Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Manpreet Singh Walia vs Punjab University And Another on 27 September, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.19449 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.19449 of 2012
Date of Decision:27.09.2013
*****
Dr.Manpreet Singh Walia
. . . .Petitioner
Versus
Punjab University and another
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Bhavnik Mehta, Advocate,
or respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Gurminder Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The respondent No.1, vide advertisement No.3/12 invited applications to fill up 4 posts of Professors in Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge, Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital P.U., Chandigarh.
CWP No.19449 of 2012 -2-
According to the petitioner, it was provided in the advertisement that the screening criteria and weightage template to be used by the Selection Committee for evaluating the academic record and research performance etc. are available on the University website. All the 4 Professors were to be appointed in different disciplines namely, Oral Pathology, Oral Maxillofacial Surgery-I, Orthodontics-I and Prosthodontics-I. It is alleged that the petitioner accessed the website of respondent No.1/University (www.puchd.ac.in) in order to download the screening criteria and weightages template to be used by the screening committee for evaluating academic record, research performance etc. for the posts of Assistant Professors but only the template for the posts of Assistant Professor was available on the website which is reproduced as under: -
TEMPLATES FOR API SCORE FOR ACADEMIC RECORD & RESEARCH PERFORMANCE ETC. FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR Academic Record & Research Performance Assessment of Domain Knowledge Interview Final Remark 50% & Teaching Skills 30% 20% Score s (Total weighta ge 100) Academic Record & Research Performance Research Performance Bachelor's Master's M.Phil Ph.D Publications*/ UGC Teaching** Teaching Degree Degree Patents* (As NET Experience/ skills per UGC Post- including Guidelines) doctoral Presentation fellowship directly from a public relevant to funding the subject agency** appearing for interview 5 10 5 15 15 10 10 10 20 100 * Maximum upto 150 reduced to 15.
** One mark per Academic Session (More than six months will be taken as a Session) CWP No.19449 of 2012 -3- It is further submitted that interview for the post of Professors in the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery was held on 1.6.2012 in which only one candidate had appeared. At that time, following criteria was applied: -
INTERVIEW FOR THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY IN THE DR.HSJ INSTT. OF DENTAL SCIENCES AND HOSPITAL HELD ON 1.6.2012 AT 9.00 AM IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, P.U. CHANDIGARH Sr. Name of Academic Research Assessment Interview Final No. the Background Performance of Domain Performance Score candidate based on Knowledge API score and and quality Teaching of Skills publications 20% 40% 20% 20% Dr. 11.2 34.5 12 13 70.7 Hemant Batra Sd/- (Prof. V. P. Kamboj), Sd/- (Prof. Dhirendra Srivastava), Sd/-(Prof. Sumeet Sandhu), Sd/-(Dr. Raj Bahadur), Sd/- (Dr. Ashish Jain) Sd/- (Prof. S.C. Sobti), Chairman Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case of the petitioner, who had applied for the post of Professor in Prosthodontics, 10 candidates appeared but this time the criteria applied in the discipline of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery was changed as under: -CWP No.19449 of 2012 -4-
INTERVIEW FOR THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN PROSTHODONTICS-I IN THE DR.HSJ INSTT. OF DENTAL SCIENCES AND HOSPITAL HELD ON 1.6.2012 AT 11.00 AM IN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, P.U. CHANDIGARH Sr. Name of Academic Teac Research Asses Interview Final No. the Background hing Performance sment Performan Score candidate Exper based on API of ce ience score and Doma quality of in publications Knowl 25% edge and 25% Teach 20% 10% ing Skills 20%
1. Dr. 21.6 9 7.5 12 11 61.1 Ansuia Gupta
2. Dr.Chand 21.1 7 0 10 9 47.8 er Kumar 8 Aggarwal
3. Dr. 21.4 7.4 2.5 10 10 51.30 Komal Sehgal 4. Dr. 21 7.0 12 15 15 70 Manpreet Singh Walia
5. Dr. 21 6.5 10 11 10 58.5 Ravneet Kaur 6. Dr. 21 7 13 12 12 65 Reena Luthra 7. Dr. Tarun 21 8 11 12 11 63 Kalra
8. Dr. 21.7 7 24 15 15 82.7 Shefali Singla
9. Dr. 20.9 9 16.21 12 11 69.11 Sandeep Kumar Garg 10 Dr. 20.8 7 10 10 11 58.8 Gurwinde r Singh Sd/- (Prof. V. P. Kamboj), Sd/- (Prof.R.P. Luthra), Sd/-(Prof. Kusum Datta), Sd/-(Prof.Geeta Rajput Sd/-(Dr. Raj Bahadur), Sd/- (Dr. Ashish Jain) Sd/- (Prof. Bhjan Kaur) Sd/- (Prof. R.C. Sobti), Chairman CWP No.19449 of 2012 -5- Since, there was only one post in the discipline of Prosthodontics, it was given to the highest scorer, namely, Dr. Shefali Singla, who is at Sr. No.8 in the aforesaid chart.
