegation, if any, according to the investigating officer was regarding the recruitment process initiated for the post of Multi Tasking Staff. Therefore, when there is no allegation of any sort of malpractices or unfairness in the selection process of selection of Assistant Registrar, there is no legal impediment in publishing the result thereof as the appearing candidates will have legitimate expectation of the same. As it appears from the decision of the University Authority as published through the notification dated 11.06.2025, that said recruitment process of Assistant Registrar though was cancelled but no reason was assigned as to why same was cancelled and moreover, such cancellation was a conditional cancellation subject to the order to be passed by the Court in the present two writ petitions. Learned counsel of both side submit that the documents as were sealed by the investigating officer are already unsealed.

[15] In view of above of the above discussions, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent-Tripura University is directed to publish the result of written examination conducted for filling up the post of Assistant Registrar within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. In this regard, if so required, the University Authority may communicate with the investigating officer for unsealing of any document(s). It is expected that University Authority will try to complete the entire selection process expeditiously if there is no other impediment in this regard.

With such observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.