Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Madhu Soodan Rajpurohit And Anr vs Mls University Udaipur And Ors ... on 20 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:10372]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5619/2014
1. Dr. Madhu Soodan Rajpurohit S/o Shri Satya Deo Rajpurohit,
C/o 17-E/441, Nandanvan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, PIN 342008.
2. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vyas S/o Dr. Satya Narayan Vyas, 49,
Vidhya Nagar, University Housing Society, Sector No.4, Hiran
Magrari, Udaipur, Rajasthan (PIN 313002)
(At present:- 1, Principal's Bungalow, College Campus,
Modasa Shri N.S. Patel Law College, Modasa, District Aravalli
(Gujarat) (PIN 383315)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur through the
Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Rajasthan
PIN-313039
2. The Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur,
Rajasthan. PIN 313039
3. The Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur,
Rajasthan. PIN 313039
4. Dr. Anand Paliwal S/o Shri Badri Prasad Paliwal, Associate
Professor (Law) College of Law, Mohan Lal Sukhadia
University, Udaipur, Rajasthan. PIN 313039
5. Dr. Shobha Ram Sharma, Lecturer-in-Law, Government Law
College, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
6. Dr. Anil Kumar Kaushik, Principal, Government Law College,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Madhu Soodan Rajpurohit
(Petitioner in Person).
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Mr. Piyush Sharma (R-4).
Mr. Hemant Ballani and Mr.
Sudhanshu Kalla (R-1 to 3).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral) 20/02/2025
1. Petitioners herein, inter alia, seek quashing of an interview dated 22.07.2014 conducted by respondent No.1 for the post of Professor of Law and declare the respondent No.4 as ineligible for the said post and also seek a declaration that respondent No. 4 is ineligible for the post of Professor in the subject of Law. (Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (2 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are as follows:
2.1. The petitioners were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and appointed as lecturers in Law by the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1995 respectively.
Petitioners No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.6 have over 19 years of teaching experience in UG classes and more than 10 years in PG classes.
2.2. On 10.12.2004, Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer at Bhupal Nobles Law College, Udaipur. He was on probation for a year. On 25.06.2007, Respondent No.4 was selected as an Assistant Professor in Law by Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. On 22.02.2012, Respondent No.4 was selected as an Associate Professor, although he did not meet the required qualifications as per the University Act and UGC regulations. Petitioners plead that they discovered this after an interview for the position of Professor in Law, which is under challenge herein. 2.3. On 19.02.2013, Respondent No.1 advertised the posts of Professors in Law, mentioning that all appointments would follow UGC/AICTE guidelines. The last date for applications was 08.04.2013. On 13.06.2014, interview letters for the post of Professor were sent to the petitioners, respondents No.4, 5 & 6. On 24.06.2014, a screening list was displayed, with some candidates, including Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5, having remarks about missing Academic Performance Indicator ('API') forms or certificates. Petitioner No.1 had an Academic Performance Indicator score of 872, and Respondent No.5 had 724, while Respondent No.4's score was 442.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (3 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] 2.4. The interview scheduled for 25.06.2014 was postponed due to a lack of quorum. After the interview was postponed, the petitioners met the Vice-Chancellor, who advised submitting additional documents to correct the discrepancies. Petitioner No.1 submitted these documents on 26.06.2014. Despite this, on 18.07.2014, the screening list remained unchanged. 2.5. On 22.07.2014, the interview was held, but only Respondent No.4 was interviewed, in the absence of the petitioners, Respondent No.5 and 6. The interview was conducted without addressing the petitioners' concerns or following proper procedures.
2.6. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Professor on the same day, despite not fulfilling the required qualifications, and joined immediately afterward. This was done in haste, circumventing the court's oversight. Hence this petition.
3. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is as below:
3.1. The eligibility criteria for the post of Professor of Law were determined in accordance with UGC Regulations. The UGC, vide its letter dated 01.03.2016, clarified that the period of active service spent in pursuing a Ph.D. without availing any leave can be counted as teaching experience. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer at Bhupal Noble Law College on 21.08.2003 and had additional research experience from 01.03.2003, making him eligible for the post.
3.2. The selection process was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee, which included representatives from the Office of the Chancellor, the State Government, and the University.
The interview for Respondent No.4 was conducted on 22.07.2014, (Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (4 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] but before the results were declared, the petitioner approached the Court and obtained an interim order directing to re-conduct of the interview. The interview was re-conducted on 28.08.2014 and confirmed Respondent No.4 as the most meritorious candidate, and the results were produced before the Court on 12.09.2014. 3.3. After considering the legal opinion and in the absence of any stay, the Board of Management (BOM) proceeded with the appointment of Respondent No.4 on 30.09.2014. The petitioner's challenge was primarily based on two grounds: (i) Respondent No.4 allegedly did not have the requisite 10 years of teaching experience, and (ii) Respondent No.4's API score was allegedly miscalculated. Both allegations are baseless as Respondent No.4 met all eligibility criteria, and the API score was assessed per the prescribed norms.
3.4. During the pendency of the writ petition, at the instance of the State Government, a committee was constituted to examine the appointment of respondent No.4 in question, as well as the qualifications of Respondent No.4. The expert committee found that the API score awarded to Respondent No.4 was correctly assessed and that there was no irregularity in the selection process.
3.5. Furthermore, in light of Regulation 4 and Regulation 10 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, read with the clarification issued by the UGC, the selected candidate i.e. Respondent No.4 fulfills the requisite experience of 10 years, including the experience gained as a research scholar.
3.6. In addition to the above, as per the form attached with the reply filed by Respondent No.4 (Annex. R/4/1 at page 294), the (Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (5 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] petitioner No.1 himself does not qualify for the post of Professor, as he has not guided any candidates for research at the doctoral level, which is a mandatory requirement under Regulation 4.1.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010.
Regulation 4.1.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, prescribes the qualifications for the post of Professor, which includes:
4.1.0 PROFESSOR A. (i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers.
(ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in university/college, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level.
(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology - mediated teaching learning process.
(iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix III.
OR B. An outstanding professional, with established reputation in the relevant field, who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials.
3.7. On 16.02.2021, the University conducted an inquiry into complaints against Respondent No.4's appointment. On 20.02.2021, the BOM decided to conduct an inquiry, and a committee was formed on 03.05.2021. However, the fresh committee, after a detailed examination, justified the API score awarded to Respondent No.4 and opined that his appointment was proper. The inquiry report was accepted on 15.09.2022, and proceedings were dropped by the University vide Resolution No.06 dated 01.10.2022.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (6 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] 3.8. The entire selection and appointment process was conducted as per due process and has been subjected to judicial scrutiny at various stages. The University has already conducted an independent inquiry, which has reaffirmed the correctness of Respondent No.4's appointment. The petitioner's challenge is an abuse of the process of law, aimed at harassing the appointed candidate without any legal basis. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the voluminous record of the writ petition alongwith an additional affidavit dated 30.01.2017.
5. At the very outset, I may observe that grievance of the petitioners qua the eligibility and lacking other merits of Dr. Anand Paliwal (respondent No.4) for being appointed as Professor have been chapter and verse gone into on various intervals from time to time both by way of judicial intervention as well as by taking remedial measures on the administrative side by the competent authority.
6. Let us see how.
7. First and foremost, reference may be had to an order dated 11.08.2014, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, then seized of the matter, which not only sums up the entire controversy, but also gave an interim direction to take remedial measures, which led to cancellation of the earlier interview conducted by the Interview Board of the University. Subsequent thereto, a fresh interview was conducted, wherein petitioners herein were also contenders for the post in question. The said order reads as follows:-
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (7 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] "The petitioners have challenged the selection process for the post of Professor in Law by the respondent- Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur ("University", for short). The dispute raised by the petitioners before this Court is about the petitioners being excluded from the zone of consideration and not called for interview on the postponed date for the said post on account of non-giving of their API (Academic Performance Indicator) marks on website or without deciding their representations.
According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1, Dr. M.S. Rajpuorhit, and as admitted by the respondent- M.L.S. University in its reply to writ petition (Page 135 of the reply) that the petitioner No.1 had secured API to tune of "881.5". The petitioner No.2, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vyas, has claimed that his API was more than 500 but on the postponed date of interview for the said post on 22.07.2014 at 09.00 AM, the private respondent No.4- Dr. Anand Paliwal, the only person out of 5 candidates, was called for the said interview for the said post and the remaining four candidates are shown as "absent" and only the private respondent No.4- Dr. Anand Paliwal, is shown "present" and he was interviewed on that date.
The petitioners have submitted that well before the said postponed date i.e. 22.07.2014, they had already submitted a representations to the respondent - University vide the Annex. 13 & 14 dated 20.07.2014 and 21.07.2014 raising their aforesaid grievance/s but without deciding the said representations first by a speaking order, the respondent University, fixed the interview date on 22.07.2014 and they were communicated the said date of 22.07.2014 vide the letter dated 09.07.2014. but since the respondent University did not clarify their stand about the higher API marks of the present two petitioners, yet interview process was held on 22.07.2014 by interviewing only one of the 5 candidates, namely, Dr. Anand Paliwal.
Prima-facie, this indicates that these four persons, including the present 2 petitioners, were deprived of their reasonable opportunity to participate in the said selection process on 22.07.2014 and only one of the candidate, who has been arrayed as private respondent No.4, Dr. Anand Paliwal, was so interviewed on 22.07.2014.
On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Tirkha, Addl. Officer- in-Charge (Professor), M.L.S. University, and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Barber, Assistant Registrar, MLS University, submitted that if the petitioners themselves chose to remain absent on the given date of 22.07.2014 that have to thank themselves and they could have attended the interview on 22.07.2014 and in getting the position about their API(s) clarified on that date.
On the previous date i.e. on 25.06.2014, on which the interviews were to be held, all the candidates except one Dr. Anil Kaushik, who was absent, the present two petitioners (Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (8 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] were all present but on the postponed date l.e. on 22.07.2014, however, only one candidate, out of 5 candidates, Dr. Anand Paliwal, was present.
After hearing the parties at some length, this Court is not satisfied with the stand taken by the respondent- M.L.S. University and it was expected of the respondent University to inform either on the official website of the University or otherwise the comparative the API/s of all the candidates appearing for the said post before the said interviews were taken on 22.07.2014 to maintain sufficient transparency in the selection process. The copy of the attendance-sheet dated 22.07.2014 and other documents produced by the respondents before the Court during the course of arguments are taken on record, which prima-facie indicates that a majority of the candidates were deprived of their opportunity to appear in the said interview on 22.07.2014 and two of them are before this Court in the present writ petition.
The API of the person candidate interviewed, Dr. Anand Paliwali, is shown to be 442 whereas the present petitioners admittedly have higher API(s) than the person so interviewed and the selection process has yet not been completed and the result of the same has not been declared by the respondent- University.
Therefore, by way this interim order, it is directed that it would be in the fitness of the things if the respondent- M.L.S. University, re-holds the interview of all the five candidates again as per the date convenient to them, after declaring the comparative API(s) of all the five candidates and either upload the same on their official website of the University or inform the candidates of their respective API(s) and then hold the interview of all five of them again on the given date. The present petitioners as well as other candidates shall be informed of the said date by separate communications and result of re-holding of the interview may be produced before this Court on the next date along-with affidavit of the concerned authority of the respondent University.
The said process may be completed within a period of one month from today.
List the matter again on 12.09.2014."
8. Apropos, the respondent No.4 was declared as successful candidate in the interview. An appointment letter was issued to him. The said appointment letter was also sought to be withheld and/or stayed during the pendency of the writ proceedings by filing a subsequent stay application. Said application too once again considered merits and demerits of the allegations. The Single Bench, then seized of the matter, presided over by Nirmaljit (Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (9 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] Kaur, J. (as she then was in this Court) passed an order dated 25.11.2014, which reads as follows:-
"Admitted. Notice need not be issued to the respondents as they are being represented.
Heard on the second stay application.
The prayer in the second stay application is for staying the execution, effect and operation of the order dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure-24) passed by the respondent-University vide which the respondent No.4 joined as Professor in the subject of Law.
At the first instance, the petitioner challenged the interview ordered to be conducted on 22.7.2014 for the post of Professor in the subject of Law. Vide an interim order dated 11.8.2014, the Court directed the University to re-hold the interview of all the five candidates again as per the date convenient to them, after declaring the comparative API(S) of all the five candidates and thereafter to hold the interview of all five of them again on the given date.
In pursuance to the said order, the earlier interview dated 22.7.2014 was cancelled and fresh interview was held. The result of the fresh interview held on 28.8.2014 was placed on record. In pursuance to the same, respondent No.4 was selected and accorded appointment as Professor by order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the University. The said appointment is made subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
The petitioner while praying for stay of the operation of the order dated 30.09.2014 submitted that respondent No.4 is not eligible for the post of Professor as he does not fulfil the requisite qualification laid down under Regulation 4.1.0 of the UGC Regulation, 2010 and did not have 10 years of experience in teaching. A(ii) of Regulation 4.1.0 reads as under:-
"A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in university/college, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level."
It is evident from the UGC Regulation reproduced above that the required experience for the post of Professor is "minimum of ten years of teaching experience in university/college". It is not specified that the said teaching experience has to be only for Assistant Professor or Associate Professor whereas respondent No.4 in his reply has stated that he has got teaching experience of 12 years to under graduate, 10 years experience to post graduate and 04 years to Ph.D. Guides.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (10 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] While challenging the teaching experience, it is contended that respondent No.4 was appointed as Assistant Professor on 25.6.2007 and the said appointment to the post of Assistant Professor was not in accordance with the qualifications and eligibility criteria. The subsequent appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Associate Professor on 22.2.2012 was not as per the regulations as he did not complete the number of years required for the post of Associate Professor.
However, the petitioner never challenged the appointment of the respondent No.4 as Associate Professor at that point of time. Moreover, it is not disputed that the respondent No.4 after joining as Associate Professor has been working on the post till his selection as Professor.
Meanwhile, the respondent No.4 has already joined as Professor.
In these circumstances, no ground is made out to stay the order dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure-24). The second application for stay (4853/2014) is dismissed.
The first stay application also stands disposed of. Put up this matter for hearing after three months."
9. In fact on threadbare perusal of the entire record in the light of the observations herein above made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, would suffice at this stage itself to dismiss the writ petition, as I am in respectful agreement with what has been held therein while dismissing the stay application.
10. Be that as it may, the matter did not rest at that, as it transpires that owing to the relentless efforts of the petitioners the competent administrative authorities deemed it fit to refer the entire matter to have a fresh look by constituting an Inquiry Committee of 3 experts, as is borne out from the Agenda-T3 of minutes of meeting dated 20.02.2021, which was convened under the Chairmanship of Vice Chancellor of the University. The same reads as under:-
"T/3. To consider the letter received from Secretary, H.E. the Chancellor & Governor, Rajbhawan, Jaipur F.3(1)RB/2021/805 dated 17.02.2021 regarding enquire all the matter related to Dr. Anand Paliwal, Prof. of Law.(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (11 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] The house discussed the matter in light of the documents, facts and information reported in table agenda (Page 14-56) along with the letters received from Secretary, H.E. the Chancellor & Governor of Rajasthan and the State Govt. etc., against his appointment on the post of Associate Professor & Professor of Law regarding not having the minimum prescribed academic qualifications, requisite teaching experience etc. by him for these posts and the irregularities done by him. Looking into the seriousness of the matter it was resolved to constitute a three members external enquiry committee, to examine all issues pertaining to his appointment on the post of Associate Professor & Professor of Law and the irregularities done by him as referred above. Composition of the committee shall be as under:
1. Prof. V. K. Singh, Vice-Chancellor, Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner (Convener)
2. Dr. G.P. Singh, Principal, Government Dungar College, Bikaner. (Member)
3. Dr. Rajkumar Upadhyay, Registrar, University of Kota, Kota, (Member) The committee should be requested to submit its report on these issues as soon as possible. The Raj Bhawan & the State Government should also be informed about the same."
11. The aforesaid clearly reveals that the constituted Inquiry Committee comprised of persons of credible experience and having domain expertise in their respective fields. The convener of the Committee was the concededly Vice Chancellor of another University and other two members were also of the rank of Principal of Government College and Registrar of another University. Thus, clearly it was constituted of completely independent members having no prejudice of any kind qua any of the selected or rejected candidates.
12. The said Committee, after conducting a thorough inquiry and after sifting through the entire record, rendered its expert opinion not only on the eligibility of the respondent No.4, but also with respect to the procedure adopted for selection on the post of Professor, of which, the petitioners herein are contenders. The (Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (12 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] relevant extract of the said report dated 02.08.2022 reads as under:-
"Report
1. However in the interest of the things, the committee relooked into the various categories of API Score and found that API Score has been rightly awarded as per the UGC API guidelines by Statutory Selection Committee under the Categories of Research Publication, Conferences, Research guidance, Seminars and invited lecturers, training programs etc.
2. The committee considered each and every aspect and came to the conclusion after the due deliberations that the calculation of the API score made by Statutory Selection Committee i.e. 442 at the time of Selection for the post of Associate Professor and Professor WHICH IS justified in our opinion.
3. The Committee has thoroughly examined the matter in light of above mentioned terms of reference relating to the recruitment of Prof. Anand Paliwal.
The committee unanimously expresses the opinion that after hearing Prof. Anand Paliwal and as per the material made available by the University and Prof. Paliwal that the University adopted a fair and transparent process and also API guidelines applicable for the aforesaid recruitment.
Therefore, Prof. Anand Paliwal's Selection and appointment was rightly done on the posts in question and API Scores were rightly awarded for both the post as per the statutory norms and procedures of University and UGC regulations.
S/d S/d S/d
(Prof. U.C. Sankhla) (Prof. C.P. Jain) (Prof.Pradeep Trikha)
External Subject Expert Member, Convenor
Ex.-VC, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law Dean, College of SC. Director, IQAC
University, Jaipur"
13. On a Court query, it transpires that the said report of the inquiry Committee has not been challenged. The argument qua the same is that since the said subsequent development was after filing of the writ petition, therefore, it was not required to be challenged independently.
14. Be that as it may, having seen the inquiry report and the contents thereof, it is not for this Court to re-appraise the observations made and conclusion drawn by the domain experts, find fault with, supersede the same and substitute it's own (Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:10372] (13 of 13) [CW-5619/2014] opinion, unless of course, it is a case of alleged mala fide. There is no mala fide alleged against any of the Members of the Inquiry Committee and/or competent administrative authorities who decided to constitute the Inquiry Committee of 3 experts.
15. As an upshot, no grounds to interfere are made out and the writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps qua the inquiry report as they may deem fit.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 238-Jitender-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)