Allahabad High Court
Dr. Garima Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 30 May, 2018
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 34 Reserved on 21.5.2018 Delivered on 30.5.2018 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39334 of 2017 Petitioner :- Dr. Garima Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind K. Pandey,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi, Seemant Singh AND Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11105 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Neeraj Tripathi Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. The issues and subject matter in both these writ petitions are interconnected, therefore, same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Both writ petitions have been filed assailing order dated 14.8.2017 passed by Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Chancellor')
2. Writ Petition No. 39334 of 2017 has been filed by sole petitioner Dr. Garima Singh, challenging above order of Chancellor, whereby he has cancelled her appointment after declaring recommendation of Selection Committee dated 4.2.2015, and decision taken thereon by Executive Council in her favour, void and illegal.
3. Writ Petition No. 11105 of 2018 has been filed by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar who is aggrieved by same order of Chancellor insofar as it has rejected claim of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar for selection on the post of Assistant Professor in Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'University').
4. In respect of Dr. Garima Singh, Chancellor has found that Selection Committee violated norms, without requisite documents submitted by petitioner, awarded marks, and also under head "Domain Knowledge and Teaching (Teaching Skills)" against maximum marks 10, it has awarded 20 which is ex facie illegal and renders selection of Dr. Garima Singh, bad.
5. Claim of Dr. Sajeev Kumar for appointment has been negatived by Chancellor on the ground that he was not selected by Selection Committee, hence, question of his appointment does not arise.
6. Since in the present case, there was lot of controversy involving allotment of marks by Selection Committee under different heads, etc., therefore, we directed University to produce selection record for our perusal and same has been produced before us in a sealed cover. We have perused the same also.
7. We may also place on record that Writ Petition No. 39334 of 2017, earlier was decided vide judgment dated 29.8.2017, and Court held that Reference made to Chancellor was barred by limitation and there was no application seeking condonation of delay, therefore, order passed by Chancellor entertaining Reference which was barred by limitation, was not legal, hence, order dated 14.8.2017 was quashed. University preferred Civil Appeal No. 20976 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 31712 of 2017). Supreme Court allowed said appeal vide judgment dated 1.12.2017 and passed following order:-
" Issue notice.
Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, appearing on caveat accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 Leave granted.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it was not necessary to file an application seeking condonation of delay before the Chancellor as observed by the High Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be said to be applicable. In exceptional circumstances, Chancellor could have entertained the petition, even beyond limitation as specifically provided in Section 68 of the Act. Reasons have been given by the Chancellor for condoning the period of limitation, 0thus the Chancellor was alive to the issue of limitation and has condoned the period of limitation; thus it was not proper for the High court to set aside the decision of the Chancellor on that ground. Thus, the Impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be said to be sustainable and is hereby set aside.
We remit the case to the High court to examine the case on merits as the High Court had not considered on merits whether decision of the chancellor was sustainable.
The appeal is allowed. We remit the case to the High Court to decide the case on merits. The High Court is required to decide the writ petition as expeditiously as possible.
It is agreed to that status quo shall be observed for a period of six months during which the High Court to make an endeavor to decide the case. "
8. Pursuant to aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, we are proceeding to decide writ petitions on merit.
9. University is regulated by provisions of U.P. State Universities Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ' U.P.Act 1973'). Advertisement No. Academic/02/2014 dated 2.3.2014 was published advertising a large number of vacancies of Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in various departments. In the present writ petitions, we are concerned with the post of "Assistant Professor" in "Department of Education".
