Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 The petitioner contends that he is qualified as Ph.D., M.B.A. (Finance), M.A. (Economics). He had qualified for the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "UGC") State Eligibility Test in subjects of Commerce and Management in the year 2013 and 2016 respectively. He has served as Associate Professor (Finance) at G.S.P.M. College, Pune. His total experience on the teaching side is about 9½ years, out of which he has served in the capacity as Associate Professor (Finance) for a period of four year. Lastly, he was working at M.I.T. Aurangabad. He was in search of a permanent job in a Government institution and then he came across the advertisement dated 10.08.2021 published by respondent No.5 inviting the applications for 08 posts including the post of Associate Professor of Management (Finance) in the pay scale as per 7 th CPC at academic level 13A with rationalized entry pay of Rs.1,31,400/-. It was the solitary post to be filled in the form of unreserved category. The petitioner applied for the said post by proper channel. Thereafter, under communication dated 08.03.2022 the respondent No.5 had issued the call letter for interview to him and asked him to remain present for the said 4 WP_12072_2022_Jd interview on 26.03.2022 at 11.00 a.m. at Hotel Benchmark (Wockhardt Training Centre, Nakshtrawadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad). He caused his appearance for the interview as per the letter and it was found that about 08 applications were received for the said post and after scrutiny only 03 persons were called for the interview. Those three persons were the petitioner, respondent No.6 and one Dr. Ruchi Bhandari. The interview was taken, however, for a considerable time the result was not declared. In the second week of May, 2022, he gave complaint in respect of same to UGC and then the Section Officer of UGC gave communication to National Law University, Aurangabad. Thereupon it was informed by respondent No.5 that it has constituted scrutiny committee/screening committee to scrutinize the applications. 08 applications were received and then the selection committee duly constituted as per UGC had conducted the interview and selected respondent No.6 as a rank first candidate, second was Dr. Ruchi Bhandari and the petitioner was third. The petitioner contends that from the E-mail which he had received the language employed made him to believe that the process of selection was not taken in accordance with the norms set out by the UGC under the Notification dated 18.07.2018. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5 had replied his third point i.e. in respect of "The Academic Performance Indicator score sheet of all candidates with Scrutiny Committee Report", which is sought to procure under the Right to Information Act. But 5 WP_12072_2022_Jd the said reply said that in the said selection process, the API score was only used for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates, who have applied for the said post and that the API score was not part of the criteria for the assessment of the candidates during interview by the selection committee as mentioned above. The petitioner contends that the thrust of the petitioner was on API as was highlighted in the UGC Regulations, 2018 and that it was to carry 75% weightage while making assessment of the candidates, meaning thereby only 25% weightage was to be given to the interview and the marks to be allotted at the time of interview. According to petitioner, the University i.e. respondent No.5 has given a total go bye to API of the petitioner and the other candidates and based their selection only on the basis of the interviews. The other two candidates at the merit position of Nos.1 and 2 were having acquaintance with few members of the selection committee as both the candidates were the colleagues of faculty in other universities at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and N.L.U. Jodhpur. The petitioner is relying on the selection and screening criteria adopted by Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur and Siddharth University, Kapilvastu, Siddharthnagar, which say that 80% marks to be given to API and 20% for the interview. According to the petitioner, on the backdrop of the facts and circumstances he has narrated that the respondents have violated the UGC Regulations, 2018 by giving 100% weightage to the interview which has 6 WP_12072_2022_Jd prejudicially affected him. He says that he is relying on the decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana and others [1985(4) SCC 417] in support of his contentions. For the grounds narrated in the petition he has prayed for the appropriate writs to be issued.

4 Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been filed by Dhanaji Mukundrao Jadhav, Registrar, Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad, upon the authorization to him. He submits that the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 for the said post is as per the UGC Regulations. In the advertisement that was published, the eligibility criteria was laid down. It was made known that a duly constituted Screening 7 WP_12072_2022_Jd and Evaluation Committee would verify the applications and shortlist the candidates for interview. The petitioner appears to be under mistaken impression that the University has not adopted the mandatory tables in the UGC Regulations and not followed the same. In fact, the UGC authorities have not found any fault in the selection process. The eligibility criteria also says that there is a desirable qualification for the post in question i.e. Teaching Experience in National Law University or Indian Institute of Management. The petitioner has no such experience, but respondent No.6 has the said experience. He was a permanent faculty at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and also a visiting faculty at IIM Shilong and IIM Kashipur. The petitioner appears to have served for 07 private unaided degree colleges. The said experience is also therefore counted. The petitioner himself had subjected to interview and, therefore, he cannot now challenge the process. He cannot claim that the weightage for the API score and interview should have been taken together. The selection committee consists of eminent experts and academicians. The deponent has stated about the achievements achieved by respondent No.6 and has given in short as to how he was the suitable candidate. The entire selection process has been videographed. The decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the said case dealt with the appointments of Clerks, Stenos and Ministerial staff. He, therefore, prayed 8 WP_12072_2022_Jd for dismissal of the writ petition as it is coupled with mala fides. 5 Affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and he has tried to give the answer in the points raised in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. He has rather reiterated the points he wanted to say in the petition and, therefore, we do not want to reproduce the same. 6 Affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by respondent No.6, whose selection has been challenged. Respondent No.6 in affidavit-in-reply has given the list of his achievements, publications, educational qualification, experience in the field and then stated that the petitioner was aware about the conditions/terms, which were stated in the advertisement. He had subjected himself to the process and, therefore, he is estopped from challenging the conditions. The provisions concerning API score/research are meant only for the purpose of shortlisting of candidates and not for the purpose of final selection. The allegations concerning non compliance of relevant norms are merely speculative in nature. His selection is on the basis of UGC norms and there is no violation in respect of the same. Respondent No.6 has attached documents to support the affidavit. 7 Again the petitioner has given affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.6 and reiterated his own points and 9 WP_12072_2022_Jd also placed on record the communication by UGC dated 08.08.2022 stating that the UGC Regulations are applicable to all the universities. 8 Additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to bring further few facts on record. It is then stated that there were 10 heads of allotment of marks in the interview and each head carries ten marks and communication to that effect dated 01.06.2022 was clear enough. The petitioner has placed the reliance on the order passed by Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor of State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 18.03.2021. 9 Again additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner for production of order passed by Hon'ble Governor on 18.05.2021 and stated that rules have been framed for the selection of posts like Associate Professor, Joint Professor and Professor and depending upon the academic performance of the candidates, marks were to be allotted out of the maximum stipulated under the head. Only 10% of the marks were provided for the interview. And lastly, there is one more additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioner reiterating decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), allotment of marks and how the said case has a binding precedents over the selection processes. 10 With the above said background or facts of the case we have heard learned Advocate Mr. S.D. Joshi for the petitioner, learned Advocate 10 WP_12072_2022_Jd Miss. Nikita N. Gore for respondent No.1, learned Advocate Mr. S.W. Munde for respondent No.2, learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule for respondent No.3, learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Kadam for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Joshi for respondent No.6.

17 All the Advocates representing the respondents have submitted that the facts in the decision of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. The observations in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) were dependent on the rules and regulations which were found to be not followed, but, here, UGC Regulations have been followed and, therefore, even the decision in Dr. Meeta Sahai (supra) will not be helpful to the petitioner.

18 At the outset, we would like to say that there is no dispute as regards a fact that Maharashtra National Law University is governed by UGC Regulations as regards appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Management (Finance). There is no dispute that after clearing the first stage 16 WP_12072_2022_Jd by the petitioner he was called for the interview, in other words, he had secured the desirable marks in API score. Now, he has raised a point that the API score should have been added to the second stage i.e. the interview also and the selection should not have been only on the basis of the interview. We have gone through the decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra). Before turning to paragraph No.26 onwards relied by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in para No.22 the facts were narrated. In that case it was observed that the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 were applicable to State of Haryana and in Rule 9 certain marks were prescribed, in which the categories of the candidates were made segregated. One of the categories was ex-service officer and the other one was general. Upon the scrutiny the Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that the marks allocated to viva voce tests for both the categories were different and, therefore, the percentage was different. That means, for ex-service officer, who was supposed to appear for five compulsory subjects, a written examination carrying 400 marks in aggregate and a viva voce test carrying 200 marks. Whereas, the general category candidate was required to appear for 08 subjects for written examination in the aggregate 700 marks and viva voce tests carrying 200 marks. This segregation and allocation of different marks was not approved. And in that background the observations from paragraph Nos.26 to 29 have been made. Here, in this case, there is no question of two different 17 WP_12072_2022_Jd categories. All were in one category and as aforesaid after clearing first stage the petitioner had come to the second stage. Even till he appeared for the interview, it appears that he had no objection for the procedure, because he is not coming with a case that he had taken any written objection with the concerned authorities. He has not produced any such background indicating that before his interview he had raised any written objection. The decision in Madan Lal and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others [(1995) 3 SCC 486] has been reiterated in Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others [(2008) 4 SCC 171], wherein it has been observed that -

19 He is relying on notifications of two Universities from Uttar Pradesh and the copies of the same have been produced on record, as well as the order passed by Hon'ble Governor, Uttar Pradesh dated 18.05.2021. In this connection, we can find the difference between the Kanpur University notification and Siddharth University notification. In Siddharth University, the total marks to be allotted appears to have been stated out of 100 i.e. 80 for basic academic score and API score + 20 for the interview = 100, for the post of Associate Professor. But in Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur the last column of total has not been given. Though both of them are from Uttar Pradesh, they are allocating different marks for the post of Associate Professor. Kanpur University is referring that the said notification is in accordance with the Governor Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh order 19 WP_12072_2022_Jd No.3019/32-G.S./2020 dated 18.05.2021; E-4229/G.S. dated 02.07.2021 and UGC Regulations 2018 and, therefore, by oral directions the said order of the Hon'ble Governor was directed to be produced and it appears to have been issued in Hindi and post 'lgk¸;d vkpk;Z' has prescribed 100 marks out of that 10 is to be allotted to 'lk{kkRdkj' i.e. interview and post of 'lg vkpk;Z ,oa vkpk;Z' 20 marks are to be allotted to lk{kkRdkj/interview. We are concerned with 'lg vkpk;Z' i.e. Associate Professor. Here, in this case, the petitioner has not produced on record any such similar order passed by Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra, which would then be made applicable to Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad.