Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Respondent Nos.3 to 8 are served as per Office Report dated 28.11.2023.

Since nobody is appearing despite service of notice, the respondent Nos.3 to 8 are proceeded ex-parte.

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement Annexure P/1 was issued on 30.10.2010 for appointment to the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in different Departments of Dr.Hari Singh Gour Central University. No reservation was prescribed while issuing the advertisement and the aforesaid reservation came to be prescribed in terms of the directions of the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi vide letter dated 18.1.2011 referred to in Annexure P/2. The departmentwise reservation for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor was not prescribed and though 2 posts of Professor, 2 posts of Associate Professor and 3 posts of Assistant Professor were advertised in the Department of Commerce and Business Management, yet 7 Assistant Professor were filled. The selection was to be made in terms of the procedure given in minimum qualification for appointment of teaching faculties in Universities and Colleges Management/Business Administration as were notified in the Gazette of India on 18.9.2010 as contained in Annexure P/4 and in terms of Clause 6.0.1, overall selection procedure was required to incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightage given to the performance of the candidates in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in this Regulation in Tables-I to IX Appendix-III. It is provided that in order to make the system more credible, the Universities may assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a Seminar for lecture in a Classroom situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These proceedings can be followed by both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever Selection Committees are prescribed in this Regulation. API scores were thereafter reduced and the petitioner, who belongs to OBC category, had secured API score of 29.5 marks, which was highest as compared to the private respondents from amongst all the candidates be that of General Category or of OBC category. One of the private respondents, namely Smt.Babita Yadav has been selected under OBC category whereas she had applied under General Category as can be seen from Annexure P/5 where her name appears on top of the list. Thus, it is pointed out that the petitioner has been discriminated because the respondents have not brought on record the marks, which were assigned for the interview for which only weightage was upto 20%. The total API score of another OBC category candidate, namely, Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap was 11 and assuming that he was given cent percent marks in the interview and if the petitioner would have been given 2.5 or less marks then that would have made her eligible for appointment. Pointing out that there have been large scale irregularities in the system and this matter was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.2372/2017 (Vivek Kumar Jaiswal & Others versus University Grants Commission & Another) wherein the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, where some petitioners had sought conformation after observing the irregularities as were admitted by the University and have been detailed out in Paragraph No.6 of the said order, had directed the University to conclude enquiry in the process of appointment preferably within a period of two months.