Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Chandralata Singh vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central University on 21 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3020 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
DR. CHANDRALATA SINGH D/O LATE SHRI BALWANT SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, H NO 498 MANORAMA COLONY RADHA
MADHAV NIKUNJ MADHUKAR SAHA WARD WARD NO 3
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY K. AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DR. HARI SINGH GOUR CENTRAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH
ITS VICE CHANCELLOR SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. REGISTRAR DR. HARI SINGH GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASHISH GUPTA THROUGH REGISTRAR DR. HARI SINGH
GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BABITA YADAV, THROUGH REGISTRAR DR. HARI SINGH
GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUNEET WALIA THROUGH REGISTRAR DR. HARI SINGH
GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. ANIL KUMAR KASHYAP, THROUGH REGISTRAR DR. HARI
SINGH GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. LOKESH UKE, THROUGH REGISTRAR DR. HARI SINGH
GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. P. VAKULA KUMARI, THROUGH REGISTRAR DR. HARI
SINGH GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 22-03-2024
16:31:13
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MS. SHOBHA MENON - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI RAHUL
CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1, SHRI BRIAN D'SILVA -
SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ISHAN SONI AND SHRI UTTAM
MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND SHRI ANIL LALA -
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.5)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of the fact that petitioner, who was one of the candidates for appointment in terms of the rolling/open advertisement, bearing No.R- 03/T/P/RA/2010, dated 30.10.2010, to fill up the faculty positions in Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, had applied for the post of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor, respectively, in the school of Commerce and Management. Copy of the advertisement is Annx.P/1. Along with the advertisement, a corrigendum dated 20.11.2010 is enclosed, showing two posts of Professor, two posts of Associate Professor and three posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Business Management.
2. Since the present controversy is in regard to appointments in the Business Management Department, this Court will not be referring to other subjects.
3. According to the petitioner, though he has raised a ground that there was no roster prescribed, but since the appointments have been made for seven posts and all those seven posts have been filled up to appoint Assistant Professor, at this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner gives up his challenge to the roster system.
4. It is submitted that Annx.P/4 is the Gazette of India, September 18, 2010, which prescribes minimum qualification for appointment of teaching faculty in Universities and Colleges-Management/Business Administration.
5. The qualification prescribed for the Assistant Professor is First Class Master's Degree in Business Management/Administration/ in a relevant Management related discipline or First Class in two year full time PGDM declared equivalent by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 3 AIU/Accredited by the AICTE/UGC or First Class Graduate and professionally qualified Chartered Accountant/Costs and Works Accountant/Company Secretary of the concerned statutory bodies. Under the head of desirable qualifications, it is provided that teaching, research, industrial and/or professional experience in a reputed organisation; two papers presented at conferences and/or published in referred journals.
6. Thereafter, it is provided in Clause 6.0.1 that overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the 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 Table I to IX of Appendix - III. It is further provided that in order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a class room situation or 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 CAS promotions wherever Selection Committees are prescribed in these Regulations.
7. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner was adjudged by the Committee and her score on the basis of the academic qualifications, research paper and teaching experience was initially adjudged at 27.5, whereas, finally it was adjudged as 29.5, as compared to contesting private respondent No. 4 Smt. Babita Yadav, for whom API score was 27, for respondent No.5 Ms. Suneet Walia, API score was 12.5 and for respondent No.6 Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, API score was 11.5. As far as respondent Nos. 7 & 8, Shri Lokesh Uike and Mrs. P. Vakula Kumari are concerned, they admittedly belong to SC category and since there is no dispute with them, therefore, there is no need to score their card. It is informed by learned counsel for the University that respondent No.3 Shri Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 4 Ashish Gupta and Respondent No.6 Anil Kumar Kashyap have already left Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central University for better pastures and, therefore, they may refer to specially the respondent No.4 & 6 Smt. Babita Yadav & Anil Kumar Kashyap, as they were selected under the OBC category.
8. Petitioner's another contention is that respondent No.4 Smt. Babita Yadav, had filled her form as is enclosed by the petitioner along with Annx.P/8 and is available on page 66 of this computer generated file under the General category, but vide Annx.P/7, she has been selected under the OBC category. This exposes another big loop hole in the whole selection process that how authorities were bent upon in obliging their favoured and selected candidates.
9. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel for respondent University submits that Selection Committee was constituted and, thereafter, recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Executive Committee, when impugned order of appointment was issued. She raises issue of limitation and submits that petition having been filed after four years of declaration of the results, is barred by limitation. To support this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Meena Sharma Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others [(2020) 15 SCC 648] and reading para 17, it is pointed out that a petition which was filed after four years of first appointment, then challenge to such appointment after four years made in the year 2011 for a selection which had taken place on 03.12.2007, was held to make the petitioner disentitled to claim any relief.
