Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Seema Dhameja vs University Of Raj And Ors on 14 November, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18191/2013 (Dr. Swati Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19736/2013 (Dr. Sarvedaman Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17084/2013 (Dr. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18217/2013 (Naresh Kumar Verma Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17351/2013 (Dr. Sharvan Kumar Saini Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16966/2013 (Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18239/2013 (Dr. Sanjula Thanvi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16089/2013 (Seema Dhameja Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17113/2013 (Dr. Dinesh Singh Dhakad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17117/2013 (Lav Raj Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18029/2013 (Dr. Kanak Meena & Ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20074/2013 (Dr. Ramanuj Pancholi Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19940/2013 (Dr. Jhabar Mal Verma Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19941/2013 (Dr. Mahendra Kumar Dahera Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19942/2013 (Dr. Amit Verma Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19944/2013 (Aditi Swami Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16000/2013 (Dr. Alka Bhatia Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17693/2013 (Rakesh Daiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18215/2013 (Dr. Monalisa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) AND S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18197/2013 (Dr. Kalpana Agarwal Vs. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur) Date of Order : 14th November, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ashok Gaur, Sr. Adv. with A.Jaiman ] Mrs.Anita Aggrawal ] Mr.C.P.Sharma for Mr. M.Goyal ] Mr.Mohit Gupta ] Mr.Tanveer Ahmed ] Mr.Shyam Kant Sharma ] Mr.Jai Kumar Yadav ] Ms.Rashmi Jain ] Mr.Akhil Simlote ] Mr.Dharmendra Jain ] , for the petitioner/s. Dr. Sonia Saini, Addl.GC. Mr.A.K.Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr.V.K.Sharma, for the respondent/s. R E P O R T A B L E : BY THE COURT:
This bunch of writ petitions pertains to selection on the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor pursuant to advertisement issued by the University of Rajasthan (for short University). The petitioners are those, who applied for the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor.
Since, issues are common, thus all the writ petitions were heard together.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit/s that criteria for selection has been provided by the University Grants Commission (for short UGC) under its Regulations, so as the University by the Ordinance, however, ignoring the aforesaid, short listing of candidates is based on academic performance of the candidate/s. It denies consideration of good teaching experience so as research work,which should be pre-dominant consideration for appointment of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor. It is not an appointment in the school where only academic record may be relevant. Ignoring the good teaching experience and research work, the University has short listed the candidates based on marks in the academics. It is in violation of Ordinance 141(b) so as Ordinance 141(d)(1) where general requirement and qualification are prescribed apart from the procedure for recruitment and selection. The respondents have ignored the aforesaid while short listing the candidate/s. As per the Ordinance 141(b)(1), the University should have conducted screening test to short list the candidate/s, if application forms have been received grater in number to the post advertised.
The candidate/s having excellent academic record and even gold medalist have been deprived to get right of consideration to the post in question. It is nothing but to sacrifice the meritorious candidates in the hands of others, who are not entitled to hold the post for teaching at the level of College/University. In view of above, criteria of short listing adopted by the respondent University should be quashed with the direction to either hold screening test or in the alternative to provide other appropriate objective criteria for short listing. It should be with the component of not only academics but contribution of the candidate/s towards research and teaching experience. To have transparency, the respondent University could have adopted different brackets of marks for research and even for teaching work. It is by keeping greater marks for international research work than at the national level and such similar criteria for other research work. Instead of doing so, short listing criteria is based on academic record, which eliminated those, who are having teaching experience of years together. It is more so when selection in question has been conducted by the respondent University after more than two decades. The meritorious candidates waiting for the selection would be deprived in view of criteria of short listing adopted by the University.
It is further stated that even while allocating the marks based on academics, the table appended to the Ordinance also gives room of manipulation. The division of API points for short listing is given in the bracket of 50 to 60, 60 to70 followed by 70 to 80, 80 to 90 and 90 to 100. If a candidate is having 70 marks, then he would be falling in two brackets. One containing lesser points and other higher. On account of such faulty table appended to Ordinance, room of manipulation exist and thereby, a candidate having 70 marks can be kept in the lower bracket marks as well as in the higher. Accordingly, even if method of short listing adopted by the University is allowed, it deserves to be set aside on this ground.
