JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. CS Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. An interesting point that has emerged in this writ petition is that the petitioner being attracted by the advertisement dated 01.11.2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry. Having found him eligible for the said post, he was called for interview on 10.03.2010. Subsequently on 22.12.2010 another advertisement (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) was issued for filling up of the vacancies for the post of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry. The petitioner made application for the post of Associate Professor in Chemistry in terms of the said advertisement dated 22.12.2010. The selection committee found him suitable and recommended for his appointment. The said recommendation was approved by the Board of Governors in their 21st meeting held on 09.02.2012. Along with the petitioner one Dr. Tarun Kumar Mishra was selected, recommended and approved for the said post of Associate Professor in Chemistry against the existing two vacancies. Dr. Tarun Kumar Mishra got appointment and joined the post on 31.07.2010, but the petitioner was not favoured with any letter of appointment. Out of 3 posts of Associate Professors in Chemistry, two were filled up and one remained vacant, as would be evident from the minutes of 22nd meeting of the Board of Governors (BoG) held on 05.04.2012 [ see the item no. 22.3]. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court as it had at the relevant point of time the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter being WP(C) 526 of 2012. 22.3]. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court as it had at the relevant point of time the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter being WP(C) 526 of 2012. By the judgment and order dated 09.10.2013, the said writ petition was disposed of, with the following direction: “In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents, particularly, the respondent no.3, the Director of NIT, Agartala for giving a fresh look regarding the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant writ petition taking note of the aforesaid observation of this court and also taking note that one post of Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry of NIT, Agartala is vacant and any decision taken by the authority in view of the aforesaid observation and direction may be communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of three months from today”. 3. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal from the said decision rather he did communicate the said decision of the court to the competent authority through the Registrar of NIT. By the communication dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) the petitioner was informed that in 28th meeting (Special meeting) of the BoG held on 10.12.2013, the following decision had been taken: “On perusal of the Order dated 09.10.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura, the representation submitted by Dr. Sudhan Debnath and also the Note submitted by HoD, Chemistry Department, it has been decided by the Board of Governors that one post of Associate Professor which is lying vacant will be filled up by the person having specialization in Physical Chemistry/Inorganic Chemistry and accordingly representation submitted by Dr. Sudhan Debnath to appoint him as Associate Professor is rejected”. 4. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that if the advertisement dated 22.12.2010 is thoroughly scrutinized, it would not be found anywhere that there was any requirement of having any specialization either in Organic Chemistry or in Physical Chemistry. The post is clearly for the Professors, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor for Chemistry. Therefore, according to Mr. Sinha, learned counsel this requisition is beyond the advertisement and as such cannot be sustained in law. Mr. The post is clearly for the Professors, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor for Chemistry. Therefore, according to Mr. Sinha, learned counsel this requisition is beyond the advertisement and as such cannot be sustained in law. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted that even subsequently there were vacancies in the post of Associate Professor, but the petitioner was never considered. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel having referred to the paragraph 6 of the reply filed by the NIT, Agartala has submitted that at the time of filing of the reply there was one vacancy of Associate Professor in Chemistry, but the respondents have asserted that the said post is required to be filled up by a person having specialization in Physical Chemistry or Organic Chemistry. The petitioner has specialization in Organic Chemistry but despite that that was not done. What Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has pointed out to this court from paragraph 6 of the reply filed by the respondents is in reference to a note dated 05.11.2011 (Annexure R-1 to the reply filed by the respondents). The said note was given by the Head of Department, Chemistry, NIT, Agartala. 5. This court has perused the said note and it has been observed, inter alia, that as there is no faculty presently in the Department of Chemistry having Physical Chemistry/Inorganic Chemistry with specialization for imparting teaching in the Physical Chemistry/Inorganic Chemistry, part of the M.Sc. syllabus, it is very difficult for the existing faculty members to run the classes. Presently, one Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry is from Organic Chemistry specialization, 2 Assistant Professors are both from Organic Chemistry. It is also observed that unless one person with specialization in Physical Chemistry or Inorganic Chemistry is appointed, the situation cannot be improved. That was the basis which has been provided by the respondents not to appoint the petitioner despite his name was recommended against two vacancies. It has not been disputed by the respondents as represented by Mr. Majumder, learned CGC that even though there were two available vacancies and the petitioner and other person namely Dr. Tushar Kanti Mishra were recommended, but on the basis of the emerged situation, the second vacancy was not filled up as to meet the emergent requirement of the department i.e. to have a faculty having specialization in Physical Chemistry/Inorganic Chemistry. 