Karnataka High Court
Dr. Charangowda. B.K. vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.41440/2017 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. CHARANGOWDA B.K.
S/O B.M. KADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O.490, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN, AGS LAYOUT,
AREHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE
& RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
FORT, BENGALURU 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECOR/DEAN
2
4. DR. SHIVAKUMAR B.
S/O BORAIAH B.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.103, 6TH MAIN
2ND PHASE, 4TH BLOCK BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA. FOR R1 AND R2
SRI K. SREEDHAR, ADV. FOR R3
SRI H. PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS; DECLARE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS COMMENDED AND CONCLUDED IN
PURSUANCE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF NOTIFICATION
AT ANNEX-F DATED 22.7.2016 PASSED BY R-3 AS
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, VOID AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW
AND ULTIMATELY LEADING TO AN APPOINTMENT OF R-4;
QUASH THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER AT ANNEX-H DATED 1.8.2016 BY R-3 AS
ILLEGAL, VOID AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND IN
VIOLATION OF RESERVATION PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE
371(J) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed to declare entire proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notification bearing No.GDCRI/EST(1)/09/2014-15 dated 22.07.2016 at Annexure 'F' as illegal, arbitrary and void; to issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the rejection of the petitioner's 3 application dated 01.08.2016 at Annexure 'H' as it is in violation of Article 371(J) of Constitution of India; to declare the appointment of respondent No.4 as arbitrary and illegal at Annexure 'P'; and to issue directions to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in pursuance of the notification at Annexure 'F' etc.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, respondent No.3 issued notification bearing No.GDCRI/EST(1)/09/ 2014-15 dated 22.07.2016 at Annexure 'F', calling applications from the eligible candidates for the post of only one post of Associate Professor by reserving it for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. The requisite qualification for the post is that, the candidate should have published at least one paper as first author in Forensic Odontology in any national / international journal and should have total 20 points and trained as Certified Forensic Odontologist in recognized Institution of State or Central Government and one must be 4 registered in State Dental Council or Indian Dental Register. Forensic Odontology being a new subject it should be taught as a separate and independent subject or discipline by creating a new department.
3. After conclusion of the selection process, respondent No.4 was selected on 01.08.2016, provisional selection list was published on 05.08.2016 and the final selection list was published on 07.09.2016 as at Annexure 'J'. The candidates like the petitioner herein whose applications were rejected had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.41574/2016 and 50961/2016 and the same were dismissed as withdrawn on 10.01.2017 and 03.02.2017 respectively. The petitioner having noticed about filing of the writ petitions, was waiting for disposal of the same and when the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn, has filed the present petition claiming that, he being qualified to hold the said post his candidature has been rejected on the ground that the said post is reserved for scheduled caste candidates only and hence, he is before this Court.
5
4. He also states that as he was waiting for disposal of the earlier writ petitions filed by other non- selected candidates, there is no delay or laches caused in filing the present petition. He also further claims that selection of respondent No.4 who is not qualified and eligible to hold the post is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law as he does not possess any training certificate in Forensic Odontologist from recognized institution of State or Central Government and he is a MDS in Conservative Dentist and Endodontist. The subject of Forensic Odontology does not come under the said subject as per Dental Council India Regulations. It is also alleged that respondent No.4 who claims that he is certified from International Forensic Science which is a certified course and has secured in the month of May 2016, is not recognized certificate either by the State or Central Government. On the other hand, petitioner is an Oral Pathologist, Microbiologist and Radiology Guide and an Oral Pathologist and Microbiologist and a co-guide 6 and meets all the criteria provided by Dental Council of India for his Ph.D study i.e. Forensic Odontology.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that respondent No.4 does not possess requisite qualification even for appearing for the said post of Associate Professor and respondent No.3 has selected respondent No.4, which is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, he submits that the notification dated 22.07.2016 reserving only one post of Associate Professor for scheduled caste candidate is bad in law. He also relied on various judgments of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The third respondent has filed statement of objections stating that it is an autonomous institution governed by its own rules, bye-laws and regulations and has got full authority to run the institution. It is also stated that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that petitioner having participated in the 7 selection process and got selected to one of the posts, and after lapse of more than a year, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of the Notification. If at all, he is aggrieved by the notification, he should have challenged the same in the initial stage itself i.e., at the time of issuing the first notification. But after participating in the selection process and selecting the respondent No.4, he has filed this petition challenging the notification, which is unsustainable. The petitioner's case having been considered for the post of Assistant Professor, was selected and he accepting the same cannot have any grievance. However, his selection was challenged by another candidate in W.P.No.43017/2016, in which an interim order of stay has been granted. It is also stated that the claim made by the petitioner that single post cannot be reserved is not correct because it is not a single post in the cadre of Associate Professor. There are totally 26 posts and all have to be taken into account as per Government Order No.DPAR 08 SE. HI. MA. 95 dated 20.06.1995, providing reservation for the 8 post under roster point which is produced at Annexure R2 to the objections and Government Order No.DPAR 18 Se.Hi.MA.2005 dated 06.06.2005 was also issued by the government in which direction was issued to follow the earlier government order dated 20.06.1995 and the same is not challenged by the petitioner. The Government order referred to above permits to reserve the posts for scheduled caste candidates in the present case and accordingly reserved, and it is also done in government and government undertakings. Hence, respondent No.3 submits that the petition may be dismissed on this count.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the prayer made is to set aside the notification, but as long as the petitioner accepts his selection as Assistant Professor, it is not maintainable if the challenge to the other part of the notification. On these grounds and on the ground of delay and laches in approaching this Court, subsequent notification dated 22.7.2016 which is already availed of by the petitioner, 9 disentitles the petitioner for any reliefs. Hence, the petition suffers and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In support of his case, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal and Others Vs. Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1995(3) SCC 486. It is also stated in the objections statement that the petitioner has done Ph.D. and entitled for appointment but in fact, the petitioner as on the date of Notification, had not completed Ph.D. He is only qualified to receive degree of Doctor of Philosophy, which he got on 05.06.2017 having no relevance to the notification issued on 22.07.2016. Though there are 26 vacancies in the Institute, none of the posts have been filled up by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and only respondent No.4 is selected because he possessed the required qualification. The petitioner being a candidate belonging to general category has applied for the post which was reserved for scheduled caste and therefore, an endorsement dated 01.08.2016 has been given stating that his application is 10 liable to be rejected as the post was reserved for scheduled caste candidate. But the petitioner has not challenged the said endorsement and now has challenged the notification dated 22.07.2016, which is bad in law.
