Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Elaborating the grievances of the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on their behalf submitted that through the advertisement altogether 22 posts of principals were advertised, out of which 8 posts had to be filled up from General category candidates, 6 from SC category candidates, 7 from EBC category candidates and one from ST category candidates. In response to the advertisement no application was received for appointment under ST category. Hence, only 21 vacancies were to be filled up on the basis of applications received. However, the respondents have filled up 6 more vacancies out of the panel prepared, for which there was no advertisement and no applications were invited. Out of the said 6, 2 were of General category, two were of BC-II/OBC category and one was of Sikh Minority category. It was submitted that the vacancies of BC-II/OBC category and Sikh Minority category were not advertised at all and, therefore, the same could not be filled up on the basis of the advertisement published. It was pointed out that there was no mention in the advertisement that any subsequent vacancy, becoming available later on, may also be filled up from the panel prepared on the basis of the said advertisement and it was also not mentioned in the advertisement that the vacancies were likely to increase or the panel was to be kept valid for filing up future vacancies. It was submitted that the relevant provision of the Statute, providing for the panel to remain valid for one year, was only for the purpose of filling up of any post, so advertised, remaining vacant on account of non-joining of any candidate. It was also submitted that the panel could not be used for filling up of any vacancy which may have become available after the advertisement and after the panel was prepared and finalized. It was also submitted that the panel could not be used for filling up of vacancies of any category which was not notified in the advertisement itself as, in absence of such notification in the advertisement, large number of candidates of the said category may not have applied at all. It was next submitted that the chart prepared by the Selection Committee, as contained in Annexure-3, shows that against the name of many candidates an endorsement was made that they were „not found suitable‟. This clearly shows that the said candidates were put out of the consideration zone only on the subjective consideration by the Selection Committee, for which no valid reasons were mentioned in the said Chart. There being no cut-off/pass marks in either academic achievements or publication/research or interview, no candidate could be put out of consideration zone merely because of some reasons which the Selection Committee, at the time of preparation of the chart, may have thought appropriate. It was also contended that the selection elsewhere, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, could not be a valid ground in law for eliminating any candidate from zone of consideration. Still, just to deprive meritorious candidates the chances of appointment, they have not been considered only on the ground that they were selected elsewhere. It is also contended that the markings of the Selection Committee like „selected elsewhere‟, „service not confirmed‟, „not found suitable‟, and „not found fit‟ by the Selection Committee in the chart against the individual names, only show that the Selection Committee, on its own whim and caprice, put candidates out of consideration zone on different grounds which were neither supported by any Act or Statute, nor by any stipulation in the advertisement. It was next submitted that the said chart prepared by the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the Bihar Reservation Act, 1991, which requires that a combined merit list of successful candidates, strictly according to their merits, irrespective of their category, is to be prepared first, and the vacancies of General category has to be filled up from this merit list strictly in seriatim and then only the left over merit list has to be segregated as per the reservation category and the vacancies of reserved category has to be filled up from such list of reserved category candidates. As against this, Annexure-3 shows that the chart, at the initial stage itself, was prepared category-wise, thus depriving many of the reserved category candidates from consideration for appointment as General category candidate on their own merits. It was also pointed out that about 14 candidates of General category had secured total 73 marks, out of whom 11 were empanelled and three were selected. It is not mentioned by the Selection Committee in the chart or in the panel as to on what consideration ranking was fixed among the said 14 candidates who had secured equal marks and under what consideration 3 out of them were appointed. It was pointed out that this also shows that the Selection Committee, for no valid reasons, adopted pick and choose policy and picked up the 3 candidates from amongst the 14, who had secured equal marks for their appointment, as per their personal choice. It was next contended that as per the Statute, total 9 marks had to be allotted for publication/research with three marks for each paper. Thus, if three or more research papers of a candidate were published in standard journals the candidate was entitled for allotment of full 9 marks. It was submitted that petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 had presented more than three research papers of their‟s, published in standard journals, still they were not allotted full 9 marks under this head and, therefore, their comparative ranking in the merit list came down. It was also contended that the list of standard journals, recognized by the University, were not notified with the advertisement, which gave leverage to the Selection Committee not to consider a paper published by a candidate in the particular journal for awarding of marks. It was submitted that the respondents deliberately left it vague, so that the Selection Committee may manipulate the marks under this head in favour or against a particular candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the marks allotted to different candidates under different heads, as appearing in the said chart (Annexure-3), and showed that in a large number of cases, candidates who had secured very high marks under academic achievements, and/or research/publication, were allotted shockingly low marks in interview. He also showed that, to the contrary, in many cases, the candidates who had secured very low marks under the head of academic achievements, and/or research/publication, were allotted very high marks in interview. He submitted that this showed that, in the interview, marks were allotted to the candidates by the Selection Committee in a planned manner, to cause illegal benefits to undeserving candidates, by ensuring that they get much higher ranking in the merit and get the appointment, whereas other deserving candidates who were not favoured by the Selection Committee, were relegated to lower stages in merit by awarding them shockingly low marks in interview. It was also pointed out that, for appointment as Principal in the category of Sikh Minority, the respondent no.16 was selected who had secured total 57 marks only and was not a Ph.D, whereas petitioner no.6, who was also of the same category, had secured 73 marks, but was left out. It was submitted that the explanation, which is now being given by the respondents in the counter affidavit, that petitioner no.6 was to superannuate soon and respondent no.16 had worked with the University as O.S.D., could not be a relevant and valid consideration in law for ignoring the preferential claim of petitioner no.6. It was also submitted that the Selection Committee had kept the result pending for abnormally long period of four months, only with a view to debar some of the candidates, who had appeared in the interview in other Universities also and were lateron selected, and then to put them out of consideration zone only on the ground that they had been „selected elsewhere‟ which could not be a valid ground in law for their non-consideration. It was also pointed out that many of the respondents who have been appointed are/were teachers of 4th-phase colleges and their services were not approved on the date of issue of the Notification containing the Panel and their subsequent appointment vide Notification dated 9.6.2009. It was also pointed out that, in particular, respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 16 were not confirmed on that date in service and their services were confirmed as teachers of the University only after their appointment as principals of the constituent colleges, which clearly vitiated the entire selection process and the appointments made on that basis. It was also pointed out that against the name of one candidate namely, Dr. Pramila Pathak (application no.24) a note was made in the chart (Annexure-3) that her services were not confirmed. Hence, she was not considered, whereas above said respondents were considered and appointed, although their services also were not confirmed on their date of appointment. It was further pointed out that respondent no.7 was appointed as teacher in 2003 only and his service was also not confirmed and there was already a vigilance enquiry pending against him. Still ignoring all these he was appointed.

It is settled law that terms of advertisement for appointment are determining factors for scope and limitation of consideration of candidates for appointment. In the case of Suvidya Yadav (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, the advertisement specifically contained a stipulation that the number of posts advertised were subject to variations. The judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and Benny T.D. (supra), relied upon by other learned counsels for the respondents, are also of no help to the respondents as, in very clear terms, it has been held therein that vacancies becoming available after final recommendation of the selection body could not be filled up from the names so recommended. The respondent University has admitted in its counter affidavit that the vacancies, which were filled up beyond the vacancies notified in the advertisement, had become available after the panel was prepared and appointments were made by Annexure-5. It is true that the Statute makes a panel, notified by the Selection Committee, valid for one year. But that validity is only for the purposes of appointments in case of non-joining, unless it is clearly mentioned in the advertisement itself that the panel prepared on the basis of the advertisement shall be valid for a future period and for anticipated vacancies. It is settled law that a selection process comes to an end after a panel is finally published and recommended to the appointing authority for appointments therefrom against the vacancies advertised. Clearly no post falling vacant subsequent to the same could be filled up from the said panel as neither the post was under consideration in the process of selection nor was it intended and notified at the initial stage itself, by making a stipulation in the advertisement itself for knowledge to all the applicants that the vacancy position may increase, by the same being available even subsequent to the selection process coming to an end. It is true that under certain circumstances, the vacancies arising after advertisement, and prior to the selection process coming to an end, have been allowed by the Courts to be filled up pursuant to that very selection process. But the vacancies, which were not available even on the date of final publication of the panel, have not been allowed by the Courts to be filled up from that panel. The reliance of the respondents in this respect on the stipulation made in the advertisement, to the effect that the University had the right to change/cancel the advertisement, is misconceived. Any change in the advertisement was necessarily to be notified to the candidates through a corrigendum issued and published in the same newspaper in which the original advertisement was published. The change, by no stretch of imagination, could be a private affair at the level of the University, without making it known to the candidates and the applicants.