Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for regularisation of her service in the respondent No.4-Institution; inter-alia, sought for quashing the selection/interview process conducted by the respondent-Institution for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science subject held pursuant to the Notification dated 22nd February, 2019 (Annexure-D), as arbitrary and contrary to law.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner being qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science subject, has applied for the said post pursuant to the Notification issued by the respondents 1 and 2- Government dated 22nd February, 2019 (Annexure-D). It is averred in the writ petition that, the respondent No.4-Institution is an Aided Institution and competent authority to appoint employees to the Institution. Further, it is stated in the writ petition that, the petitioner initially appointed to the post of Lecturer in Political Science subject at Govinda Dasa First Grade College, Suratkal, managed by the respondent No.4-Institution as per the appointment order dated 10th June, 2004 (Annexure- A). Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work in the said Institution till 2012. The respondents have not extended the University Grants Commission (for short; hereinafter referred to as 'UGC') Scale to the petitioner, despite the petitioner has passed State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) and as such, the petitioner has made representation dated 01st August, 2012 to the respondent No.1, seeking regularisation of her service in the said Institution. However, the case of petitioner was kept pending by the respondents for regularisation. In the meanwhile, several posts of teaching staff in the respondent No.4-Institution fell vacant and accordingly, the respondent No.1 has issued a Notification dated 22nd February, 2019 (Annexure- D), inviting applications from eligible candidates including for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science subject. The respondent No.4-Institution has made a representation to the respondent No.3-University for constituting a composition of members of Selection Committee to conduct interview in terms of the UGC Guidelines. The Selection Committee was constituted on 22nd April, 2019 and same was communicated to the respondent No.2, along with the applications made by the candidates. Thereafter, respondent No.4-Institution addressed letter dated 21st August, 2019 (Annexure-H) to respondents 1 and 2 stating that there is an illegality in the process of Selection for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science subject and as such, the governing council of respondent No.4-Institution decided in its meeting dated 18th August, 2019, to re-conduct the selection process afresh. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.2 has communicated to the respondent No.3- University to enquire into the matter in detail and sought for a report from the respondent No.3-University (Annexure-J). In reply to the same, the respondent No.3-University addressed letter to the respondent No.4-Institution to conduct the re- interview by providing Academic Performance Indicator (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'API') marks to the candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science subject, and complete the selection process at the earliest as per the University Grants Commission Guidelines and to file detailed report. It is averred in the writ petition that the interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science was held on 28th May, 2019 and ten candidates had appeared for the said interview. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.4- Institution has addressed letter to the respondents 1 and 2, seeking permission to conduct fresh interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science subject (Annexures 'P' and 'Q'). It is also to be noted that the respondent No.3-University by its letter dated 19th June, 2020 (Annexure-S) to the respondent No.2 conveyed that the respondent-University has no power to cancel the selection process. It is averred that the Selection Committee was consisting of seven numbers namely 1) Janardhan E. (President of the respondent-Institution), 2) Prof. Krishnamurthy (Principal of the respondent-College), 3) Prof. P.L. Dharma (Nominee of the respondent-University), 4) Prof. Jayaraj Amin (Nominee of the respondent-University, 5) Dr. Nagappa Gowda (Government College, Mangaluru), 6) Dr. Sharmila Rai (Government College, Mangaluru) and 7) Dr. Kiran (Government College, Brahmavara). It is alleged in the writ petition that there were lot of manipulations and malpractices committed by the Members of the Selection Committee particularly, the Members namely Prof. P.L. Dharma, Prof. Jayaraj Amin and Dr. Kiran. It is contended in the petition that the entire interview and awarding marks by the Members of the Committee lacks fairness, inter-alia, the marks sheets have been tampered. The petitioner is unaware about the API Scores allotted by the Members and in this regard an application has been made to the respondents under Right to Information Act, seeking relevant documents, however, same has not been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner further contended that, an application has been made to the respondent No.2 under Right to Information Act, seeking information with regard to the marks awarded during the interview and pursuant to the same, the petitioner came to know about the letter of the respondent No.2 dated 08th January, 2021 (Annexure-T1), with regard to the manipulation of marks. The petitioner has also lodged complaint to the respondent No.1 against the illegalities committed during Selection Process as per Annexure-V. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the entire selection process is contrary to the UGC Regulations and Rules provided for appointment of Assistant Professor by the respondent No.2. Hence, this writ petition.

6. Nextly, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel contended that, as per Regulation 2 of the UGC Regulations (2nd Amendment), Regulation 6.1.0 has been amended and therefore, the marks awarded towards API could not have been considered for the Expert Assessment of the candidates and therefore, the API Score is to be used only for screening test and it has no bearing on the Expert Assessment and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. Emphasising on these aspects, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel argued that the Selection Committee has manipulated the marks particularly API Scores of the candidates and further he contended that the entire selection process is liable to be quashed as the same is arbitrary in nature and suffers from serious infirmity on account of not following the UGC Regulations. Referring to the Annexure-H, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel contended that the Chairman and other Members of the Committee have refused to sign the papers as they have found some illegalities committed by the aforementioned Members and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. In order to buttress his arguments, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DR. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2019)20 SCC 17; in the case of DR. T. PRATHAP AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 2686; and in the case of HAMZA V.K. (DR.) vs. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY reported in 2018 SCC OnLine KER 4952.

10. Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 reiterates the averment made in the statement of objections and submits that the Selection Committee has been constituted as per the Guidelines provided in Government Order dated 24th December, 2009 and argued that the respondent No.3-University, without any authority under law, directed the respondent No.4- Institution to grant API scores to the candidates (Annexure-K). Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

100)
b) Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (30%)
c) Interview performance (20%)

16. Applying the aforementioned Regulation to the case on hand, I am of the view that the Selection Committee has not strictly followed the Guidelines made in the aforementioned UGC Regulation insofar as awarding the API Scores as well as awarding marks. Therefore, the entire process adopted by the Selection Committee is contrary to the UGC Regulations as well as the Government Order dated 24th December, 2009 (Annexure-W). Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference in this writ petition. I have carefully examined the marks awarded by the Selection Committee, particularly API Scores, which runs contrary to the UGC Regulations referred to above. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the procedure to be adopted by the Selection Committee while awarding API scores as per Government Order dated 24th December, 2009 (Annexure-W), whereby, clauses 20.1.8 and 20.2.4 read as under: