Priyanka Arya @APPELLANT@Hash University Of Jammu And Another

Rajesh Bindal, J

The petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Assistant professor in the Department of Sanskrit in the Open Merit category, has filed the present petition praying for quashing of Advertisement Notice dated 30.11.2017, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit, without finalizing the selection process initiated vide Advertisement Notice dated 18.04.2016, in which the petitioner was a candidate and was shown at serial No. 1 in the merit list. Further prayer has been made for setting aside of resolution dated 21.08.2017 passed by the University Syndicate, resolving that the recommendations of the selection committee dated 07.06.2017 for the post of Assistant professor in the Department of Sanskrit be not accepted and the post be re-advertised. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner obtained Masters Degree in Sanskrit and in Vyakaranacharya. She had also cleared her UGC NET in Sanskrit. On 18.04.2016, applications were invited by the respondent-University for various posts including the post of Assistant professor in the Department of Sanskrit. The petitioner being fully eligible applied for the same. A tentative merit list was displayed and objections were invited from the candidates. Interviews were held on 07.06.2017. Considering her academic record and performance in the interview, the petitioner was quite hopeful of her selection.

However, the result was not declared. It was noticed during screening of the documents that one of the candidates, namely, Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra, had not been given weightage of his PhD degree. On enquiry it was found that up to the last date fixed for submission of applications, degree had not been awarded to the aforesaid candidate. Hence, there was no error. It further transpired that the aforesaid candidate had been pursuing his PhD under the guidance of Prof. Manu Lata Sharma, who was one of the expert in the selection committee. The matter was placed before the University Syndicate in its 112th meeting held on 21.08.2017. The fact remains that the aforesaid candidate was not in the select list.

Vide resolution passed by the University Syndicate on 21.08.2017 it was decided that the recommendations for appointment of Assistant professor in the Department of Sanskrit dated 07.06.2017, be not accepted and post be advertised afresh. It was further resolved that the concerned expert be debarred for all future assignments and other Universities/Institutions be apprised of this fact through UGC. It was further resolved that in future a specific undertaking be also taken from all experts regarding their relation with any of the candidate appearing in the process of selection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid resolution of the University Syndicate fresh advertisement notice was issued on 30.11.2017, which surprised the petitioner. It was at that stage, the petitioner approached this Court.

In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had participated in the process of selection. There was no allegation against her or any of the members of the selection Committee. The candidate against whom certain allegations about biasness of a member of the selection committee were raised, was merely in the waiting list as there was only one post. The petitioner had secured 76.40 marks whereas the candidate in the waiting list had secured merely 72.00 marks. It was further submitted that because of biasness of one of the experts towards one of the candidates entire selection process cannot be cancelled especially when that candidate has not been selected. The selection committee was headed by the Vice Chancellor. Because the petitioner was recommended being No. 1 in the merit list unanimously, shows that nothing had transpired at the time of interview of the candidates. It came later in notice of the authorities that Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra was pursuing his PhD under the guidance of Prof. Manu Lata Sharma, who was an expert in the interview committee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that undue favour has been shown to the petitioner. Act of one of the members will not vitiate the entire selection process. There was no needle of suspicion on the selection of the petitioner or on the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner had been selected on merits without there being any biasness. She was not related to any of member of the selection committee. The prayer is that recommendations made by the selection committee be directed to be accepted and appointment letter be issued to the petitioner. Reference was made to judgment of Madras High Court in N. Subramaninan vs. District Elementary Educational Officer and others, W.P. (MD) No. 239/2010 decided on 11.06.2010.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once it came to the notice of the authorities that one of the experts in the selection committee was guide of one of the candidates in his research for PhD, the entire selection process was cancelled as there was biasness. Merely because the petitioner was in the select list at serial No. 1, the same does not confer any right on her. Mere selection does not confer any right of appointment. The employer has the discretion to accept or not to accept the recommendations of the selection committee. After true facts came to the notice of the University, in its 112thmeeting the University Syndicate decided to scrap the selection process and re-advertise the post. It was further resolved that concerned expert be debarred from any future selections and an undertaking be taken from the experts appointed for any selection process in future regarding their relation with any of the candidates appearing for such selection. The University is interested in fairness of the selection process. Once a finger was raised, the best course was to cancel the selection in totality. There was no malafide alleged. The University is not having any bias against the petitioner. In support of the arguments reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kulwinder Pal Singh and anr. vs. State of Punjab and ors, (2016) 6 SCC 532 and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and anr vs. AkhileshV.S. and ors, Civil Appeal No. 3346/2019 decided on April 01, 2019.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The basic facts, which are not in dispute in the present petition are that University issued advertisement on 18.04.2016 inviting applications for the post of Assistant professor in Sanskrit. The process of selection was completed. Recommendation was made by the selection committee, however, the same was not accepted by the University Syndicate. The reason assigned was that one of the candidates, who was not in the select list, was pursuing his PhD under one of the experts, who was a member of the selection committee. On that account, apprehending biasness, the entire selection process was cancelled and a fresh advertisement notice dated 30.11.2017 was issued. The same was challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition in this Court with a further prayer to act upon the recommendation made by the selection committee as the petitioner was at serial No.1 in the list of the candidates selected and recommended for appointment.