10. Similarly, it is submitted that Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Kaul and others Vs. Union of India and others [(2012) 7 SCC 610] in paragraph 23 to 26 and specially paragraph 24, referring to the decision of in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs. K. Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 332], has held that :-
"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 5 the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the court as pointed out in Durga Prashad V. Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185], equivalent citation AIR 1970 SC 769, Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judiciary and reasonably."
11. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Dr. Brijesh Kumar Tiwari Vs. Banaras Hindu University Thru' V.C., decided on 12.04.2016, in Writ A. No.14235 of 2014, to point out that the issue which was involved in that case was that as per the Regulations and Ordinance of the University, a rolling advertisement was issued by the University in the month of March 2013, inviting applications from eligible candidates for 14 posts of Assistant Professors in the Department of Commerce, out of which 05 posts were meant for general category candidate. As per the advertisement, this much is reflected that in consonance with the UGC Regulations and the Ordinance of the University, short-listing guidelines were also notified, which provides three level procedure for selection, which for ready reference is reproduced as under :-
"(i) The application shall firstly be placed before the Faculty Affairs Committee-Level-1 (FAC-1) which is constituted at the level of the department. The FAC-1 will make the assessment and award the marks.
(ii) The proceedings of FAC-1 shall be placed before Faculty Affairs Committee-Level-2 (FAC-2) which is the body for assessment at the second sage and constituted at the higher level of faculty. FAC-2 will again award marks and make a final list in order of merit and recommend the same to the Selection Committee for interview.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 6
(iii) The records of FAC-2 shall be placed before the Selection Committee which shall hold the interview and thereafter final recommendation as per merit will be made."
Placing reliance on this, it is submitted that it is held by the Allahabad High Court in the following terms :-
"(i) It is necessary to indicate that there is exhaustive methodology and guidelines provided for short-listing the candidates by which procedure have been given for short-listing the applications to be called for interview before the Selection Committee and for which stages FAC-1 and FAC-2 have been provided. (ii) From the record in question, we find that certainly, there were certain human errors while processing the credentials at the level of FAC-1 and FAC-2, but once admittedly each and every petitioners were given opportunity to face the Selection Committee, then we do not find any infirmity or illegality, which are highlighted, at the level of FAC-1 and FAC-2 which would vitiate the entire selection process."
12. Thus, it is submitted that Allahabad High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Central College, Bangalore in Univeristy of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao (AIR 1965 SC 491), has held that it is settled legal position that the Courts have to show deferemce and consideration to the recommendation of an expert committee consisting of distinguished experts in the respective fields. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has held that normally the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, particularly in a case when there is no allegation of malafide against the experts, who had constituted the selection board.
13. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in Dr. Vandana Rajoriya and others Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwa Vidyalaya, W.P.No.1683/2017(S), decided on 16.08.2018 , to point out that from the same selection, certain petitions had originated when appointments were cancelled and those orders of cancellation of appointments were challenged before the Division Bench, which Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 7 held that the action of the University in cancelling the appointment was wholly untenable, illegal and against the UGC Regulations. Placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(S). 42321 of 2018.
14. When this Court wanted to know that whether there is any stay on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court, it is fairly submitted that there is no stay in favour of the University.
15. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Air Commodore N.K. Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1673, to point out that once a person participates in the selection process, then it is not open to that person to challenge the process of selection.
16. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned counsel, had also filed I.A.No.3537/2024, an application for taking affidavit of Incharge Registrar on record in terms of the order sheet dated 29.02.2024, wherein the Registrar has categorically admitted in para 5 that "the deponent humbly submits that no mark list was prepared by the Selection Committee and assessments were made, as aforesaid.
17. It is also mentioned in para 07 that the CBI has not registered any case against the selection process/appointment of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Business Management. Relying on Document-A, the Incharge Registrar in his affidavit has said that the Selection Committee had to adjudge the performance on the basis of academic record and research performance for which weightage was 50%, then assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills had a weightage of 30% and interview performance had a weightage of 20%. Thereafter, attendance sheet is enclosed to show that petitioner along with others had participated in the interview which took place on 03.04.2013.
18. Document-C, is the recommendation of the Selection Committee, which consisted Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 8 of Professor Shri Shyamal Roy, visitor nominee, Professor N.K. Jain, Member, Professor Vaishali Bambole, Member, Professor Saji K.B. Nair, Expert, Professor N.S. Gajbhiye, Chairman, Professor Kripashankar as a Expert and Professor Raj S. Dhankar, as Expert and it is mentioned in Document-C, that on the basis of academic record, relevant experience and performance in the interview, the Selection Committee unanimously recommends that the posts of Assistant Professor in the school of Commerce and Management may be offered to and then 07 names are given, whereas, private respondent No.4, is shown under OBC category, so also the private respondent No.5.