Learned counsel further submitted that devision of marks towards good academic record is not properly specified. A candidate having good academic record at the higher studies is ousted due to comparative poor performance at the level of secondary, etc. One of the petitioners secured more than 70 percent marks at the level of Post Graduation but possessing 37 percent marks at the level of secondary thus ousted from right of consideration. In view of above also, criteria of good academic record provided by the respondent University needs to be scrapped.
The another argument is regarding validity period of application forms received by the respondent University.
It is submitted that life of application forms received by the University is limited. It is for a period of six months and can be extended by same period. In the case in hand, advertisement was issued on 01st November, 2012 by nominating 31st December, 2012 as a last date for submission of application form. The respondent University then advanced the last date for submission of application form by issuing corrigendum though not permissible under the Ordinance. If the life of application is ascertained as per Ordinance 141(b) (1) then many of the applications stand expired after one year from the date of submission of application form. The respondents have ignored the aforesaid and are considering the application forms beyond the life time of the applications. In fact, the application form should have been treated as expired as on 01st November, 2013, thus selection beyond aforesaid date is not valid, rather needs to be scrapped.
It is lastly urged that short listing of the candidates was made in the ratio of 1/10 but for certain subjects, like history, there was revision of list on three occasions. It was as and when representations were submitted to the Chancellor or at the other levels, thus respondents accommodated the candidates as per their sweet will or under the pressure of high-ups. The aforesaid cannot be said to be proper, rather caused discrimination between similarly situated candidates. In view of submissions above, selection in question should either be scrapped or alternatively, petitioner/s be called for selection, moreso when they are having excellent academic record coupled with long teaching experience and possess good research work.
In one of the writ petitions, Mrs.Anita Aggrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue of equivalence of qualification and recognition provided by different University/institutions has not been considered by the University. The University has not recognized or given equivalence to qualification obtained by the candidates from different institutions. Reply of the University shows and proves their inaction on aforesaid issue.
Learned counsel even referred to the method of short listing adopted by the Vidhyasagar University. It is submitted that proper method has been adopted for screening and short listing. The Vidhyasagar University has allocated marks for API points taking into consideration not only academics but other aspects also, which has been ignored by the University of Rajasthan.
Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.A.K.Sharma, opposing the petitions submits that after issuance of advertisement, the number of applications were greater in number to the post advertised. The University took a decision to short list the candidates. In few streams, applications were more than 100 times to the posts advertised. As per the Ordinance 141(b) (4), the University could have adopted the mechanism of screening test, for short listing however, to expedite the selection, they adopted objective method. It is not only transparent but fair method giving no room of manipulation in the hands of anyone. The well considered method to short list candidates is based on the marks of academics. The separate brackets of marks are given in the table appended to the Ordinance itself. Based on the aforesaid, criteria of short listing was applied. By virtue of the aforesaid criteria, the candidates having excellent academic record have been called for the interview in the ratio of 1/10, i.e., against one post, 10 candidates have been called.
So far as posts of Associate Professor and Professor are concerned, minimum API points are provided in the table appended to the Ordinance itself, which are minimum 300 API points for Associate Professor and 400 API points for Professor. The minimum API points are not provided for the Assistant Professor. In view of above, for the post of Associate Professor/Professor concerned, even Ordinance does not make a candidate eligible unless they possess minimum API points and API points are determined based on academics. The Ordinance or the table appended is not under challenge.
So far as post of Assistant Professor is concerned, API points have been determined based on criteria given in the table appended to the Ordinance for the purpose of short listing. If the University would consider research work and teaching experience to allocate the points for the purpose of short listing, possibility of its subjectively and questioning would be there in absence of availability of a full proof method to determine the marks. If research and teaching work would be taken into consideration for short listing then there would be no difference in short listing and final selection. The University has thus adopted fair and proper method of short listing. It is permissible under the Ordinance. The challenge to the aforesaid is thus without any substance.