The petitioner had claimed that she had secured 76.40 marks as against the candidate in whose case biasness is sought to be alleged, who secured 72.00 marks. To ascertain the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, original record was summoned from the University. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee, which was headed by the Vice Chancellor of the University having seven other members, shows that 20 candidates participated in the process of selection for the post of Assistant professor in Sanskrit. One post was in Open Merit category, whereas one post was in ST category. As per the criteria laid down, to which there is no challenge, 50% marks were earmarked for academic background and research, 30% for assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills and 20% for performance in interview. As per details available in the minutes of the meeting, the petitioner secured 76.40 marks. She was recommended for appointment in the Open Merit category being number one in merit list. No candidate was recommended under the ST category. Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra was directed to be placed in the waiting list of open merit category. He had secured 72.00 marks.

The reason assigned by the Syndicate for not accepting the recommendations made by the selection committee was that after the interview process was over, one of the experts tried to project that a particular candidate has done his PhD but no marks had been awarded to him. Record was perused and it was found that the candidate had himself written in his application that he was pursuing his PhD course. On further examination of the record it was noticed that the address furnished by that candidate was same as that of the expert who tried to project his case. On that basis the selection committee observed that due to biasness of one of the experts in the selection committee some other members may have also awarded him higher marks in the interview as compared to other candidates. It was on that basis that the recommendations made by the selection committee were not accepted and fresh advertisement issued.

From the record of the selection committee, as was produced in Court, it is evident that the petitioner was awarded more marks in interview than Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra, in whose case biasness is sought to be alleged. There is nothing on record to suggest that any person was favouring the petitioner as the only allegation which came in the notice of the University after recommendations were made by the selection committee, was some link of that candidate with one of the members of the selection committee. It is further evident from the recommendations made by the selection committee that there were two more candidates above Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra who had secured 72.60 and 72.40 marks as against 72.00 marks secured by him. Recommendation was made for selection and appointment of the petitioner, whereas Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra was directed to be kept in the waiting list. May be the other two candidates who had secured more marks than him may have better claim but this issue does not arise in the present case. As the candidate who was at serial No.1 in the merit list was recommended to be selected and appointed and there was no allegation of biasness in her case. It is not the case where on account of non-joining of the candidate, who topped in the merit list, the waiting listing was to be given effect to.

No doubt over all objective of the University is good whereby it is claimed that the selection process has to be free from biasness and the candidates who are more meritorious, are selected. But in the case in hand that principle has not been applied properly. There is a candidate selected for appointment having topped the merit list but being denied appointment only for the reason that there was some allegation against one of the candidate who has not been selected. The decision is erroneous and cannot stand in judicial scrutiny.

There is no dispute with the proposition of law that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment but equally good is the proposition that there has to be good reason to deny appointment to a candidate selected and recommended for appointment. In the case in hand, the reason assigned for denying appointment to the petitioner, who was number one in the merit list, cannot be justified merely because there are some allegations against one of the candidate, who was not selected. It is not even the case of the University that there was any biasness in the case of the petitioner for award of marks.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Advertisement notice dated 30.11.2017 quo one post of Assistant professor in Sanskrit in Open merit category, is quashed as there is no requirement to fill up the same post for which recommendations had already been made. The University is directed to act upon further on the recommendations made by the selection committee in accordance with law. To avoid any further litigation, it is clarified that in case the petitioner is appointed, she shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of her joining the post.