5. Mr. Tushar Kanti Mishra were recommended, but on the basis of the emerged situation, the second vacancy was not filled up as to meet the emergent requirement of the department i.e. to have a faculty having specialization in Physical Chemistry/Inorganic Chemistry. 5. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has submitted that the authorities were within their bounds when they had taken the decision. Merely for being recommended, someone cannot as a matter of right, claim appointment. Appointment is subject to the requirement. Moreover, Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has submitted that the merit position of the petitioner has not been over-shadowed by any person. None was below him rather the person who has been appointed was occupying the higher merit position in comparison. As such there is no discrimination or any unwarranted prejudice. 6. By filing an additional affidavit, the respondents have further stated that on 10.12.2013 in 28th Special BoG meeting, it was noted that the Department of Chemistry requires a faculty member with specialization in Physical Chemistry or Inorganic Chemistry. It was also resolved that in the Chemistry department while recruiting faculties, the persons having specialization in Physical Chemistry or Inorganic Chemistry would be given preference to meet the requirement of the department. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the resolution adopted against Item no. 28.1 in response to the representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 09.10.2013 delivered in WP(C) 526 of 2012 in the following manner: “On perusal of the order dated 09.10.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura, the representation submitted by Dr. Sudhan Debnath and also the note submitted by HoD, Chemistry Department, it has been decided by the Board of Governors that one post of Associate Professor which is lying vacant will be filled up by the person having specialization in Physical Chemistry/ Inorganic Chemistry and accordingly representation submitted by Dr. Sudhan Debnath to appoint him as Associate Professor is rejected”. The said minutes is part of the records [Annexure R-3 to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents on 23.03.2017]. The petitioner has filed another additional affidavit to contend that from the advertisement dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure X to the additional affidavit dated 09.12.2017), it would be apparent that the department was scaling for selecting 3 Assistant Professors in Chemistry with specialization in Organic/Physical Chemistry. The petitioner has filed another additional affidavit to contend that from the advertisement dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure X to the additional affidavit dated 09.12.2017), it would be apparent that the department was scaling for selecting 3 Assistant Professors in Chemistry with specialization in Organic/Physical Chemistry. According to the petitioner it makes abundantly clear that there is requirement of teachers in Chemistry with specialization in Organic/Physical Chemistry. It has been further submitted that Assistant Professor and Associate Professor discharge the identical duty. Thus, the ground on which the petitioner’s selection has been rejected is absolutely without foundation and based on whims and, therefore, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has urged this court for interference. 7. The respondents filed another additional affidavit on 08.01.2018 and sought to repel the claim of the petitioner by stating that there was no requirement of teachers during that period in the Department of Chemistry at NIT with specialization in Inorganic Chemistry. The petitioner was relentless and filed another additional affidavit where he has stated that the respondents had arbitrarily rejected his selection by denying him the appointment to the post of Associate Professor. 8. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been discarded arbitrarily. He has further submitted having referred to the statute to show what is the required qualification, experience, credit points, etc, or other details including scale of pay etc. as a part of the general details for recruitment of faculty position on regular basis. But no criteria are laid down in the said statute regarding the required qualification for the Associate Professor. Nowhere it is provided that only the persons having specialization in Organic Chemistry or Physical Chemistry would be eligible for appointment to the post of Associate Professor. The essential requirement as provided by the said statute is that six years after Ph.D., of which at least three years at the level of Assistant Professor with academic grade pay of Rs.8000/-, or nine years of total working experience, of which three years should be after Ph.D. with at least three years at the level of Assistant Professor with academic grade pay of Rs.8,000/-. 9. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had got all qualifications as he had been working as the Assistant Professor in one of the degree colleges under the Government of Tripura. 9. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had got all qualifications as he had been working as the Assistant Professor in one of the degree colleges under the Government of Tripura. Be that as it may, these references to the statute do not appear to be relevant in the present context because the respondents did not raise any objection regarding the eligibility of the petitioner. They had confined them to the requirement of the department and they said that someone having specialization in Physical Chemistry/Inorganic Chemistry was the need of the department. The department has enough faculties having specialization in Organic Chemistry. 