Coming to the issue of validity period of application forms, it is submitted that Ordinance 141(b) provides validity period of the application form and does not bar for extension of time for last date to submit application form/s. The determination of life of application is to be taken from the last date prescribed for its submission. If the aforesaid is not applied, rather first day of submission of application is taken into consideration to determine the life, candidates submitting application on the last date,or after first day would question it if their applications are treated as expired without actual expiry of period. To have clarity and one yardstick, the last date for submission of application form is taken for determination of life of application form. In the instant case, last date for submission of application form extended till 15th February, 2013 and taking aforesaid date, period of one year would expire on 15th February, 2014, the date which has not yet come. The petitioners have unnecessarily confused the issue regarding life time of the application form then extension of last date of submission of application form. There is no bar under the statute or Ordinance to extend the last date for submission of application form. In absence of a bar, the University had extended the last date for submission of application form. In view of above, selection is not made on the application forms after expiry of its life time given under the Ordinance 141(b). In the case of Dr. Pratibha Choudhary Vs. University of Rajasthan in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1630/2013 decided on 20.09.2013, the issue in regard to the of expiry of life of application form was decided. Therein even the decision taken by the Syndicate to extend the period by six months was held to be valid.
So far as issue of good academic record is concerned, it has been defined under Ordinance 141(d)(20). None of the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid provision, yet raised the argument and prayed for holding said provision to be unconstitutional. The good academic record is determined based on criteria given in the Ordinance. If a candidate was having poor performance at the level of Secondary and Higher Secondary or higher level, then to be eliminated. In view of above, if a candidate has secured only 37 percent marks at the level of Secondary thus not considered, the action of the university is in consonance with the Ordinance.
An issue has been raised in reference to the bracket of marks to determine API points. As per the table appended to schedule, bracket of marks is given between 50-60, 60-70, 70-80, 80-90 and onwards. The component of the marks at 60, 70, 80 and 90 are common in different brackets. Considering the aforesaid, the University took a decision to take interpretation to the advantage of the candidate/s. If a candidate has secured 60 percent marks, API points have been given by applying bracket of 60 to 70 thus rule has not caused discrimination nor disadvantage to a candidate.
Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.A.K.Sharma then argued the issue regarding issuance of three list for the streams of history and others streams. It is submitted that as and when representations were submitted, it was examined and if some discrepancy was found in the action of the University, it was corrected. The ratio of 1/10 is however maintained other than where at minimum cut off points, candidates were more than one. Thus, the University has maintained the ratio of 1/10 in strict terms.
Coming to the last question of recognition and equivalence of the qualification, it is submitted that pleadings of the writ petition are not so specific and otherwise, issue aforesaid would be determined by the selection committee. Whoever is not eligible would be eliminated from the selection.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s referring to criteria taken by Vidhyasagar University, submits that it is as per the Ordinance applicable to a particular University. If the criteria adopted by the Vidhyasagar University is also looked into, it gives room or discretion in the hands of the committee to award marks as per table 1 to Anenx.3. How the marks would be awarded out of 50 towards lecturers, seminars etc., is not specific thus gives room for manipulation.
Learned counsel submits that the issue as to what should be the mechanism to short list candidates has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Ramakichenin VS. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 362. Referring to para Nos. 16 and 17, it is submitted that method of short listing can be applied and be adopted on objective criteria. The scope of judicial review in such matters is not available as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanchit Bansal & Anr Vs. Joint Admission Board & Ors. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157. Para Nos. 13, 17, 23 to 28 of the said judgment are based on celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The University of Maysore & Anr. Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao & Ors. reported in AIR 1965 SC 491. A reference of judgment in the case of The Chancellor & Anr. Vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Ors. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 169 has also been given apart from the judgment in the case of Dr. Prit Singh Vs. S.K.Mangal & Ors. reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 714.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.
The University of Rajasthan had issued an advertisement on 01st November, 2012 to invite applications for selection to the post of Assistant Professor/ Associate Professor and Professor. The last date for submission of application form was 31st December, 2012, which was then extended till 15th February, 2013. All the petitioners herein applied for different posts, however, questions raised herein are similar, thus considered and decided by this common judgment.
The first ground is on the criteria of short listing of candidates adopted by the University. According to the petitioners, method for short listing of candidates is in violation of Ordinance 141(b). To appreciate the argument , it would be gainful to quote Ordinance 141(B)(1), (2), (3), (4) and (8), thus are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
(1) The direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors or equivalent teaching post, Associate Professors and Professors in the University shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement for a period of 45 clear days. The period of validity of the applications received by the University shall be six months at a time which can be extended for a period of six months by the Syndicate.
(2) The 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 these ordinances.
(3) The scrutiny of the application forms shall be done by a scrutiny committee constituted by the Vice-chancellor.
(4) The University may design a mechanism for short listing the candidates including holding a screening test/adopting objective criteria as the case may be for any post(s) for a subject(s) if required.
(8) The process of selection of Associate Professor/Professor shall involve inviting the bio-data with the duly filled performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) proforma (Appendix I) based on API criteria alongwith attested copies of all the required documents carrying weightage scores and reprints of major publications of the candidates as set out in these Ordinances.
Provided that such publications shall be provided to the subject experts for assessment before the interview and the evaluation score of the publications by the experts shall be factored into the weightage scores while finalizing the outcome of selection by the selection committee.
The perusal of Ordinance quoted above reveals that University may design a mechanism for short listing either by screening test or by adopting objective criteria.
The question for my consideration is as to whether University should always adopt method of screening test to short list the candidates. It is in those circumstances where number of applications received are quite large and more than the posts advertised. A careful reading of provision does not mandate screening test in all circumstances. The discretion lies with the University to adopt objective criteria, then screening test, thus to say and urge that screening test alone should have been the basis for short listing, cannot be accepted.
The further question is as to whether method adopted for short listing of candidates is proper or not?
The respondent University has short listed the candidates based on marks obtained by them in academic courses. The argument is about ignorance of their research work so as the teaching experience. A candidate having good teaching experience and research is not getting chance of consideration for selection, though aforesaid is quite relevant.
The question for consideration before this Court is as to what extent interference in the academic matters can be made.
The judicial review in academic matters is permissible if action is contrary to the statutory provisions or when it is illegal or unconstitutional. The reference of judgment in the case of Sanchit Bansal & Anr. (supra) is relevant. Para Nos. 13, 17, 23 to 28 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
13.The question for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the Board to arrive at the cut off marks for JEE 2006 is arbitrary and mala fide and whether the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter.
17.It is no doubt true that the simplest and most straight forward method of selecting the candidates to be called for counseling would be to take the candidates in the order of merit (with reference to actual marks) subject to their possessing a pre-declared minimum marks in each subject. For example the Board can decide beforehand that the aggregate cut off marks for eligibility would be 150, that is 50 in each of the three subjects and prepare a merit list of the candidates who fulfil the said criteria and then call the first 5500 students in the merit list, in the order of merit for counseling. This would be the traditional method. But the Board wants to select candidates with consistent performance in all three subjects. To achieve this result and shortlist about 5500 candidates from out of 287564 candidates, the above mentioned traditional procedures will not be of assistance. Therefore, a rather complicated but scientific procedure has been followed.
23.There are several statistical methods of preparing the ranking for purpose of selecting the best candidates for admission to a course, some simple and some complex. Each method or system has its merits and demerits and can be adopted only under certain conditions or by making certain assumptions. Any such statistical techniques should be under continuous review and evaluation to achieve improvement, in the light of experience gained over the years and new developments, if it is a reliable tool in the selection process.
