Jaskaran Singh vs Punjabi University and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the appointment letter of respondent No. 2 dated 20.06.2011 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 to appoint him as Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Physical Education.

The brief facts of the case are that applications were invited by respondent No. 1 for one post of the Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Physical Education by way of advertisement dated 15.06.2010. The petitioner applied for the said post on 01.07.2010, against which respondent No. 2 had also applied. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 was earlier appointed by respondent No. 1 through backdoor entry to the said post on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 31.01.2006, initially for a period of 6 months which was continued upto 30.06.2011. The criteria for screening and shortlisting the applicants, laid down by respondent No. 1, is as under:

According to the aforesaid criteria, as many as 9 persons were shortlisted. The list of those persons is as under:

The shortlisting was carried out by the Committee as per University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations. Thereafter, the short listed candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee comprising of the following:--

"FOR THE POST OF LECTURER

The Vice Chancellor (Chairman)

Three experts in the concerned subject to be invited on the basis of the list recommended by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the Syndicate.

Dean of the concerned Faculty.

Head of Department.

An academician nominated by the Chancellor."

In the said interview, out of 9 candidates, candidates at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 appeared. The Head of the Department recorded his dissent in regard to the selection of respondent No. 2. The petitioner, who had secured 73.81% marks on the basis of his academic and other qualifications at the time of shortlisting and was far ahead of respondent No. 2 who had secured only 53.41% marks, challenged his selection and appointment on the ground of arbitrariness on the part of the Selection Committee who had not given any reason for selecting respondent No. 2 as no criteria was laid down at the time of interview.

After notice, reply has been filed both by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 separately. Respondent No. 1 has averred that respondent No. 2 has been recommended by the Selection Committee on the basis of his performance in the interview. Similar reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 that the criteria of marks was relevant only for the purpose of shortlisting in view of the norms prescribed by the UGC and the eminent board, constituted for the purpose of interview, selected the best talent out of the shortlisted candidates. However, none of the respondents have averred that the Selection Committee had evolved any criteria for adjudging the respective performance of the shortlisted candidates who had appeared for the interview. Even the Registrar of the respondent No. 1-University, who was present in the Court, could not deny the fact that there was no criteria laid down by the Selection Committee to test the ability of the candidates in the interview.

The petitioner has also filed an application bearing CM No. 3515-CWP-2015 for placing on record certain documents as Annexures P-11 to P-13, out of which Annexure P-11 is the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, as per which in the case of Assistant Professor, the weightage for the academic record and research performance is 50%, for assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skill 30% and only 20% weightage is given for the interview. Besides this, as per Annexure P-12, the Selection Policy for the recruitment of teaching faculty in the University and Colleges issued by the Governor of Punjab, was got sanctioned by the Academic Council of the respondent No. 1-University in its meeting held on 14.06.2003, which reads as under:--

"15.10 Sanction is hereby accorded for the Selection Policy for the recruitment of the teachers in the colleges affiliated with the University issued by the Additional Secretary, Higher Education, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter No. 8/5/2003-4C-1 dated 26.02.2003 (Annexure 13) and letter No. 8/5/2003-4C-1/10415 dated 12.05.2013 (Annexure 14)."

According to the aforesaid Selection Policy, which is part of Annexure P-12, the screening of applications for shortlisting the highest ranking candidates and the interview is as under:--

"2. Screening of applications for short listing the highest ranking candidates:

The selection of candidates for interview will be made only on the basis of their performance and achievement in their respective subject(s) alongwith certain other qualifications. The applications shall be screened on the following grounds giving marks in each field out of the total maximum marks indicated against each parameter as below:--

On the basis of inter-se merit of the applicants after screening, the candidates shall be invited for interview as per para 1 above.

The remaining 20 marks shall be for (a) interview-10 marks (b) Resume Writing-10 marks as per guidelines mentioned in paras 4 and 5 below.

xxxxxxx

The Interview. Maximum 10 marks

Every candidate shall have to appear for interview before a Selection Committee constituted by the Competent Authority. It will be compulsory that every candidate should be asked to deliver a talk on any subject or any area of his/her subject as suggested by the Interview Board or even of his/her own choice of at least 3-5 minutes. This is to judge whether the candidate can communicate and convey properly and confidently or not.

The marks in interview may be awarded either by the members individually and then the aggregate average may be taken or the Committee can assess the performance of the candidate collectively and award the marks as it may deem fit."

Interestingly, in the written statement filed on 10.10.2012 by the Registrar of the Punjabi University in CWP No. 13685 of 2012 titled as "Mukhtiar Singh v. Punjabi University and others", pertaining to the selection of Assistant Professor (Punjabi), it has been averred that "the selection has been made as per the criteria fixed by the University Grants Commission. As per the criteria, 15% marks are based on account of undergraduate qualification, 20% marks are based on account of postgraduate qualification, 5% marks are based for NET/Ph.D., 10% marks are based for the purpose of research, 30% marks are based for the purposes of Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills and rest 20% marks are based on account of interview performance".

Inspite of following the aforesaid criteria, the respondent No. 1 shortlisted the candidates according to their own criteria, reproduced herein-above in the beginning of the judgment. The comparative table of the marks awarded to the petitioner and respondent No. 2, while screening and shortlisting the candidates, is as under:--

According to the aforesaid comparative table, the petitioner has got 73.81 marks out of 100 as against respondent No. 2 who has got only 53.47 marks and was far behind in the academic and other qualifications than the petitioner. However, there were no marks kept for the interview.

Thus, the question involved in this case is as to whether the selection of respondent No. 2, based only upon the interview, without following any criteria, is illegal and unjustified.

In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Sunil Kumar and others v. Punjabi University and others, CWP No. 18735 of 2009, decided on 23.08.2011, which has been upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 2081 of 2011, titled as "Babita Rani v. Punjabi University, Patiala and others", decided on 14.11.2011.

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the marks obtained by the petitioner were only meant for the purpose of shortlisting which would not entitle him for selection as it was based only upon the interview. It is also submitted that once the petitioner submitted himself to the interview and has not been selected, he is estopped from challenging the selection of respondent No. 2. It is also submitted that the selection of respondent No. 2 has been made by the High Powered Committee against which there is no allegation of mala fide by the petitioner. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others, AIR 2008 SC 148 : (2007) 12 SCALE 183 : (2007) 8 SCC 644 : (2007) 2 SCC(L&S) 980 : (2007) 11 SCR 1041 : (2008) 2 SLJ 213 : (2007) AIRSCW 6338 : (2007) 7 Supreme 438 .

Counsel for respondent No. 2 has also submitted that the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct and relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir and Another Vs. Ajay Dogra, AIR 2011 SC 1830 : (2011) 129 FLR 731 : (2011) 4 JT 304 : (2011) 4 SCALE 442 : (2011) AIRSCW 2605 : (2011) 3 Supreme 202 and Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 576 .

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record.

Admittedly, the petitioner is a Ph.D. as against the respondent No. 2 who is only a M.Phil. The petitioner has various publications and research papers to his credit and as a result thereof, at the time of shortlisting, he was given 73.81 marks out of 100, whereas respondent No. 2 was given only 53.47 marks. The petitioner was, thus, far ahead of respondent No. 2 in his academic and other qualifications and was quite sanguine of his selection only on the basis of interview in which admittedly no criteria was adopted/laid down by the Interview Board.

It is really surprising that in the Selection Policy, adopted by the University in its meeting of Academic Council dated 14.06.2003, only 10 marks are allotted for the interview, whereas in the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 in Mukhtiar Singh''s case (supra), the respondent No. 1-University has admitted that 20 marks have been allotted for the interview performance.

Nothing has been brought on record as to how many marks were awarded to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the interview because no criteria was admittedly laid down at the time of personality test.

The judgments relied upon by the respondents are altogether different on its facts and are not applicable at all to the facts of the present case, whereas the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Dr. Sunil Kumar''s case is squarely applicable to this case because in that case also, the selection/appointment was in regard to the Lecturer in Physics based upon the interview only, without disclosing the criteria adopted by the Interview Board. The Court has observed in that case that if neither grading nor criteria is laid down, then how the performance of the candidates has been assessed by the Interview Board and how a candidate, who has an excellent academic and research record, was found to have been weak before the Interview Board. Ultimately, this Court set aside the selection on the ground that the Selection Committee has failed to adopt any criteria for assessing the respective merits of the candidates and the respondents were directed to make fresh selection by calling all shortlisted candidates for interview, after laying down the criteria. The said judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Babita Rani''s case (supra).

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, narrated here-in-above, I am also of the considered opinion that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 2 is not aboveboard and is quashed. However, respondent No. 1-University is directed to make fresh selection after interviewing all shortlisted candidates including the petitioner, who is at Sr. No. 1, after laying down transparent and relevant criteria. It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be carried out within two months from the date of the passing of this order.