19. Document-D, is the minutes of the Executive Council meeting, which approved the recommendations of the selection committee after appointment orders were issued.
20. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel, also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Tajveer Singh Sodi and others Vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, Civil Appeal No.2164-2172 of 2023, with other connected matters, decided on 28th March 2023 and referring to para 14.1 of the said judgment, wherein reference is made to the decision of three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kumari Anamika Mishra Vs. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (AIR 1990 SC 461), it is observed as under :-
"4. We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that when no defect was pointed out in regard to the written examination and the sole objection was confined to exclusion of a group of successful candidates in the written examination from the interview, there was no justification for cancelling the written part of the recruitment examination."
21. The aforesaid case is, therefore, representative of a situation where the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was held to be not justified since there was no systemic Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 9 flaw in the written test, and the issue was only with regard to award of marks to the candidates in the interview. The situation could have been remedied by setting aside the selection made after the interview stage and calling for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates if the case so warranted which is also not so in the instant case.
22. Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4, assisted by Shri Ishan Soni and Shri Uttam Maheshwari, Advocate, draws attention of this Court to their reply filed vide I.A.No.4102/2024 and drawing attention to Annx.R/4-5, it is pointed out that the guidelines are only suggestive and reading from it, it is submitted that Annx.R/4-5, provides that there are suggestive guidelines for short-listing applicants to be called for interview for positions of Assistant Professor in the University and since the API score and others as enclosed by the petitioner along with Annx.P/5, were only for the purposes of short-listing, therefore, much cannot be read into the scheme of such short-listing.
23. It is pointed out that the suggestive guidelines to short-list applicants for interview for positions of Assistant Professor in the University are reproduced along with the guidelines and thus, it is submitted that there was no necessity for the experts to have assigned marks to the individuals.
24. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others [(1990) 2 SCC 746]. Drawing attention of this Court to para 32, it is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao (supra), has observed that "the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointments are based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 10 or ordinance. the High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor has acted. See also the decisions in J.P. Kulshreshtha V. Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj Bhawan [(1980) 3 SCC 418] and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke V. B.S. Mahajan [(1990) 1 SCC 305]."
25. Shri D'Silva, learned Senior counsel submits that since there was no illegality in the process of selection and the opinion of the experts is to be respected, therefore, no indulgence be caused in the matter.
26. Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in D. Sarojakumari Vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others [(2017) 9 SCC 478], to buttress the claim putforth by Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel and Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Senior counsel, that if candidate participates in selection process, he cannot subsequently turn around and question selection process or constitution of Selection Committee only because he was not selected.
26. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathia Priya and others [(2018) 15 SCC 796], wherein, it is held that the Court cannot sit in a judgment over the opinion of the experts.
27. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyam Bhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others [(2007) 8 SCC 644], wherein, it is held that unsuccessful candidates could not challenge appellant's appointment on the ground that he did not have requisite administrative experience.
28. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, issue herein as has been projected by Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel, will fall within the domain of first limitation Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 11 as to whether the petition is barred by limitation or not and, secondly, locus of the petitioner to challenge the process after participating in the process. This argument is adopted by Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Anil Lala, leaned counsel in their own different ways.
29. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as delay and laches are concerned, the Executive Committee had accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee on 24.05.2013. On 07.06.2013, petitioner had submitted an application under Right to Information Act, seeking information as has been enclosed by him along with his rejoinder as document Annx.REJ-3, wherein, he had sought information in regard to the category and the vacant posts, academic score, presentation score and interview score secured by various candidates who had participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor, Management. He could not have challenged selection of private respondents without complete information.
30. It is pointed out that this information was when not furnished, then petitioner had filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority, wherein, orders were passed on 26.12.2016, directing the Registrar of the University to grant information to the petitioner. Once that information was received on 21.02.2017, petition has been filed. Thus, submission made by the counsel for the University that the petition suffers from delay and laches, is not made out.
31. It is also submitted that petitioner is not challenging the selection process, but submits that selection process was not followed as contemplated under Annx.P/4, which is a binding statute and has a statutory force, therefore, respondents cannot wriggle out of their liabilities by simply saying that the report of the experts is available on record and, therefore, no indulgence or interference can be shown.