24.In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth : 1984 (4) SCC 27 it was observed thus:
29.......the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.
25.In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan : 2009 (11) SCC 726 this Court held:
16.The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.
17.The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in.
26.This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain : 2007 (4) SCC 737 this Court held:
16........Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.
27.Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious.
28.An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.
Para No.13 of the judgment in the case of University of Maysore & Anr. (supra) is also quoted hereunder for reference:
13. Before we part with these appeals, however, reference must be made to two other matters. In dealing with the case presented before it by the respondent, the High Court has criticised the report made by the Board and has observed that the circumstances disclosed by the report made it difficult for the High Court to treat the recommendations made by the experts with the respect that they generally deserve. We are unable to see the point of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters. Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before courts, normally the court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the court to leave the decisions of academic matter to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face that the courts generally can be. The criticism made by the High Court against the report made by the Board seems to suggest that the High Court thought that the Board was in the position of an executive authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for its decisions. In dealing with complaints made by citizens in regard to appointments made by academic bodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be reasonable or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ, the High Court has made certain observation which show that the High Court applied tests which could legitimately be applied in the case of writ of certiorari. In the judgment, it has been observed that the error in this case is undoubtedly a manifest error. That is a consideration which is more germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari. What the High Court should have considered is whether the appointment made by the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to the opinion expressed by the Board & its recommendations which the Chancellor has acted. In this connection, the High Court has failed to notice one significant fact that when the Board considered the claims of the respective applicants, it examined them very carefully and actually came to the conclusion that none of them deserved to be appointed a Professor. These recommendations made by the Board clearly show that they considered the relevant factors carefully and ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant No. 2 should be recommended for the post of Reader. Therefore, we are satisfied that the criticism made by the High Court against the Board and its deliberations is not justified.
The perusal of paras quoted above reveals as to what extent judicial review can be made in the academic matters. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, issue needs to be decided. In the instant case, criteria adopted by the respondent University to short list the candidates is not against the statute and any of the provisions of the Ordinance. If short listing is based on marks of academic courses, the room of manipulation is avoided and at the same time, the method becomes transparent. The question has been raised regarding ignorance of research and teaching experience but then to counter it, the question of subjectivity is taken while adopting such criteria. What should be the criteria for short listing of candidates is to be decided by the University and is not open for judicial interference unless it is so arbitrary or illegal. In view of above, there can be other criteria for short listing of candidates but then the Court cannot direct to substitute the criteria taken by the University when it is not illegal, rather fair and transparent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners raised an argument for providing and allocating definite marks for research and teaching to avoid manipulation. The reference of marks to the sports person with definite allocation to the level of sport activities has been given.
I find aforesaid argument to be attractive but difficult to apply apart from limited scope for judicial review in such matters. The allocation of points for research and teaching experience, at the initial stage would leave hardly anything with the Committee to make final selection. If the definite points are provided for teaching and research, then the Committee cannot take a different view in the final selection. The scope of selection would then remain only against 20 marks of interview. The aforesaid mechanism would be in violation of UGC Regulations so as the Ordinance. The type of research work and level is to be considered by the expert committee while making selection and same would be for teaching experience.
To short list the candidates when applications are received more than the posts advertised has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the judgments cited above, similar criteria was accepted. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents for short listing of the candidates.
The other issue is regarding validity period of application forms.
A reference of Ordinance 141(b)(1) would be relevant. As per the aforesaid Ordinance, an advertisement should be issued with clear period of 45 days. The advertisement was accordingly issued on 01st November, 2012 with last date for submission of application by 31st December, 2012. It was then extended making last date of 15th February, 2013. The Ordinance 141(b)(1) does not bar for extension of last date for submission of application form. In absence of it, if the University has extended the last date for submission of application form, it cannot be nullified by holding it to be illegal.
The question now comes about life time of the application forms as Ordinance gives life time of application forms. Whether life time should be counted from the initial date of submission of application form or the date when application form is submitted by the candidate or the last date of submission of application form. All the three situations can be considered herein.
If first day of submission of application form is taken into consideration to determine the life time of application, it will offend the provision above as the applications received on the last date of submission of application form would be treated as expired without attaining the period of six months or one year. Thus, first situation would not be appropriate for proper interpretation of provision aforesaid. It would be in violation of Ordinance.
The second situation can be to consider actual date of submission of application form to determine the life.
In that event, there would be different dates for the life of the application. If a candidate has submitted application form on 15th November, 2012, the period will expire on 15th November of next year, if a period of one year is taken. A candidate submitting application form on 31st December, the life time of application would expire on 31st December of next year. Thus, different dates will govern different applications. The aforesaid would not be proper.
The last situation is to consider the life of the application form taking it to be from the last date for submission of application forms. If the aforesaid mechanism is applied, there would be no discrimination or improper exercise, rather all the applicants would have same criteria for determination of life of application form. In view of above, argument of learned counsel for the petitioners to consider life time of the application form the first date of advertisement cannot be accepted .
The third question is regarding good academic record.
The aforesaid has been defined under Ordinance 141(d)(20) and is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
(20) 'Good academic record' wherever occurring in these Ordinances means an average of at least 55% marks in three examinations preceding to Masters' Degree with at least 50% marks in graduation and any one of Secondary/High School, Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary or equivalent grades in the point scale wherever grading system is followed without including any grace marks and/or rounding off to make it 55% or 50% as the case may be.
The perusal of the Ordinance above reveals as to what is the meaning of good academic record. The provision aforesaid has not been challenged, thus a candidate lacking in good academic record cannot be considered to be eligible. It may be that a candidate has obtained higher marks at the level of Post Graduation or Graduation but lacking in required marks at the level of Secondary would not be eligible. The third argument thus cannot be decided favourable to the petitioners if one has been treated ineligible having secured only 37 marks at the level of Secondary.
The issue regarding bracket of marks provided under the table appended to the Ordinance has been clarified by the learned counsel for the respondent/s. There are overlapping marks in the brackets for allocation of points, if a candidate has obtained 60,70,80 or 90 marks.
I find Appendix 3 Table (ii) to the Ordinance to have overlapping marks 60,70,80 and 90 but then it is given interpretation favourable to the candidates by keeping them in a higher brackets for allocation of points, if the marks are 60, 70, 80 or 90. The better position could have been not to have overlapping marks but it is not to the disadvantage of the candidates even then.
Learned counsel for the respondent/s has agreed to maintain the ratio of candidates called to the posts advertised. It is in the ratio of 1/10 in all the streams without discrimination. The candidates have been called beyond 10 times to the posts only in those cases, where cut off points of candidates were same. The revision of list was based on the aforesaid only, however, the issue aforesaid needs to be addressed, inasmuch as, if in any of the stream, ratio of 1/10 is not maintained, then it is not proper leaving those cases where there are more than one candidate having same cut off points for short listing. If the University has called any candidate beyond the ratio provided and at the instance of someone, then it would eliminate such candidate from selection and if they have been considered then would not be given appointment. It is to maintain the norms prescribed by the University to maintain ratio of 1/10 and to eliminate discrimination in the hands of anyone, which may be even by the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor or any other authority. The issue aforesaid is thus decided favourable to the petitioners but with observations and directions given above.
The other issue is regarding recognition and equivalence of the qualification obtained by the candidates from other University.
I find pleadings for the aforesaid to be vague. Specific incidence has not been quoted by the petitioners to show that a candidate has been considered without recognition or equivalence of the University or equivalence of qualification. In any case, the direction is issued to the University to look into the aforesaid aspect and if institution is not recognized and equivalence of qualification is not given, then to eliminate such candidate/s.
With the aforesaid observation and direction/s, the writ petitions are disposed of so as the stay application/s.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.