10. Further Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has submitted that the panel that was approved by the Board of Governors has by now lapsed and as such no appointment can be made and for purpose of making any appointment, fresh advertisement would be issued, and the petitioner would be at liberty to participate in such process to have selected for the post of Associate Professor or Professor if he is found otherwise eligible. The said advertisement dated 12.09.2017 was issued for selection as per the new statute. 11. By filing additional affidavit, the respondents have further stated that whether a new candidate can be appointed for the post of Associate Professor with specialization in Organic Chemistry or not will be known at the stage of interview only. In the new recruitment statutes under point No.5 of Note-1 of Schedule-E there is provisions for the intra-department candidates, if found suitable for appointment for higher posts. National Institute of Technology, Agartala has some faculty members at the level of Assistant Professor with specialization in Organic Chemistry and keeping their interest for appointment as Associate Professor as per flexible cadre structure in the new recruitment statute, the case of Dr. Sudhan Debnath i.e. the petitioner whose selection has already been lapsed, cannot be considered by the National Institute of Technology, Agartala, without contravening First Statute of National Institute of Technology (Amendment) Statute, 2017 which has been framed with approval of the President of India i.e. the visitor of NITs. 12. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that when the petitioner first approached this court, the Gauhati High Court by nomenclature, the panel did not lapse. The panel was alive still then, and as such the averments or submissions of the respondents do not hold any substance at all. 12. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that when the petitioner first approached this court, the Gauhati High Court by nomenclature, the panel did not lapse. The panel was alive still then, and as such the averments or submissions of the respondents do not hold any substance at all. Be that as it may, on appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, two pertinent points which emerge for response from this court are as under: (i) Whether recommendation or approval of the recommendation does create any right in favour of a person to get the appointment; and (ii) Whether for non-mentioning of specialization in one particular subject, the respondents are bound to accept the selection of the petitioner, who has admittedly specialization in Organic Chemistry. The first question should be dealt with first inasmuch as, if the question is addressed that will substantively cover the second question. 13. According to this court, the selection or recommendation does not ipso facto create any right in favour of any person to get the appointment. However, in order to discard someone, the respondents cannot embark on arbitrariness. In that event, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, would salvage the candidate on the ground of discrimination, but here, such ground has not been made out by the petitioner. Admittedly, the person Dr. Tushar Kanti Mishra who has been appointed is in the higher merit position. As such, there is no question of discrimination. The second question which has been rigorously asserted by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel is that despite availability of the vacancy, the petitioner was not appointed on flimsy grounds, what the Board of Governors or the Head of Department have shown. 14. This court is not at all in agreement with the submission of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel as the respondents are within their discretion to determine their requirement while appointing the faculties in a particular department. Someone’s expectation does not regulate the requirement. The requirement has to be physically indicated by the competent authority and thereafter, out of the select panel they can appoint the person without committing any prejudice to the provision of Section 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. Mr. Someone’s expectation does not regulate the requirement. The requirement has to be physically indicated by the competent authority and thereafter, out of the select panel they can appoint the person without committing any prejudice to the provision of Section 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has rightly relied on a decision of the apex court in The State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others reported in AIR 1973 SC 2216 . The apex court in that decision has unambiguously enunciated the law that one fails to see how the existence of vacancies gives a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate’s name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State government had departed from the rules in this respect. Further reliance has been made on a decision of the apex court in State of Bihar and others vs. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 736 where again the apex court has observed that it is now well settled that a person who is selected does not on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rule says to the contrary. 16. In this case there is no such rule that if someone is empanelled and approved for the appointment, he shall invariably be appointed in the adverted post and as such, even though the petitioner might have the expectation, but this court is unable to issue any mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Associate Professor in Chemistry. 17. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.