Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned Single Judge vide order impugned in this appeal allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant institution has filed the instant intra court appeal.

4. The writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge were contested on behalf of the university by filing the written statement alleging that the selection procedure stood invalidated on account of non compliance of the eligibility criteria/instructions dated 07.08.2003 issued by the Director General, Higher Education, Haryana, duly adopted by the University laying down the requirement of at least minimum three eligible candidates at the time of interview having more than API score of 400 in category III and 2 of 6 since in the case in hand only two recommended candidates, namely, the answering respondent-petitioner and one Dr. Gita Yadav had API score in category-III of more than 400, the Vice Chancellor disapproved the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Thus, the reason for recording disapproval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee was violation of condition in the instructions dated 07.08.2003 requiring more than 3 candidates having API score of more than 400 available for being recommended for appointment against one post. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the stand taken by the appellant University that the subsequent instructions issued by the University dated 17.06.2015 contain a condition where under the Selection Committee can relax the condition of having three eligible candidates of more than 400 API score against one post, subject to there being ample material on record of efforts undertaken to elicit a good response e.g. issuance of advertisements at least twice in well circulated newspapers, one of which must be of a National Daily, posting advertisement on website and intimation to the university. It may be relevant to reproduce the amended instructions dated 17.06.2015 issued by the University addressed to all the Directors/Principal of the colleges affiliated with Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak:-

3 of 6 well circulated newspapers, one of which must be of a National Daily, posting advertisement on website and intimation to the University.

You are, therefore, requested to adhere to the above instructions strictly."

5. Learned Single Judge has further returned a finding that the post of Principal was earlier advertised by the appellant institution on 04.02.2015 but the interview was not conducted and this advertisement was allowed to lapse. Subsequently, this post was re-advertised on 11.06.2015 after getting approval from the Director General, Higher Education, Haryana and subject experts being members of the Selection Committee were also nominated. The meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 06.08.2015 but since none of the candidates had secured minimum API score of 400, the committee did not proceed any further to hold the interview.

4 of 6

7. We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant institution.

8. Concededly there was a requirement regarding availability of three candidates having more than 400 API score in the instructions dated 07.08.2003. Equally undisputed is the fact that the university vide notification dated 17.06.2015 vested the institution in question with the power to relax the said condition in case there were efforts undertaken earlier but there was no good response such as issuance of advertisements at least twice in well circulated newspapers etc. Equally undisputed is the fact that there is no material on record to indicate that the power conferred upon the appellant institution of relaxation was ever exercised. Once the power of relaxation was not exercised which is the sole case set up by the appellant institution in the present appeal and there is no material on record of the writ petition to even remotely indicate that the power was ever exercised by the appellant institution and there was no material available with the Vice Chancellor with regard to efforts made earlier for appointment on the post in question and the same having not evolved good response, no infirmity can be attached to the decision of the Vice Chancellor in rejecting the recommendations of the Selection Committee.