J UDGMENT & O RDER : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6; Ms. K. Barpuzari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.C. Chamuah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioner as Lecturer in any Polytechnic in the State of Assam under Regulation 3(f), APSC Regulations, 1951, and also to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to render his service at Baksa Polytechnic College, Baksa against the vacant sanctioned post of Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) at Nowgong Polytechnic, Nagaon or against any post of Lecturer vacant in any Government Polytechnics in Assam. 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “The petitioner had completed his B. Tech degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, (ICFAI) in regular mode in the year 2015 and completed his M. Tech degree from Gauhati University in the year 2020. Pursuant to an advertisement, dated 07.07.2018, the petitioner had applied for being engaged as Guest Faculty in various Government Polytechnics of Assam. He had participated in the selection process, and vide order dated 20.07.2019, he was engaged as Guest/Part-time Lecturer in Baksa Polytechnic, Baksa in the department of Mechanical Engineering for a period of six months. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties as Guest/Part-time Lecturer in Baksa Polytechnic by way of various extensions with artificial breaks, in between such terms, and he was expecting regularization of his service. Thereafter, vide Cabinet decision dated 24.09.2024, approval was granted for re-engagement for 451 part-time faculties against the existing vacant posts in the Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges in the State, under Regulation 3(f). The petitioner is covered within the said 451 part-time faculty engaged against existing vacant posts in the Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges. Thereafter, the Principals of all State Government Polytechnics, pursuant to letter dated 18.01.2025, issued by the respondent No. 2, released all the part-time Lecturers and the petitioner was also disengaged. The petitioner is covered within the said 451 part-time faculty engaged against existing vacant posts in the Government Engineering and Polytechnic Colleges. Thereafter, the Principals of all State Government Polytechnics, pursuant to letter dated 18.01.2025, issued by the respondent No. 2, released all the part-time Lecturers and the petitioner was also disengaged. Thereafter, vide notification dated 22.01.2025, 100 numbers of Part-time/Guest Faculties were absorbed under Regulation 3(f) and were posted at various new places of posting. But, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the aforementioned list, even one Sri Abhinandan Boruah in Sl. No. 4 and Sri Tushar Ranjan Bora in Sl. No. 13 were also absorbed under Regulation 3(f) who were lower in merit to him. His further contention is that before publication of the said notification, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 that his candidature may not be considered for absorption under Regulation 3(f) as the petitioner had obtained his B. Tech degree from ICFAI University which is not approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Further pleaded case of the petitioner is that ICFAI University is approved by the UGC and the same does not fall within the ambit of a ‘ technical institution’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act vis-à-vis the provision of Section 10(1)(k), which empowers the AICTE to grant approval for starting new ‘technical institutions’ and for introduction of new courses or programmes, and the said aspect has been highlighted by the UGC in its letter dated 29.11.2012, wherein it has been categorically stated by the University Grant Commission (UGC) that ICFAI University, Tripura is not required to take approval of AICTE to run B. Tech courses, and despite having requisite qualification, the petitioner was left out by the respondent authorities. Further, pleaded case of the petitioner is that having exploited the petitioner’s service for about six years, he has been released instead of regularizing his service and thereby, the right guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for granting reliefs as mentioned herein above.” 4. The respondent No. 2 has filed its affidavit-in-opposition. The stand is being taken in paragraph No. 10, of the said affidavit is that the petitioner had obtained his B. Tech. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for granting reliefs as mentioned herein above.” 4. The respondent No. 2 has filed its affidavit-in-opposition. The stand is being taken in paragraph No. 10, of the said affidavit is that the petitioner had obtained his B. Tech. degree in Mechanical Engineering from an institute, namely, ICFAI, Tripura, and the said institution is not recognized by the AICTE, and the case of the petitioner could not be considered for re-engagement as Lecturer (Technical) in Polytechnics as per Regulation 3(f) of APSC as he does not possess Engineering degree from AICTE recognized institute and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained his B. Tech degree from ICFAI University, Tripura in Mechanical Engineering in regular mode and he had also obtained his M. Tech from Gauhati University. Mr. Sarma also submits that ICFAI University, Tripura is a university duly recognised by UGC and as such approval of AICTE is not required and this position had already been clarified by the UGC. Mr. Sarma also submits that approval is required only in case of ‘technical institution’ which is defined in Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and under Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, and as such, non-absorption of the petitioner on this ground is illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 6. Mr. K. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, (AICTE), by referring to the definition under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act and under Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, submits that if a university is not a technical institution, no permission is required for the university to obtain approval from AICTE to impart degree in Engineering courses and the said issue has already been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University and Anr. vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. , reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676 , in paragraph No. 15. Mr. vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. , reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676 , in paragraph No. 15. Mr. Pathak has also produced the instruction, which he had received from the AICTE, wherein it is stated that the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (ICFAI) University, Tripura is not approved by AICTE, however, Clause 1.1(g) of AICTE Approval Process Handbook 2024-27 may be referred to, which provides that it is not mandatory for State Public, Private Universities and Central Universities to take AICTE approval as per the AICTE Act. However, universities shall seek approval of AICTE for availing the benefits of AICTE schemes/initiatives as per the prevailing policies/norms to maintain the standards and norms as prescribed, and thus the law is well settled in this regard. 7. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner has obtained his undergraduate degree in Engineering from an institute namely, ICFAI, which is not recognized by AICTE. And as such, the case of the petitioner could not be considered by the respondent authorities for being appointed as Guest Lecturer under Regulation 3(f), APSC, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the relevant provisions of AICTE Act and also the decision referred by Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 9. In Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987 , ‘technical institution’ is defined as an institution, not being a university, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions. 9.1. In Section 2(i), ‘university’ means a university defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and includes an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of that Act. 9.1. In Section 2(i), ‘university’ means a university defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and includes an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of that Act. Further from a perusal of Section 10 of the AICTE Act reveals that it deals with functions of the Council which provides that it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purpose of performing its functions under this Act. The Council may grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. 10. Interpreting the aforesaid provisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra) has held that Section 10(k) does not cover a university, but only technical institution. And if Section 10(k) does not cover a university, but only a ‘technical institution, a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to apply to universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a ‘university’ and a ‘technical institution’. 11. In view of the above settle position, and also in view of the submissions so advanced by learned standing counsel for AICTE as well as the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand so taken by the respondent No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 in their affidavit is based on erroneous interpretation of the relevant provision of law, since it has been authoritatively settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra) that the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a ‘university’ and a ‘technical institution’ and that Section 10 (k) of AICTE Act does not cover a university. The stand so taken by the respondent No. 1, 2, 5 and 6, especially by respondent No.2 got no legs to stand upon. 12. Indisputably, the petitioner has obtained his B. Tech degree in Mechanical Engineering from ICFAI University, which is a UGC recognized university and as such, the ground for non-consideration of his candidature for being appointed as Part-time/Guest Faculty in the Government Polytechnics of Assam is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, it has fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. 13. Indisputably, the petitioner has obtained his B. Tech degree in Mechanical Engineering from ICFAI University, which is a UGC recognized university and as such, the ground for non-consideration of his candidature for being appointed as Part-time/Guest Faculty in the Government Polytechnics of Assam is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, it has fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. 13. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. 14. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed as Part-time/Guest Faculty in any of the Polytechnics of Assam. 15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.