Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was also a candidate who has completed her M.A. degree from Karnataka University by securing 58.09% in 1981, B.Ed degree from Karnataka University by securing 72.5% in 1989, M.Ed. from Karnataka University in the year 1992 by securing 59.8% and Ph.D from Gulbarga University in the year 2003. Respondent No.4 has also enclosed four teaching experience certificate and out of them she has furnished teaching experience in Under- Graduate (B.Ed.) college i.e. Jain Mahila Mandal, Belgaum and other documents. It is the contention of the petitioner that she also completed Nursing Course from KLE Society's College during July 1994 to April 1995 and Nursing Science from 2.9.1995 to 31.9.1996 and Pheonix English Medium Residential School, Belgaum from 1994-1995 and as a Honorary Lecturer in Physiotherapy from 1995-1999 from Jawaharlal Negru Medical College, Belgaum. She has also enclosed certificates for having taken and completed different projects to the tune of Rs.30.27 Crores. Keeping in view the said documents, API selection committee has given 220 API points and the certificates enclosed are Kids Land Nursery School and Curriculum Development project of Shree Sidramappa Kallur Education Society, Belgaum at the cost of Rs.5 lakhs per school for 9 nursery schools. It is further submitted that 1st respondent has conducted the interview for the post of Associate Professor in Education on 24.5.2012 and the proceedings of the meeting were held on 24.5.2012. The Committee constitution under Section 53(2)(a) of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000 and as per the UGC Regulations on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges and Measures for maintenance of standards in Higher Education, were recommended under General category. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the interview and details about API scores awarded to the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 are produced as per Annexures F, G, H and J. It is further contended that on the basis of the recommendations made by second respondent, the first respondent University approved the recommendations on 7.7.2012 and though there is a Descent Note by five members of the syndicate against the selection of the respondents, in spite of the same, first respondent University issued appointment orders to respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is further contended that though the petitioner is more meritorious and was better qualified than respondents No.3 and 4, respondent No.1 has not selected the petitioner, but appointed respondents No.3 and 4 as per Annexures- K and L.

7. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that respondent No.3 has not secured the minimum eligible marks which is mandatory as per NCTE Regulations and even SRC- NCTE in its 235th meeting held on 20-21 November, 2012 has observed that respondent No.3 is not eligible. The respondent No.1 University bypassing all the rules and regulations has appointed respondent No.3. It is further contended that respondent No.3 is not having any experience and the experience which have been produced are not in terms of NCTE Regulations, the same have been considered and an illegal appointment order has been issued appointing respondent No.3. The said selection is not sustainable in law. He further contended that respondent No.4 has never teach in any colleges, but however, he managed to collect the experience certificate and secured the appointment as an Associate Professor by influencing her previous possession as a sitting syndicate member of Rani Channamma University. It is further contended that respondent No.3 has claimed 450 API points and University has assessed her API points to 325. The said assessment are wrong and on the basis of the fake consultancy projects and research consultation has obtained the said points though she has no academic contributions. The selection committees has awarded totally 437.5 API points out of which 220 points are awarded for research consultancy without taking the cognizance of UGC Regulations in assessing API scores as per the category-III(Research and academic contributions). It is further contended that respondent No.3 was a sitting Syndicate Member till the date of interview and she has participated in previous syndicate meetings wherein in the said meeting they have approved the list of Board of Appointment members before whom the candidates have to appear. It clearly indicates that the appointment itself is biased and preconceived one. It is further contended that as per NCTE Regulations, approval of NCTE is mandatory, whereas in this case the Government without consulting the NCTE has given its green signal to issue appointment orders, the same are not sustainable in law. It is further contended that there are so many irregularities while appointing respondents No.3 and 4 and as such the same are liable to be quashed. He further submitted that by relying upon the decision in the case of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajputh Vs. Gulbarga University represented by its Registrar and Others in Civil Appeal No.9866 of 2013 of the Hon'ble Apex Court that when the petitioner is the eligible candidate, the appointing authority which has kept absolute power with it has misused the power and has appointed. He further contended that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is applicable to the present facts of the case on hand. He further contended that the selection committee and the respondent University by throwing the mandatory provisions of the Constitution and by playing the fraudulent techniques have appointed the respondents No.3 and 4 and as such the same are liable to be quashed. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the writ petitions.

10. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and I have also perused all the records. Before going to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, I want to bring it on record some of the admitted facts. It is not in dispute that as per Notification dated 3.10.2011 as per Annexure-A applications were invited for the post of Assistant Professor and the qualifications prescribed are as per Annexure-B and B2 and even it is not in dispute that Statute Governing the appointment of Professors and Associate Professors and Assistant Professors will be in terms of Annexure-B1 and even the parameters prescribed for the Associate Professors as stated therein are to be considered. It is also not in dispute that as per Annexure-B3, API scores are to be proposed for research and academic contributions and the minimum API score required is different for different levels of promotions by different colleges. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is also one of the applicant to the said post, so also respondents No.3 and 4.

17. Even as could be seen from Annexure-F the consolidated statement of marks for the post of Associate Professors in Education, respondent No.4 has scored 219.74 and in respect of petitioner it has been mentioned he is not eligible, as API score is less than 300. When as per the contention of the petitioner himself the minimum API score must be 300 and if he has not scored the minimum API points, then under such circumstances now he cannot contend that the respondents No.3 and 4 have not scored the minimum API points and he cannot be appointed that too when he has failed in the process and has not scored the minimum API points. In that light, no direction can be issued to the respondent University to appoint the petitioner. It is his contention that the experience certificates and the Articles published for the purpose of awarding the API points are not in accordance with the UGC and NCTE Regulations, but when he has not pointed out the said aspects and when he himself has stated at para No.16 of the writ petitions that the respondent No.4 has claimed 450 API points and University points assessed to her API points is 325 and the said assessment is wrong as she has hyped her API points by showing the fake consultancy projects is not acceptable, that too after all the process has been completed and appointment orders have been issued. Even the records indicates that the respondent No.4 is likely to be attaining the superannuation within a very short span of time.