Uttarakhand High Court
Ghan Shyam Pal vs Hnb Garhwal University And Another on 13 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
13th SEPTEMBER, 2022
Writ Petition (S/B) No.204 of 2021
Ghan Shyam Pal ...... Petitioner
Vs.
HNB Garhwal University and Another ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Abhijay Negi, Ms Snigdha Tiwari and Avil Kaintura, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Ms. Irum Zeba, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT:(Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice) The respondent-University has filed its supplementary affidavit. Respondent no.2 has also filed her supplementary affidavit and the petitioner has responded to the supplementary affidavit of respondent no.1. The supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no.2 is taken on record.
2. During the course of hearing, our attention has been drawn to the Notification dated 18.07.2018 issued by the U.G.C. containing Regulations on "Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018". These Regulations apply to every University, established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act, every Institution including a Constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the U.G.C., in consultation with the University concerned under Clause (i) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act.
3. It is not in dispute that these Regulations apply to the respondent no.1 - University. The said Regulations, under Clause 5, prescribe the constitution of Selection Committees and guidelines on selection procedure.
4. Clause 5.1 (1) lays down the Selection Committee Composition for the post of Assistant Professor in the University, and the same reads as follows:-
"5.1 Selection Committee Composition I. Assistant Professor in the University:
(a) The Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in the University shall consist of the following persons:
i) The Vice Chancellor or his/her nominee, who has at least ten years of experience as Professor, shall be the Chairperson of the Committee.
ii) An academician not below the rank of Professor to be nominated by the Visitor/Chancellor, wherever applicable.
iii) Three experts in the subject concerned nominated by the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned.
iv) Dean of the Faculty concerned, wherever applicable.
v) Head/Chairperson of the Department/School concerned.
vi)An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/ Women/Differently-abled categories to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the candidates from any of these categories is an applicant and if any of the above members of the selection committee does not belong to that category."2
5. The respondent - University has placed on record summary-sheet of the marks awarded by the Selection Committee to the candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (OBC - 2 posts) in the Department of English on 04.03.2021, which was the date of interview.
6. This marks-sheet contains the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 14, and that of respondent no.2 at Sl. No. 6. This marks-sheet shows that marks were awarded by three Experts out of 50 each, and by the Dean/H.O.D., combined together out of 50. The total marks were, therefore awarded out of 200.
7. In response to our query, Dr. Gupta, who appears for respondent no.1, states that though the Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the aforesaid Regulations, no marks were awarded by the Vice-Chancellor, the nominee of the Visitor, and the Academician representing the reserved categories.
8. In further response to our query, as to how the weightage of marks awarded by the Dean, and the Head of the Department, was reduced to half, Dr. Gupta submits that the University, in its wisdom, decided to give only 50% weightage to the marks awarded by them in comparison to the marks awarded by the Three Outside Experts.
9. The constitution of the Selection Committee has been taken note of hereinabove, and the Vice- Chancellor, the nominee of the Visitor, and the Academician representing the reserved category, were not mere observers, and they were equal participants of 3 the Selection Committee.
10. There is one other aspect on which we would like the University to make complete disclosure. The stand of the respondent - University is that the Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee was constituted, which was also approved by the Academic Council and the Executive Council of the University. The marks awarded by the said Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee to the candidates have been placed on record, which shows that the petitioner was awarded 70 marks and respondent no.2 was awarded 72 marks. However, there is nothing placed on record to show that the Academic Council ever applied its mind to the aspect whether the qualification, in Linguistics, could be considered as allied, relevant or concerned to the qualification in English.
11. In light of the aforesaid, we direct the respondent - University to file an affidavit clarifying the aforesaid aspects. The relevant documents showing the actual composition of the Selection Committee should be disclosed, and it should also be disclosed whether the aforesaid three persons, who have not awarded any marks, were present during the selection process.
12. There is also nothing placed on record to show that even the Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee applied its mind to the aforesaid aspects before awarding marks to respondent no.2, who has qualification in Linguistics. The respondent - University should make a complete disclosure on these aspects as well.
413. The affidavit on the above aspects be filed by the respondent - University positively within a week. No further time shall be granted since the matter is part - heard.
14. List the matter on 22.09.2022.
________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________ RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 13th September, 2022 BS/SK 5