10. Advertisement notified one unreserved vacancy of Assistant Professor in Department of Education. Both petitioners i.e. Dr. Garima Singh and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, applied for the said post. Details and academic qualifications as disclosed by Dr. Garima Singh in her application, read as under:-
Examinations Passed Year Name of the University or other examining body Division Percentage of Marks obtained/ C.G.P.A. Subjects
(i) High School 1999 CBSE I 71.60% Eng-A, Sanskrit, Maths, Science, Social Science
(ii) Intermediate Higher Secondary Education 2001 CBSE I 68.00% Eng, Eco, Maths, Business Studies, Accounts
(iii) Graduation B.A. B.Ed 2004 2008 D.U. Jamia Millia Islamia II I 50% 68% Eng, Hindi, Eco, Pol. Science, Education
(iv)Post Graduate M.A. M.Ed M.A.(Psychology) 2006 2009 Annamalai University KIIT College of Education, M.D.U. Pursuing from IGNOU I I 60.7% 65.8% Public Administration Educational Philosophy & Socio, Edu Psychology, Ph. D. NET-JRF Regd 2010 Thesis submitted in Feb 2014 2010 Jamia Millia Islamia UGC Thesis submittted on 16th Feb, 2014 Education Education
11. Column 13 in application form is list of certificates and testimonials enclosed. It was left blank by Dr. Garima Singh but she claimed that all requisite documents and certificates were appended to application form.
12. Similarly, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar submitted application and details of academic qualifications given in his application, read as under:-
Examinations Passed Year Name of the University or other examining body Division Percentage of Marks obtained/ C.G.P.A. Subjects
(i) High School 1990 Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Second 49.83% Hindi, English, Maths, Science, Social Science, Biology
(ii) Intermediate Higher Secondary Education 1992 Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Second 54.00% Gen.Hindi, English, Physics, Chemistry, Biology
(iii) Graduation B.Ed 2003 Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut First 67.00% Psychology of Teach. & LB, Technology of Teaching, Edu. In Emerging India, Development of Educ. Sys.
(iv)Post Graduate M.Ed 2007 H.N.B.G. University Srinagar, Garhwal (Uttarakhand) First 61.83% Phil & Socio found., Pshcho. Found. Of Edu Methodology of Edu., Principles of Edu.
(v) M.Phil
NET
Ph.D
2008
2011
2012
The Global Open University Nagaland
UGC, New Delhi
Ch. Charan Singh, University, Meerut
First
Qualified
Awarded
72.4
Education
Education
Education
(vi) M.Sc.
2012
Vinayaka Missions University, Salem (Tamil Nadu)
First
71.53
Botany
13. List of certificates, testimonials enclosed is clearly mentioned in Column 13 of application form of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar and documents appended are 10 in number.
14. All applications received by University were initially scrutinised by Internal Quality Assurance Cell (hereinafter referred to as 'IQAC') of University who was to assess candidates' record under various heads, i.e., Academic Record and Research Performance, Domain Knowledge and Teaching etc. Assessment required to be made under various heads and maximum marks prescribed therefor, in the form of chart, is placed as under:-
Academic Record & Research Performance (50%) Domain Knowledge & Teaching (30%) Interview (20 Marks) Total (100 Marks) Examination % of marks Score Max Score Graduation (07 marks) % of marks x 0.07 Teaching skills (To be assessed by the Selection Committee) 10 Post Graduate (10 Marks) % of marks x 0.10 Teaching Experience (Per Year-1.0) 5 Ph.D. Awarded (10 marks) Submitted (07 marks) Project Handled:
I. Major: (No. x 5) ii. Minor: (No. x 2) 10 M.Phil (03 marks) Professional Development related activities like refresher, orientation course, NSS, NCC, short term training/ workshops, etc. (each x1.0) Documents to be submitted 5 Post Doctoral Research (05 marks) 5 SET/NET (05 marks) 5 Publication (10 marks) Conference/ Seminar presentation & publication (max. 05 marks) I. Journals with Impact factor No. x 2 ii. Indexed Journal No. x 1 iii. Book x 1 (with ISBN) iv. International Seminar No. x 1.5 v. National Seminar No. x 1.0 vi.State Seminar No. x 0.5 5 Total 50 30
15. IQAC awarded 23.34 marks to Dr. Garima Singh in the category of "Academic Record & Research Performance" while Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was awarded 41.873 marks. Scoring of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar under the head of "Academic Record & Research Performance" included 5 marks under sub-head "Post Doctoral Research", but subsequently aforesaid marks have been scrolled out and total marks were reduced to 36.87. At what stage this cutting was made, has been an issue and we will discuss in the later part of judgment. Suffice it to mention that this cutting was not done by IQAC.