Initially, she was not impleaded as a party but later on impleaded by the petitioner through CM No.15783 of 2012. It is alleged by the petitioner that one candidate, namely, Anjali Singla had applied under the RTI Act, 2005 for certain information, respondent No.1 replied vide Memo No.EST/12/13791/ESTTI dated 4.7.2012 and according to the petitioner, the said Anjali Singla had asked question No.7 that "as per the advertisement No.3/12, the Screening Criteria and weightage template to be used for selection committee had to be there on the University Website and there was no such criteria found on the website. Kindly, explain the reason for the same".
In reply thereof, it is stated by the University that information is still available on the website i.e. puchd.ac.in (university employment → interview criteria).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though it is claimed by the University that the screening criteria and weightage template to be used by the Selection Committee for academic record and research performa is available on University Website in case of professors yet the CWP No.19449 of 2012 -6- same is not available. Secondly, respondent No.1 has not used a uniform criteria, namely, in the selection of the professor in the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, different criteria was adopted than in the discipline of Prothodontics. It is further submitted that although there were 8 members in the Committee but none of them had given individual grade and there cannot be commonality of mind of awarding numbers under each head. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not have challenged the criteria because it was not disclosed to him, therefore, it cannot be alleged that he has challenged the criteria after playing and loosing the game. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of "K Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another"
2008(3) Supreme Court Cases 512.
In reply, learned counsel for the respondents/selected candidates has submitted that since there was no fixed criteria, therefore, it was changed by the selection committee because in the matter of selection of Professor in the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery discipline, there was only one candidate but for the post of Professor in the Prosthodontics, there were 10 candidates and therefore, the criteria was evolved to assess teaching experience separately. He has referred to the regulations of the University framed under Section 31(1) & (2) (e) of the Punjab University Act, CWP No.19449 of 2012 -7- 1947 [for short 'the University Act'], Clause 6.1 provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee. It is submitted that the Selection Committee is constituted in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the University Act. It is further submitted that the regulations further provide that the committee would interview suitable persons and place it before the Syndicate and while making the recommendation, the Committee would have regard to his capacity for research, ability as a teacher and his eminence in the subject of his profession. It was also provided that the University may utilize a seminar or colloquium as a method for selection of a Professor.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the criteria adopted by the Selection Committee has been equally applied to all the 10 candidates which has been considered and approved by the Syndicate. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither averred about any mala fide or any arbitrariness in the action of the selection committee. It is also argued that the reason for filing the writ petition by the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Professor on purely temporary basis till the appointment of a regular Professor in the Institute for which the selection has been made and so long the selection remains in litigation, the petitioner would continue to work on ad hoc basis. CWP No.19449 of 2012 -8-
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the criteria for selection is not specified by the statutory rules or regulations, the Selection Committee was fully competent to device a just, fair and rational criteria. In this regard, he has submitted that since the petitioner has challenged the selection of Dr. Shefali Singla, their comparative merit would indicate that she had taken a lead over the petitioner only because of her publications otherwise all other scores are equal. In this regard, the marks awarded to both the petitioner and Shefali Singla/added respondent/selected candidate are as under: -
Sr. Name of Academic Teaching Publications Assessment Interview Total No. the Background Experience (API Score) of Domain Performance candiate 25% 10% 25% Knowledge 20% and Teaching Skills 20% 1 Dr. 21.7 7 24 15 15 82.7 Shefali Singla 2 Dr. 21 7 12 15 15 70 Manpreet Walia The petitioner has also referred to the charts about the publication, academic record and teaching experience of both the candidates, which is reproduced as under: -CWP No.19449 of 2012 -9-
PUBLICATION RECORD OF DR. SHEFALI SINGLA Sr. Title Journal Type of Indexed/ Impact Authorship DCI No. Journal Abstracted Factor Score 1 Prosthetic Dentistry Regional Inddex Fist 5 rehabilitation International Copernicus Author of patients (Global edition with from Indian congenital or Dentist acquired Research and palatal Review) 2005;
defects 1(2):23-26
2 Silanes: Aesthetishe International SCOPUS First and 15
Zahnmedizin
Chemistry only
(European
and Journal of author
Dental
applications
Medicine)
2006; 4:63.
Reprinted from
Journal of
Indian
Prosthodontic
Society, 2006
3 Removeable Journal of National Pubmed, 0.665 First 15
partial Indian (Prosthetics SCOPUS author
denture Prosthodontics speciality
designing; Socieity. 2006; journal)
Forces as 6(4);179-184.
primary
concern
4 Complete Indian Journal National Medline, 0.665 First and 15
denture of Dental Scopus only
impression Research. author
techniques - 2007;
Evidence 18(3):124-127
based on Citations-4
philosophical
5 What Indian Dentist Regional Index First and 5
constitutes a Research and Copernicus only
beautiful Review. author
smile. 2007;12(1):58-
64
6 Cleft Palate Indian Journal National Pubmed, 0-646 first author 15
rehabilitation of Pediatrics SCOPUS (2008)
2008;75:703-
708 Citation-I
Total 70
CWP No.19449 of 2012 - 10 -
PUBLICATION RECORD OF DR. MANPREET SINGH WALIA Sr. Title Journal Type of Indexed/ Impact Authorship DCI No. Journal Abstracted Factor Score 1 Fabrication of Journal of National Pubmed, 0.665 Fist 15 finger and hand Indian SCOPUS Author prosthesis using Prosthodontics Prosthetic Socieity. 2002;
methods 2:28-30.
2 Jaw Journal of Oral Online First 5
Osteonecrosis a health and Journal author
risk factor in community
Bisphosphonate dentistry.
therapy-a dental 2010;4(3);96-
concern 101
3 Oral Journal of Online First 5
Bisphosphonates Implants and Journal author
and detnal advanced
implants clinical
dentistry
4 Molecular Baba Farid University Fourth 7.5
Genetis- Tooth University Journal author
Development Dental
and gene Journal. 2011;
therapy 2(2)
5 Phonetics-its role Indian Journal H.P. Index Second 7.5
in of Denal University Copernicus author
Proshthodontics Sciences Dental
2011; 3(2):36- Journal
40
6 CAD CAM for Indian Journal Onlien Index Second 2.5
every one in of Oral Journal of Copernicus author
practice and Sciences. National
laboratory 2011;2 Dental
College
Derabassi
Total 42.5
CWP No.19449 of 2012 - 11 -
Academic Background
Sr. No. Examination Marks /% of Dr. Shefali Marks/% of Dr. Manpreet
1 Matric 84% 61.83%
2 10+2 73% 74%
3 BDS 67% (GNU, Ars) 60% (GNDU, Asr)
4 MDS Pass (DAV Dental Pass (MR Ambedkar Dental
College, Yamunanagar) College, Banglore)
TEACHING EXPERIENCE FROM DATE OF JOINING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Sr. No. Experience of Private Experience of Tenure college Govt./University College 1 Dr. Shefali Bhojia Dental 1 month Singla College, Baddi, HP 3.3.2006 to 3.4.2006 Associate Professor on 5 years, 11 months, regular selection at Dr. 13 days HSJIDSH, P.U. from 20.4.2006 till date of application (3.4.2012) Total 6 years, 13 days
2 Dr. National Dental 2 years, 3 months, 13 Manpreet College, Derabassi days Walia 17.6.2005 to 30.9.2007 Gian Sagar Dental 2 yearas, 1 months, College, Banur 27 days 4.10.2007 to 1.12.2009 DRS Dental College 8 months, 15 days 2.12.2009 to 17.8.2010 Dr. HSJ I DSH, P.U. 1 years, 7 months, 14 (Adhoc appointment) days 19.8.2010 till date of application (3.4.2012 Total 6 years, 9 months , 8 days CWP No.19449 of 2012 - 12 - I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is firstly that website does not provide any criteria for the purpose of judging the inter se merits of the candidates applying for the post of Professors and even otherwise different criteria has been adopted for different disciplines, which is arbitrary on the part of the respondents, in as much as the members of the Committee have not graded the candidates individually.
In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K Manjusree (Supra) in order to contend that in the recruitment process, selection criteria has to be prescribed in advance and the rules of the game cannot be changed afterwards.
However, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the Regulations of the Punjab University dealing with University Teachers which includes Professors, the Selection Committee has been constituted in terms of Clause 6.1 which provides the Vice-Chancellor to be the Chairperson, three experts in the concerned subject/field out of the list recommended by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the Syndicate and an academician, who is nominee of the Chancellor, the Dean of the concerned Faculty, Head/Chairperson of the concerned Department. The CWP No.19449 of 2012 - 13 - chairperson not below the rank of Professor should sit in the Selection Committee. If Chairperson is not Professor, the senior most Professor would be the member of the Selection Committee. In the absence of any Professor in the Department, the Dean of University Instruction would be the member of the Selection Committee. The Regulations further provided that the process of selection shall involve inviting the bio-data and reprints of three major publications of candidates for the post of Reader (in the case of candidates for the post of Professor one of the publications could be a book or research project) before interview and getting them assessed by the same three external experts who are to be invited to interview the candidates. The assessment report shall be placed before the Selection Committee. The Committee shall interview suitable person and make recommendations which will be placed before the Syndicate. If the Syndicate do not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee it may order re-advertisement of the post. The Committee recommending a person for appointment as a Professor or Reader shall have regard to his capacity for research, his ability as a teacher, and generally his eminence in the subject of his profession. The University may utilize a seminar or colloquium as a method for the selection for a Reader and Professor.
CWP No.19449 of 2012 - 14 -
According to the counsel for the respondents, as per the mode of evaluation of merit, selection criteria can be devised by the Selection Committee and since there were 10 candidates for the post in question, unlike the case of the posts of Professors in Oral Maxillofacial Surgery in which only one candidate had appeared in interview, it was decided by the Committee to keep 10% marks separately for 'teaching experience' after taking out the same from the research performance based on API score and quality of publication which was now retained in the case of the petitioner to the extent of 25% unlike the case of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery in which it was 40%.
Although, the criteria which has been adopted by the respondents/University has been equally applied to all the candidates but I would not endorse the action of the respondents/University in not uploading the selection criteria on the website in advance. However, besides the technical default on the part of the respondents/University, if the marks/grades obtained by both the petitioner and answering respondents are to be compared, as per chart prepared by the respondents/University which is reproduced in the earlier part of this order, both the petitioner and the answering respondents are almost equal in all respects except for the publication which has been duly explained in the chart CWP No.19449 of 2012 - 15 - prepared for publication of record which has also been reproduced in the earlier part of this order.
Thus, looking from any angle, I do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the part of the respondents in the matter of selection o bv nbvgnfgvf the answering respondent and hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 27.09.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.10.01 13:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document