Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The bunch of the cases have been heard together and are being decided together by a common judgement as the issues involved are common except the aspect pertaining to the respective educational qualifications.

4. The impugned orders of cancellation of selection have been passed by the Vice Chancellor of Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow which very candidly recites that in the 5th meeting of the General Body an enquiry was instituted against the previous Vice Chancellor Dr Nishith Rai and all the charges against him were proved and he was found guilty of administrative and financial irregularities. After seeking legal opinion, it was decided that all the appointments made during his tenure would be enquired on a case-to-case basis. It further states that the executive committee had appointed a three-member committee which has submitted its report where it has been found that the appointments were made without following the rules of reservation, and no approval was sought from the visitor for appointment of the panel of experts and that persons were appointed despite the fact that they did not have the requisite API score which was contrary to the rules.

67. In light of the above, this Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner was fully qualified for being appointed and did not lack any qualification as alleged, as such, the impugned order is rendered illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

68. Writ petition No. 4316 of 2022(Writ A) Vipin Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and others)

(i).The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (English) and the only ground on which the services of the petitioner was terminated is that while offering his candidature details given in regard to API score indicated that he did not have score of 300 as prescribed under the UGC Regulations. The allegation was that the petitioner claimed API score of 304.5 points under category III by awarding 50 points in category III sec IIIE (i) whereas a maximum of 30 points can be claimed under this section, and hence the petitioner came down to 284.5 which is less than the minimum required API score. Before the selection committee the petitioner submitted 4 more research papers all of which related to period prior to the issuance of advertisement. The selection committee being satisfied with the documents presented by the petitioner exceeded requirement of the API score, and consequently the petitioner was declared to be selected. The selection committee consisted of experts who after due consideration that the petitioner fulfils eligibility conditions selected him for the said post. Only contention raised by the respondents is that while filling up the application form, the petitioner had granted himself marks much more than permissible in the particular category. It could also not be disputed that the petitioner had produced some other papers authored prior to the date of advertisement for which he was entitled to marks, and after taking the same into consideration he had obtained more marks than were required, and hence there was no infirmity in his selection.

(ii). Sri Sudeep Seth Senior advocate has relied upon judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of show Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of India and others (2007) 4SCC 54 to canvases his submission that the candidate should possess all the qualifications on the date of the application. In case he does not possesses the qualifications on the last date fixed for submission of applications he would not be entitled for due consideration for the said selection. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility conditions on the last date of the application inasmuch he had submitted 4 other papers authored by him which were prior to the cut off date. The facts in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Merely cancelling his appointment on the ground that on the date of submission of the form by the petitioner his API score was less than what was required, it is not made out. The petitioner had produced articles authored by an prior to the date of advertisement which were duly accepted by the selection committee. The panel of experts constituting the selection committee are the best to judge the qualifications of a candidate, who after due examination found the petitioner was fully qualified to be selected. There are no allegations of malafidely or bias against the panel of experts, hence their decision could not have been substituted by another body lacking the minimum/basic expertise in the matter. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner fulfilled all the qualifications and the decision of the respondents authorities to the contrary is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be set-aside.

76. It has further been contended that even the API score has been wrongly calculated by the respondent university leading to cancellation of his appointment. The petitioner has stated that he has an API score of 469.5 which is more than the required API score. The details of publications have been enclosed by the petitioner which clearly indicate his API score. The selection committee has duly looked into the API score of the petitioner and was satisfied that the same was more than the minimum required to score as per the University Grants commission norms and consequently he was held to be selected. The respondents have not indicated is what manner the API score of the petitioner is below the minimum required. Considering the fact that API score of the petitioner is more than the minimum required, the finding to the contrary recorded by the respondents is clearly illegal and arbitrary.