16. We find from academic score sheets that in the column of "Domain Knowledge & Teaching", no marks were awarded by I.Q.A.C. under any heads. i.e. Teaching Skills, Teaching Experience, Project Handled, Professional Development related activities like refresher, orientation course etc., which were for maximum marks 10, 5, 10 & 5 respectively to both these petitioners.
17. Under the head "Teaching Experience" also, no marks were awarded to Dr. Garima Singh. All these academic score sheets were prepared on 3.2.2015.
18. Similarly, from the academic score sheet of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar also, in the column of "Domain Knowledge & Teaching", we find that no marks were awarded by I.Q.A.C. The total marks 30 under the aforesaid column were divided in the category of "Teaching skills" which is for maximum 10 marks but this was to be assessed by Selection Committee, hence, no assessment has been made by I.Q.A.C.
19. Next sub-head "Teaching Experience" i.e. 1 mark every year but here also, no mark was awarded to both these petitioners. In the remaining two columns where maximum marks were 10 and 5 respectively, columns mention 'Nil' mark meaning thereby IQAC did not find any material to award any mark under aforesaid columns.
20. In the proceedings of Selection Committee, we find from record that assessment made by IQAC under the head "Academic Record & Research Performance", Dr. Garima Singh secured 23.34 marks and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was shown to have secured 41.873 marks which has been scrolled out and corrected as 38.87. These proceedings of Selection Committee are signed by all Members on 5.2.2015. The name of Dr. Garima Singh finds place at Serial No. 10 and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar at Serial No. 96.
21. Dr. Garima Singh claimed to have "Teaching Experience" in three spells of different periods which is stated as under:-
Post College Period
1. Lecturer (30,000/-Consolidated) KIIT College of Education, Sohna Road, Gurgaon 16.11.2009 to 30.05.2010
2. Assistant Professor (Ad hoc) Maharshi Valmiki College of Education, Delhi University 27.09.2012 to 03.05.2013
3. Guest Faculty (1000/- Per Period) Department of Adult, Continuing Education & Extension, Delhi University 01.09.2012-30.11.2012
22. In aforesaid chart, experience claimed at item No. 2 and 3 is overlapping and if we read together, it comes to 1.9.2012 to 3.5.2013 only. Therefore, Dr. Garima Singh, as per own showing in application form, worked for about 8 months and 3 days as Assistant Professor or Guest Faculty and 6 months and 15 days as Lecturer in KIIT College of Education, Gurgaon.
23. None of these two petitioners thus were awarded any marks under three sub-heads in the column of "Domain Knowledge and Teaching Experience" by IQAC.
24. In the sub-head of "Teaching Skills" for which assessment was to be made by Selection Committee, marks were awarded to both petitioners. Since in the head of "Domain Knowledge and Teaching", Dr. Garima Singh has been shown to be awarded 20 marks while Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was awarded 10 marks, it means that under the sub-head "Teaching Skills", Selection Committee awarded aforesaid marks for the reason that in remaining three columns, I.Q.A.C. has awarded no marks and this is evident from academic score sheet which we have perused. We have also noticed that academic score sheets signed on 3.2.2015, in respect of other candidates, also show marks in different sub-heads of Project Handled etc., awarded by I.Q.A.C., wherever it found relevant material and justification. Chancellor, therefore, while observing that petitioner Dr. Garima Singh has been awarded 20 marks under the sub-head "Teaching Skills" in the column of "Domain Knowledge and Teaching" has rightly held it illegal inasmuch as total marks which could have been awarded by Selection Committee under aforesaid sub-head were 10 but it has awarded 20 which is writ large and evident from the record. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, another petitioner has been awarded 10 which is maximum mark which could have been awarded in this head, hence, there cannot be any objection.
25. Now, coming to the question of correction/deduction of marks under academic score, we find that IQAC assessed and awarded 41.87 marks to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar while 23.34 to Dr. Garima Singh. Since in the Selection Committee proceedings, and chart placed before us, we find that Selection Committee which signed on 5.2.2015 has also mentioned 41.87 marks of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar under column "Academic Record and Research Performance" meaning thereby this correction was not made by IQAC but has been made at the stage subsequent to consideration by Selection Committee. Why it was made and who did, is not clear. Even learned counsel for University could not throw any light on the aforesaid aspect. Had this correction been made by IQAC itself who had signed sheets on 3.2.2015, then in the sheets prepared by Selection Committee on 5.2.2015, marks of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar would have been shown 36.87 and not 41.87. But since on 3.2.2015 in the sheets prepared by IQAC, marks awarded to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar in the Column of "Academic Record and Research Performance" were 41.87, therefore, at the level of selection made by Committee or at any subsequent stage, corrections in both sheets have been made by some person without giving any noting in this regard as to why this correction has been made.
26. In this backdrop, we find no substance in the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Khare that petitioner Dr. Garima Singh has been awarded marks rightly on the basis of material placed by her, therefore, Chancellor in canceling her selection has erred, and it cannot be accepted. On the contrary, bias on the part of University or Selection Committee, is writ large from the fact that on the basis of "Academic Record and Research Performance", Dr. Garima Singh secured very lesser marks i.e. 23.34 but in Interview, she has been awarded 18 marks out of 20 and in the column of "Domain Knowledge and Teaching", wherein Selection Committee was to make assessment only under one sub-head i.e. "Teaching Skills" for which maximum marks prescribed were 10, but Selection Committee in its wisdom awarded 20, forgetting that in other three sub-heads, no marks have been awarded by IQAC and there is no noting that petitioner Dr. Garima Singh was entitled to some marks in other heads also and therefore 20 marks have been awarded.
27. In view thereof, selection of Dr. Garima Singh cannot be said to have been made validly and Chancellor has rightly quashed the same. We find no reason to interfere in the order of Chancellor, cancelling appointment of petitioner Dr. Garima Singh.
28. Now, so far as petitioner Dr. Sanjeev Kumar is concerned, IQAC awarded him 41.87 marks. As we have already observed that marks were changed at a later stage when Selection Committee already prepared score sheet. In the column of "Academic Record and Research Performance", it reproduced marks as awarded by IQAC but without any change. But thereafter only in respect of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, his marks were reduced by five so that his total may come lower than Dr. Garima Singh. At what stage, it has been done, it is difficult to record any finding on this aspect since at least from the record, we find no assistance and counsel for University stated that he has no information as to who did it and at what stage, it has been done as no authority of University has given instructions in this regard.
29. The question, whether Dr. Sanjeev Kumar should have been selected and appointed cannot be finalised at this stage, since in our view, whether Dr. Sanjeev Kumar was entitled for five marks under the sub-head "Post Doctoral Research" or he was incorrectly awarded aforesaid marks by IQAC, is a matter to be examined by an Expert Committee of University. Therefore, we dismiss Writ Petition No. 39334 of 2017 and confirm order of Chancellor in so far as it relates to Dr. Garima Singh. We partly allow Writ Petition No. 11105 of 2018 of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar and modify order of Chancellor in so far as it relates to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar. We direct University to constitute an Expert Committee to examine whether scrolling out of 5 marks awarded to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar by IQAC under the sub-head "Post Doctoral Research" was right or he was entitled to said marks. In view of findings of such Committee, merit position of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar shall be prepared and in case, he has obtained highest marks, further action for his appointment will be taken by University without any further delay.
30. Parties shall bear their own cost.
Order Date:- 30.5.2018 A.K.Srivastava