32. When examined in the light of the aforesaid submissions, then the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Sharma (supra), where Hon'ble Supreme Court held Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 12 that the delay in filing petition of four years is not explained and, therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches will not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the case. Once it is clear that the University was adopting opaque methodology throughout and refused to even grant information under the Right to Information Act, when that was sought in the year 2013 by filing an application on 07.06.2013 soon after the recommendations of the Executive Committee, then it is not open to the University to raise a bogie of limitation.
33. As far as issue of recommendations of the Expert Committee is concerned as has been canvassed by Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior counsel and Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Senior counsel and others, it is evident that Allahabad High Court was probably in error while holding that since all the candidates were called for interview, therefore, any error in processing the credentials at the level of FAC-1 & FAC-2, was of no consequence. In the scheme of the appointment, there is a graded weightage for each of the components which are to be assessed by the Screening Committee and, therefore, if there is any illegality in that assessment, then that assessment will have bearing on the overall merit and that aspect being not considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, this judgment will be of no assistance to the University.
34. Another issue in regard to the domain of the experts is concerned, that has been well answered by Supreme Court itself in Neelima Misra (supra), where it has given leeway to the High Court when it is held that "the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding Rule or Ordinance." In the present case, when affidavit of the Incharge Registrar, as is filed by the University along with I.A.No.3537/2024, is taken into consideration, the Registrar has categorically mentioned in para 5 as quoted above, that no mark list was prepared by the Selection Committee. When there is a weightage of 20% for the interview and no mark list was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 13 prepared, then it cannot be said that the Expert Committee was acting bona fide. There is lack of transparency which is the hallmark of any public selection process Thus, even in absence of any direct allegation of mala fide, mala fide in law and process can be inferred and when that is inferred, then the judgment of Supreme Court in Neelimna Misra (supra), giving that much of leeway to the High Court to sit in judgment over the recommendations of the Expert Committee, when taken into consideration, then the recommendations of the Expert Committee cannot be given a seal of approval.
35. Judgment in case of D. Sarojakumari and Union Public Service Commission (supra) are of no assistance, because these are the judgments which talk about challenge to the selection process after selection took place.
36. In the present case, petitioner is not challenging the selection process, but his challenge is to non-adherence to the methodology which was required to be followed by the Selection Committee in terms of the statute as contained in Annx.P/4, and that being the admission made by the Registrar on affidavit that no marks were given for interrview, then there is a tacit admission that the statutes were not followed in letter and spirit, and that being so, the selection from the stage of interview needs to be declared to be null and void and in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others (supra) as extracted above, the matter is required to be remitted to the Expert Committee to conduct interview and grant marks, adding the marks of preliminary assessment as was made and as is contained in Annx.P/5.
37. This Court would have stopped here, but looking to the fact that much time has lapsed and then the attitude of the University and the submissions made by the University, creates a doubt about the fairness, therefore, it is directed that the Expert Committee shall video record the proceedings of the interview and grant marks in the interview to each of the candidates and after granting marks to the candidates for which the whole process will be video recorded, the University or the Committee shall prepare a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 14 fresh merit list strictly under the category in which applications were made and pass a fresh order of merit and in that order of merit, selected persons will be given appointment.
38. It is made clear that the cut off date will be of 2013 only, therefore, comparative merit of all the candidates are required to be adjudged on the date when the Expert Committee had met for the first time.
39. Before parting, it is necessary to point out that the Expert Committee and the EC were also not acting in proprietary by recommending the name of the respondent No.4 Smt. Babita Yadav, under the OBC category, when she had admittedly filled her form under the general category. This aspect too will be kept in mind by the Expert Committee and the University that the forms which were filled by the candidates at the initial stage are to be scrutinised as it is, and then interview is to be conducted, marks are to be assigned and fresh categorywise merit list is to be prepared. Let this exercise be completed within thirty days of receipt of certified copy of the order.
40. At this stage, Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Senior counsel submits that respondent No.4 Ms. Babita Yadav, had subsequently amended application. The fact remains that after the cut off date for the application, there could not have been any change incorporated in the application and the Committee is required to consider the application as was obtaining on the last date of filing of the application and no such change can be accepted at the instance of Shri Brian D' Silva or his client.
41. Since this court has held that the conduct of the Expert Committee was neither transparent and was lacking in proprietary, therefore, all the appointments made in pursuance to the recommendations of the said Expert Committee, whose recommendations have been made and followed, which are part of Annx.C, are hereby quashed. University will also bear cost of litigation, which is quantified at Rs.25,000/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13 15(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand).
42. As an interim measure, looking to the interests of the students community that respondents are permitted to work for a period of 30 days.
43. In above terms, petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 22-03-2024 16:31:13