Delhi High Court
Dr.Syed Tanvir Hussain vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 5 October, 2015
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : October 05, 2015
+ LPA 369/2015
DR.SYED TANVIR HUSSAIN ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Aditya Gaur, Advocate
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed
by Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Two writ petitions have been decided by the learned Single Judge vide a common order dated March 18, 2015. Both writ petitions have been dismissed. The appellant was the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.546/2014 and one Dr.Ravi Devi was the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.3897/2014. The two writ petitioners had questioned the select panel prepared to make appointment to the post of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor. The selection process concerned two different universities. The University of Delhi and Jawahar Lal Nehru University. Both universities are central universities and are funded by the University Grants Commission. The directives issued by the University Grants Commission are thus binding on LPA No.369/2015 Page 1 of 6 the two universities.
2. The appellant had applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Urdu Department of the University of Delhi. Dr.Ravi Devi had applied for the post of Associate Professor in the School of Environment Sciences in the Jawahar Lal Nehru University.
3. The appellant, though shortlisted for being interviewed, found himself not empanelled in the select list prepared and thus he proceeded to file a writ petition in this Court. Impleading the four selected candidates, case pleaded by the appellant in the writ petition filed was that he was the victim of an unfair, unjust and biased selection procedure evidenced by the fact that the Screening Committee did not allocate any marks at the interview. Appellant pleaded that the University had to evaluate candidates on a point system. Appellant highlighted that whereas he obtained 100 points out of 100 points, Dr.Shazia Omair (Respondent No.3) obtained only 80 points out of 100. Grievance was against her selection.
4. Case pleaded by Dr.Ravi Devi was to the marks allotted to the candidates based on academic background, research performance, assessment of domain of knowledge and teaching skills and performance at the interview. As per her she was much better mollified than the candidate ultimately selected. She questioned the marks allocated to the selected candidate with respect to the research performance and quality of publications.
5. Dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant the learned Single Judge has noted that no mala-fide was alleged against any member of the Screening Committee. The learned Single Judge noted that none was impleaded as a respondent. The learned Single Judge has noted that in the LPA No.369/2015 Page 2 of 6 decision reported as (2008) 14 SCC 306 B.C.Mylarappa @ Dr.Chikkamylarappa Vs. Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah & Ors. the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any rule or regulation requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons, a decision taken by a Selection Committee without recording reasons would not be subject to a judicial review. Dismissing the writ petition filed by Dr.Ravi Devi the learned Single Judge held that the University acted in compliance with the requirement to allocate marks for the interview and that the Court could not sit over the judgment of the Selection Committee which had evaluated the research and past academic achievements of candidates.
6. The grievance of the appellant in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge has adopted different yardsticks to decide the writ petitions, one filed by the appellant and the other by Dr.Ravi Devi.
7. To appreciate the grievance of the appellant we need to note that the learned Single Judge has not brought out the real issue which was required to be first decided by the learned Single Judge.
8. As noted above, the two writ petitions which have been decided by the learned Single Judge related to a selection procedure in two central universities : the University of Delhi and the Jawahar Lal Nehru University. Both universities, being Central Universities, are bound to follow the directives issued by the University Grants Commission.
9. Whereas Jawahar Lal Nehru University had followed regulations notified by the University Grants Commission on September 18, 2010 as per which 20% marks had to be assigned for an interview, the University of Delhi had not done so. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was to the fact that the Screening Committee had not assigned LPA No.369/2015 Page 3 of 6 any marks at the interview.
10. The issue therefore before the learned Single Judge was not as highlighted by the learned Single Judge. The issue was : Whether the University of Delhi had fouled the selection process by not adhering to the norms notified by the University Grants Commission on September 18, 2010.
11. The answer was simple. The UGC Regulation dated September 18, 2010 was amended by a Regulation dated June 13, 2013, which did away with the requirement of allotting any marks at an interview. The regulation in question had a concept of screening warranting marks to be allocated as under:-
Sub-Category Cap as % of
API
cumulative
score in
application
III (A) : Research papers (Journals, 30%
etc.)
III (B) : Research Publications 25%
(Books, etc.)
III (C) Research Projects 20%
III (D) Research Guidance 10%
III (E) Training Courses and 15%
Conference/Seminar, etc.
12. Thereafter using the API Scores for purposes of screening only, the regulation stipulated that it would have no bearing on expert assessment of candidates at the stage of interview.
13. The grievance of the appellant overlooks that in the year 2013, the regulation of the year 2010 had been superseded.
LPA No.369/2015 Page 4 of 614. We have looked into the relevant record and we find that appellant obtained 100 out of 100 points in the API Score, so did three out of the four empanelled candidates. One named Dr.Shazia Omair obtained 80 out of 100 points in the API Score. Whereas she was empanelled along with three others who had obtained 100 out of 100 points in the API Score, the appellant was not.
15. Since the regulation in question does not warrant any marks to be allocated at the interview, the grievance of the appellant which is founded on the regulation of the year 2010 is not sustainable in law in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in B.C.Mylarappa's case (supra).
16. It appears to be a case where Jawahar Lal Nehru University overlooked that in the year 2013 the regulation of the year 2010 was superseded and made the assessment as per the regulation of the year 2010 and the University of Delhi followed the regulation of the year 2013. Since we are concerned with the selection process concerning the University of Delhi we have to hold that the University of Delhi followed the correct regulation because the selection process commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated October 17, 2013 after the UGC had notified the amended regulation on June 13, 2013. Dr.Ravi Devi has not challenged the impugned decision.
17. No personal mala-fide being alleged against the members of the Screening Committee, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant because it is neither here nor there that whereas he obtained 100 out of 100 points in API Score and Dr.Shazia Omair obtained only 80 points in the API Score because the regulation of the year 2013 warrants empanelment based on an overall performance and with emphasis on the performance at the LPA No.369/2015 Page 5 of 6 interview.
18. The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 05, 2015 mamta LPA No.369/2015 Page 6 of 6