Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Chandralata Singh vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central University on 29 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 3020 of 2017
(DR. CHANDRALATA SINGH Vs DR. HARI SINGH GOUR CENTRAL UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS)
Dated : 29-02-2024
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal - Advocate for Petitioner.
Smt.Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Choubey
- Advocate for Respondent Nos.1&2.
Respondent Nos.3 to 8 are served as per Office Report dated 28.11.2023.
Since nobody is appearing despite service of notice, the respondent Nos.3 to 8 are proceeded ex-parte.
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement Annexure P/1 was issued on 30.10.2010 for appointment to the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in different Departments of Dr.Hari Singh Gour Central University. No reservation was prescribed while issuing the advertisement and the aforesaid reservation came to be prescribed in terms of the directions of the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi vide letter dated 18.1.2011 referred to in Annexure P/2. The departmentwise reservation for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor was not prescribed and though 2 posts of Professor, 2 posts of Associate Professor and 3 posts of Assistant Professor were advertised in the Department of Commerce and Business Management, yet 7 Assistant Professor were filled. The selection was to be made in terms of the procedure given in minimum qualification for appointment of teaching faculties in Universities and Colleges Management/Business Administration as were notified in the Gazette of India on 18.9.2010 as Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 04-03- 2024 12:48:03 2 contained in Annexure P/4 and in terms of Clause 6.0.1, overall selection procedure was required to incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightage given to the performance of the candidates in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in this Regulation in Tables-I to IX Appendix-III. It is provided that in order to make the system more credible, the Universities may assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a Seminar for lecture in a Classroom situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These proceedings can be followed by both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever Selection Committees are prescribed in this Regulation. API scores were thereafter reduced and the petitioner, who belongs to OBC category, had secured API score of 29.5 marks, which was highest as compared to the private respondents from amongst all the candidates be that of General Category or of OBC category. One of the private respondents, namely Smt.Babita Yadav has been selected under OBC category whereas she had applied under General Category as can be seen from Annexure P/5 where her name appears on top of the list. Thus, it is pointed out that the petitioner has been discriminated because the respondents have not brought on record the marks, which were assigned for the interview for which only weightage was upto 20%. The total API score of another OBC category candidate, namely, Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap was 11 and assuming that he was given cent percent marks in the interview and if the petitioner would have been given 2.5 or less marks then that would have made Signature Not Verified her eligible for appointment. Pointing out that there have been large scale Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 04-03- 2024 12:48:03 3 irregularities in the system and this matter was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.2372/2017 (Vivek Kumar Jaiswal & Others versus University Grants Commission & Another) wherein the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, where some petitioners had sought conformation after observing the irregularities as were admitted by the University and have been detailed out in Paragraph No.6 of the said order, had directed the University to conclude enquiry in the process of appointment preferably within a period of two months.
Smt.Shobha Menon, learned Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1&2 submits that the enquiry was conducted and reading from I.A.No.84/2019, which is reply to the Interlocutory Application No.12987/2018, she points out that the Hon'ble Visitor i.e. the Hon'ble President of India through Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) had issued a show cause notice to the respondent/University and pursuant to that notice, a Visitorial Enquiry Committee had submitted its report to the Hon'ble Visitor, which is pending for consideration and for approval of the Hon'ble Visitor and the case of the petitioner is also related with the appointment made through advertisement dated 30.6.2010 and thereafter, in the Executive Council Meeting, the University had taken some decision, which is subject matter of challenge in another writ petition.
The issue herein is that when the whole selection process is under challenge then the University was obliged to bring on record copy of the Visitorial Enquiry Committee Report, the orders passed by the Hon'ble Visitor on that Report and the decision of the Executive Committee or any other authority of the University on that Report, therefore, it is directed that the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 04-03- 2024 12:48:03 4 documents be brought on record on or before the next date of hearing.
At this stage, Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the University is that a CBI Enquiry is underway and, therefore, the records in relation to the interview could not be produced.
The University is required to make a categorical statement on the personal affidavit of the Registrar of Dr.Hari Singh Gour Central University pointing out as to whether interviews were conducted or not. If interviews were conducted then there must be a mark list and if a statement is made that interviews were not conducted then whole selection process will be vitiated and this Court can quash the all selection right away in this very writ petition but if interviews were conducted then Registrar, Dr.Hari Singh Gour Central University will be obliged to produce copy of marks, which were given to the individual candidates in the interview alongwith a compilation of marks, which resulted in perpetration of a final select list. In case the aforesaid documents are not in his possession then he will submit copy of Seizure Memo showing that which of the documents, pertaining to the section in question, were seized by the CBI and vide which acknowledge number, interview marks and compilation of marks, which resulted in preparation of select list, was seized by the CBI so that the CBI may be directed to produce the same in case such eventuality arises.
The Registrar, Dr.Hari Singh Gour Central University will also point out as to what efforts were made by them to obtain those documents from CBI and if any efforts were made then copies of the documents as were obtained from the CBI will also be placed on record by the Registrar, Dr.Hari Singh Gour Central University.
Smt.Shobha Menon though prays for two days' time but she is granted Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 04-03- 2024 12:48:03 5 ten days' time to do the needful.
Put up on 12.3.2024 on top of the list.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 04-03- 2024 12:48:03