Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments




                                      2 of 7

 CWP-26808-2017                                                            -3 -

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 02.07.2013 whereby respondent No. 2-University had adopted the selection criteria for recruitment to the post of Principal and Assistant Professor (Annexure P-9 collectively) which reveals that there is no requirement of having three eligible candidates with API score of 400 points. The Vice Chancellor had not approved the Selection Committee proceedings dated 26.03.2016 (Annexure P-7) on the ground that there were not three eligible candidates having API score of 400 points. The petitioner sought the information under RTI Act, 2005 and was informed the criteria/letter dated 02.07.2013 is being followed by the University and hence the present writ petition.

As per the interim order dated 24.11.2017, proceedings to advertise the post afresh were stayed.

On notice, written statement has been filed by respondent No. 2-University. The stand taken by the respondent No. 2 in the written statement is that as per advertisement dated 12.12.2015 (Annexure P-1), a candidate for the post of Principal was required to have minimum API score of 400 points and nine candidates had made applications and thereafter two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor wree appointed on 03.02.2016 and a panel of subject experts was also made. Finally the interview was conducted and out of nine candidates, only two candidates namely Madhvi Sharma- petitioner and Geeta Yadav on merit No.2 had more than 400 API score in category No. III. A xerox copy of the statement prepared by the Selection Committe has been placed on record as Annexure R-2/2. The candidatures of other seven candidates were rejected being ineligible. A further stand is 3 of 7 CWP-26808-2017 -4 -

A further clarification has been given that the post of Principal was earlier advertised by respondent No. 3-College on 04.02.2015. The interview could not be conducted and this advertisement was allowed to lapse. The petitioner was not a candidate and she did not apply for the said post. Subsequently this post was re-advertised on 11.06.2015 after getting approval from Director General Higher Education Haryana after appointing subject experts being members of the Selection Committee. After getting application forms, the Selection Committed held a meeting on 06.08.2015 (Annexure R-2/5) and took a decision that none of the candidates has secured minimum API score of 400 points which is mandatory for the Principal/Professor and hence the Selection Committee was unable to conduct the interview and finally stand taken is that the petitioner has not challenged the instructions dated 07.08.2003 (Annexure R-2/3) which lays 4 of 7 CWP-26808-2017 -5 -

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that against the advertisement dated 12.12.2015 (Annexure P-1), nine candidates had applied and were called for interview and out of these seven were ineligible as they did not have 400 API score and only two candidates 5 of 7 CWP-26808-2017 -6 -

i.e. the petitioner and Geeta Yadav were eligible. After interviewing them, the petitoner has been awarded 56.44 marks and Geeta Yadav has been awarded 44.5 marks. The University was bound by the instructions dated 07.08.2003 (Annexure R-2/3) and hence has rightly disapprove the selection made of the petitioner for the post of Principal.