9. Respondent No.4 has also filed the statement of objections stating that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were the applicants to the post of Associate Professor in Forensic Ondontology in the respondent No.3 - Institute. Petitioner having applied for the said post pursuant to the said notification with eyes wide open even when the post which was advertised in the notification was for one post in Forensic Odontology in the cadre of Associate Professor which was reserved for Scheduled Caste, the petitioner now cannot turn around and challenge the same in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments. To substantiate the same, he has relied on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Saroja Kumar Vs. R. Helen Thilakom 11 reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478 and drew my attention to para No.12 and in the case of Madras Institute of Development Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyam & Others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454. He also states that the petitioner has applied to the said post knowing fully well that it is reserved for scheduled caste candidates and thereafter, it is impermissible for him to challenge the said notification. The petition is liable to be rejected firstly, on the ground of delay in approaching the Court. Secondly, for having participated pursuant to the notification and only when his application was rejected, he has approached the High Court in this petition. To substantiate this ground, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Sarana V. University of Lucknow reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner took a choice to be selected in the oral interview and only because he did not get selected and emerged out unsuccessful, as a result of his combined performance both at written test and oral interview, he 12 has filed the present petition. This is against and contrary to the well established principles of law.
10. It is a well settled law that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview was not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently, contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. His contention is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla V. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla reported in 1986 Supp. SCC 285.
11. He also states that to meet the contention of the petitioner that, only one post was reserved for Associate Professor and being a single post in the discipline of Associate Professor could not have been reserved in favour of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be as it would amount to 100% reservation.
13
12. It is germane to submit that totally there were 26 posts for Associate Professors in the Government Dental College in various disciplines and respondent No.4 is the only one person who belongs to Scheduled Caste in the entire cadre of Associate Professors in the Government Dental College. Government order was passed on 06.06.2005, directing the State Government as to how reservation should be worked out with regard to appointment to various disciplines like Professor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in Medical Colleges in unequivocal terms and it would be as per the cadre and not subject-wise. So also, Social Welfare Department has also issued an order on 27.11.2007, directing respondent No.3 not to reserve subject wise but it shall reserve as per cadre. It is also submitted that to provide reservation to the post like this, there is a Government Order dated 20.06.1995 and till recently, i.e. the government orders dated 06.06.2005, 04.10.2017 and 10.04.2014 have been issued relating to how the reservation should be made with regard to Professor, 14 Associate Professor and Assistant Professor etc. The appointment of the 4th respondent is approved by the Administrative Council in its meeting held on 11.10.2017. When such being the question, without challenging the government orders, challenging only the notification is impressible and hence, he sought to reject the writ petition.
13. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.
14. It is important to note that in order to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it does not prescribe any limitation. The aggrieved party who states that his statutory or constitutional rights has been deprived, he cannot file writ petition at his whims and fancies. In the instant case, the petitioner states that he was waiting for results of the writ petitions and when the said petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, he has approached this Court. When the notification was issued, interview was 15 conducted and when the petitioner's candidature was rejected, he has approached this Court. It is important to note here that when the post for Associate Professor was reserved only for Scheduled Caste candidate, the petitioner belonging to general caste has applied to the said post, which is not permissible. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 01.08.2016 but the writ petition was filed on 06.09.2017. This is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court and seeking aforesaid reliefs is not permissible in law, having knocked doors of justice belatedly.
15. Secondly, the petitioner claims that the reservation made amounts tp 100% reservation since the only one post is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. He also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1988 AIR 959 and in the case of Dr. Rajakumar and Others Vs. Gulbarga University reported in AIR 1990 K.L.320, where it is held that 100% reservation would amount to violation of 16 Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. This aspect of the matter is clarified by the Government Orders dated 20.06.1995, followed by subsequent government order dated 06.06.2005, wherein all the public sector undertakings / institutions / corporations etc, are directed to reserve the post or to combine the post for the purpose of extending reservations. One such order is the Government Order No.DPAR.8.SHM.95 dated 20.06.1995, which is followed by another Government Order dated 06.06.2005, clarifies that the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and also in the cadre of Assistant Professor, posts in the Government Medical Colleges / Medical Colleges working under the institutions registered under Societies Registration Act, while filling the said posts through direct recruitment without carrying the subject-wise, group the respective cadre wise to be considered as Professor Cadre, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor cadre by clubbing the posts the direct reservation roster as specified under the previous Government Order also the 17 prevailing horizontal reservation duly applying the same based on interse merit of the candidates it is directed to appoint the candidates through direct recruitment. This fact is dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and Others Vs K.L.Narasimhan and Another reported in (1997) 6 SCC 283, at para No.13 which reads thus:
"13. In all these decisions, the ratio laid down by this Court in Arati Ray Choudhury Case was followed. Reservation to a single cadre post, applying the rule of rotation of 40-point roster was held valid and constitutional. Clubbing of the posts carrying the same scale of pay or grade is also constitutionally permissible and accordingly clubbing of the single point post of Assistant Professors in various disciplines of the appellant carrying the same scale of pay and grade has been held to be constitutionally permissible."
In view of the above said judgment, it is clear that it is permissible to club the posts for the purpose of providing 18 reservation as long as these Government Orders are in force.
16. Petitioner who has stated that he has applied to the post in pursuance of the notification dated 22.07.2016, is the one for Associate Professor, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. When his application was rejected and he got selected for Assistant Professor, he accepted the same and later on he cannot turn around and challenge the said notification. Submitting his application in pursuance to the said notification amounts to accepting the same by giving up the opportunity of challenging the notification. It is also necessary to note here that instead of applying for the post of Professor or Assistant Professor, he has submitted to the post of Associate Professor, which was reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. Without he challenging the entire notification, challenging the notification only partially, is impermissible and unsustainable. This is dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Saroja 19 Kumar V. R. Helen Thilakom reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478, wherein, at para No.11 of the judgment it is observed thus;
"11. As far as the present case is concerned, an advertisement was issued by Respondent 6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent 1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this, we need not go into the other issues raised."
17. The Supreme Court even in the case of Madras Institute of Development Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454, has held as under :
20
"13. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of Experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment that he turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post.
14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came up for consideration before a three - Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt 21 in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:-
"15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case (AIR 1957 SC 425) where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting:
"9....... It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point."
16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:- 22
"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 (1986 Supp. SCC 285), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."23
17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:-
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under:-
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the 24 advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
19. So far as the finding recorded by the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant Institute is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we are not bound to go into that question, which is kept open.
20. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, we are of the definite opinion that the Division Bench has committed grave error in law by passing the impugned judgment reversing the order passed by the learned Single Judge."
18. Again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187, has held as under:
"13. The next submission which has been presented before us is that when the respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not 25 have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others [1986 Supp. SCC 285]. In the said case a three-Judges Bench, taking note of the fact that the petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realized that he would not succeeded in the examination, held that the writ petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court.
15. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and others[(2002) 6 SCC 127], the Court observed as follows: -
"34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."26
16. In Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors.[(2007) 8 SCC 100], the Court reiterated the principle that it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same."
19. The above judgments throw light on the very same subject that without a person securing required qualification applying for the post in pursuance of the notification and when his candidature is rejected, then, he cannot turn around and challenge the notification. In the instant case, the petitioner has done the same and he has to lose the opportunity as he was not having the required criteria for the post of Associate Professor. It is significant to note that even when there were 26 posts for Associate Professors, he has challenged the only one post which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Even when the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste, he has applied for the said post. Since, 1995 till 2014, the Government has issued directions to the institutions for providing reservations to the post of 27 Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor after clubbing posts which is permissible under law as mentioned above.
20. As per the case of the respondent No.3, there are 26 posts of Associate Professors in the respondent's dental college and out of 26 posts there was no single post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and it is only the respondent No.4 was selected to the said post, who has satisfied the requisite qualification and the Selection Committee found respondent No.4 suitable for the said post. It is not appropriate to interfere in the selection done by the Committee and as it is stated by the respondent No.3, it is not only one post of Associate Professor but it is 26 posts as rightly stated in the statement of objections filed by them.
21. Petitioner and respondent No.4 are not only the persons who have locus standi to challenge the notification issued for the post of Associate Professor. In this regard, the only person who can challenge is the 28 person who is eligible or more eligible than the selected candidate has the locus standi. It is to be noted here that, there is no violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. The statutory right of the petitioner is not deprived and the process of selection is in accordance with law. The petitioner is misconceived and has filed the present petition claiming the reliefs. It is appropriate to note that, when there is no single post occupied by any Scheduled Caste candidate till date in the respondent's college, respondent No.4 is the only one person who had requisite qualification and required criteria to be selected to the said post of Associate Professor and accordingly selected. I find no error committed by the Selection Committee in selecting the respondent No.4.
In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj