Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Hari Singh Gour University vs Dr. Chandralata Singh on 9 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 RP-423-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 423 of 2024
DR. HARI SINGH GOUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS
Versus
DR. CHANDRALATA SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul
Choubey, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Yashovardhan Jain, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Shri Aman H. Khan, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
This review Petition is filed by the officers of Dr. Hari Singh Gaur, Central University, seeking review of order dated 21.03.2024, passed in Writ Petition No.3020/2017, between Dr. Chandralata Singh and Hari Singh Gaur, Central University and others, under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
2. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that brief facts of the case are that a rolling advertisement dated 30.10.2010 (Annx.P/1), to the writ petition, was issued, whereby, applications were invited for filling up of various posts of the University inlcuding that of Assistant Professor in the department of Business Management. It is an admitted fact that presently we are concerned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 2 RP-423-2024 with the adverisement which was issued to fill up the posts of Assistant Professor in the department of Business Management.
3. It is also submitted that a corrigendum dated 20.11.2010, was issued giving bifurcation of posts i.e. 07 posts in the department of Business Management. These posts were bifurcated as 02 for Professor, 02 for Associate Professor and 03 for Assistant Professor. It is submitted that this Court while deciding the writ petition, committed first error in not distinguishing between two separate bodies, namely, Selection Committee and the Screening Committee.
4. The second issue which is raised is that at the material point of time, provisions which were applicable, were known as University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education), Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations of 2010 for short). It is submitted that the selection process is detailed out in Clause 6.0.0 and 6.0.1, provides that the overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of applicants, based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and performance on a scoring system as per Academic Performance Indicators (API), contained in Tables 1 to 9 of Appendix-III.
5. Thus, it is submitted that this Court committed an error in appreciating the facts of the case.
6. It is pointed out that in para 36 of the order, it is mentioned that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 3 RP-423-2024 there is a tacit admission that the statutes were not followed in letter and spirit, but in para 39, there is an observation that the Expert Committee and the Selection Committee were not acting in proprietary by recommending the name of the respondent No.4-Ms. Babita Yadav under OBC category. Thus, it is submitted that there are contradictions in two observations.
7. Similarly, it is pointed out that in para 40, it is clearly mentioned that respondent No.4, Ms. Babita Yadav, had subsequently amended the application, but this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Court.
8. It is further submitted that directions to the Expert Committee to start the process from the stage of interview and after adding the marks obtained in API with the marks secured in interview, merit list be prepared, is contrary to the provisions contained in the statute.
9. It is also submitted that High Court has not clarified as to where cost is to be deposited and on such grounds, review is sought.
10. Before adverting to the submissions made by the respondents, who are petitioners in the writ petition and others who have been arrayed as respondents and are appearing, one issue can be settled without intervention of others, namely, the head under which cost is to be deposited. Thus, it is clarified that the cost is to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee.
11. Now, coming to the issues one by one. First issue is that direction of this Court to add marks secured by candidates in the interview with the API, is inappropriate and the selection committee is all and all empowered to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 4 RP-423-2024 grant marks in the interview and that alone will be the sole criteria for adjudging the merit, Clause 6.0.0 of the Regulations of 2010, deals with selection procedure.
12. The concerned tables as are mentioned in para 6.0.1, determines that API score, is only for the purpose of screening and it has no further objective while making selection of a candidate to the post of Assistant Professor by the Expert Committee.
13. When this aspect is taken into consideration, then it is evient that Clause 6.0.1 of Regulations of 2010, provides that "overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of merits and credentials of applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API), as provided in this Regulations in Tables 1 to 9 of Appendix - III.
In order to make the system more credible, the University may assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a class room situation for discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These procedures can be followed for both direct recruitment and Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations."
14. Clause 6.0.2, provides that "the Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 5 RP-423-2024 respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University department and their constituent colleges/affiliated colleges..... to be followed transparently in all selection process. An indicative PBAS templates proforma for direct recruitment and for the Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS, shall also be sent separately by the UGC to the Universities."
15. The University may adopt the template proforma or may device their own self assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to API criteria based PBAS prescribed in these Regulations."
16. In Appendix - III, Table-2(c), it is provided that minimum API scored for screening for the post of Assistant Professor/ Equivalent cadre (stage one), will be minimum qualification as stipulated in these Regulations. It is provided that minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment for teachers in University Departments/Colleges, Librarian/Physical Education cadre in Universities/Colleges and weightages in Selection Committees to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications prescribed in the Regulations.
17. Thus, when aforesaid regulations are taken into consideration subject to minimum qualification as stipulated in these Regulations, Selection Committee is required to give weightage of 50% to academic record and research performance. 30% to assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills and 20% to interview performance. Taking total weightages to cent percent.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:406 RP-423-2024
18. It has come on record vide Annx. REJ.2, filed along with the rejoinder, that the University adopted UGC guidelines and laid down suggestive guidelines to short list applicants for interview for positions of Assistant Professors in the University. It is provided that how many marks will be given for each of the categories, namely, Category-1, Category-2, Category-3, under the head of minimum eligibility. Then marks for teaching experience, marks for research publications including reviews and then for books in the relevant subjects, inventions/discoveries, award/fellowship and papers presented in workship conference/seminars/symposium/colloquium, then for consultancy industrial experience etc., then how precis will be prepared for each of the candidates.
19. Thus, in terms of the guidelines of the University contained in Annx.REJ.2, it is evident that petitioners had received her Academic Performance Indicators under the RTI and according to these parameters, petitioner out of all the short listed candidates, was given 27.5 score, whereas, that of private respondent Ms. Babita Yadav was only 27. This is apparent from Annx.P/5 to the writ petition.
20. Another interesting facet is that it is only vide Gazette Notification dated 13.06.2013, bearing No.F.1-2/2009 (EC/PS) V(i), Vol.2, it is provided for the first time under the head of 'Selection' that "provides that API scores will be used for screening purpose only and will have no bearing on expert assessment of candidates in direct recruitment/CAS."
21. No material has been brought on record by Ms. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate, to show that for the selection which were Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 7 RP-423-2024 completed prior to 13.06.2013, API was only required to be used for screening and not for the purpose of selection.
22. If that would have been the spirit of the law, then Regulations of 2010 in Appendix - III, Table - 2(c), would not have provided criteria for selection committee laying down 50% emphasis on academic record and research performance, 30% on assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills and 20% for interview performance.
23. Clause 6.0.2 of the Regulations of 2010, categorically provides that Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based, Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level to be followed transparently in all selection process. Thus, Clause 6.0.2 of the Regulations of 2010, provides for taking into consideration API and PBAS for the purpose of selection.
24. Contrary to this, vide amendment dated 13.06.2013, firstly, it is provided that API scores will be used for screening purpose only which is not mentioned in the Regulations of 2010 and secondly, Clause 6.0.2 of the amended Regulations provies that the University can, if they wish so, increase the minimum required score or device appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at the level of recruitment. This has not been provided in the Regulations of 2010, and therefore, the subsequent departure in the practice of giving weightage to API i.e. constituting of academic record and research performance and assessment of domain knowledge Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 8 RP-423-2024 cannot be substituted by the expert assessment of candidates which was only to the extent of interview performance and that too upto 20% where interviews were in terms of Clause 6.0.1, was entitled to assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in classroom situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research was restricted only to interview stage.
25. Thus, direction of this court to add marks of API, is not contrary to the Scheme provided in Appendix - III, Table - 2(c) of 2010 Regulations and is, therefore, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
26. As submitted by Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, that Review Petition can be entertained only if there exists mistake or error, which is apparent on the face of record and under the garb of review, petitioners cannot be permitted to reargue matter on merits as held by Division Bench of this High Court in Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [2021 (2) MPLJ 472], so also on the judgment of Supreme Court in S. Bhagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464], where, it is held that error apparent on the face of record is to be seen while entertaining a petition under review jurisdiction and so also the law laid down by Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through L.Rs Vs. Motilal (dead) through L.Rs. [(2009) 14 SCC 663], wherein, scope of limitations of Review Court have been discussed and it is held that review is not appeal in disguise, Review court cannot sit in appeal over its own order and rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 9 RP-423-2024 has lot of force under the present facts and circumstances.
27. It is also clarified that there is no contradiction between para 36 and para 39, inasmuch as, they are to be read in different context.
28. As far as para 40, is concerned, it is settled law as laid down in Shankar Mandal Vs. State of Bihar [(2003) 9 SCC 519], that where a cut off date with reference to which an eligibility has to be determined, is the date appointed by the relevant Service Rules, then it will be that. Where no such cut off date is provided in the Rules, then it will be the date appointed in the advertisement calling for applications and if there is no such date appointed, then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications are to be received.
29. Thus, private respondent could not have changed her category from General to OBC as is reflected from Annx.P/5, merely, because the advertisement was a rolling advertisement. Rolling advertisement does not mean that a candidate is entitled to change her caste category after the last date of filing of the application which in the present case as is evident from Annx.P/1, was of 21, December 2010.
30. Thus, once the private respondent was assessed under the General category vide Annx.P/5, then she could not have been given appointment under OBC category and that action of the University has been rightly held to be illegal while deciding the writ petition.
31.Thus, there is departure in 2013 Regulations, as regard to API scores which has no retrospective application and which provides that API scores will be used only for the purpose of screening and will have no Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40 10 RP-423-2024 bearing on experts assessment of candidates in direct recruitment which is not the case in reference to the Regulations of 2010, and therefore, that being the distinction, API scores are required to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee and after taking them into consideration will have to give marks for the interview. Therefore, when tested from this aspect, there is no error apparent on face of record in the impugned order calling for interference.
32. Accordingly, Review Petition disposed off.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 13-08-2024 19:44:40