Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 346 (GAU)

Arundhati Roy v. Assam University

2006-04-08

B.K.SHARMA

body2006
1. The prayer made in this writ petition is to set aside and quash the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as the lecturer in the Department of English, Assam University, Silchar. Further prayer made is to appoint the petitioner to the replacement of the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner is B.A. with honours in English (49.9% marks). She has also obtained MA degree in English with 62.5% marks. She obtained first-class first position and consequently, was conferred with Gold Medal and merit prize. At the time of filing of the writ petition, she was doing her Ph.D. research work and was to submit the thesis. During the course of hearing it was submitted that she has already submitted her thesis paper. 3. For appointment as tutor in the Department of English, Assam University, an advertisement was issued and the petitioner offered her candidature by submitting her application. She was invited for the selection to be held on 30.7.2002. Thereafter, by Annexure-C order dated 8.8.2002, she was appointed as tutor purely on temporary basis on consolidated remuneration of Rs. 5,000 per month. According to the petitioner, although she was appointed on«temporary basis, but her services were utilized like that of regular lecturer by way of entrusting her various duties normally entrusted to regular lecturers. 4. The University issued an advertisement vide employment notification dated 18.6.2003. Various posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer including 4 posts of lecturer in English (one reserved for ST) and another leave vacancy of lecturer in English. The grievance raised in this writ petition is in respect of this leave vacancy. The petitioner has placed reliance on the Annexure-I list of candidates for interview furnished to the Registrar-in-charge of the University by communication dated 22.12.2003 to show that against the said leave vacancy only two candidates were in the fray. The two candidates are the petitioner and one Smt. Seema Mishra. In the list for the said leave vacancy the name of the respondent No. 5 was not included. However, her name was included in the list of candidates for regular posts of lecturer in English, forwarded by the same very communication. 5. The two candidates are the petitioner and one Smt. Seema Mishra. In the list for the said leave vacancy the name of the respondent No. 5 was not included. However, her name was included in the list of candidates for regular posts of lecturer in English, forwarded by the same very communication. 5. While indicating the names of the candidates as mentioned above for the lone leave vacancy of lecturer in English (American literature), a remark was made that although the petitioner had not cleared NET, yet she might be called for the interview as she had been teaching American literature in the Department of English, since her appointment as tutor by the aforesaid order dated 8.8.2002. Referring to the eligibility criteria indicated in the employment notification dated 18.6.2003, the petitioner asserts that relaxation of any of the qualification could be made in exceptional cases on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Referring to clause 5 of the advertisement, it has been stated that separate application was to be submitted for separate post. 6. The interview/selection was held on 23.3.2004. According to the petitioner she did well in the interview and was expecting her selection and appointment. However, the University authority has appointed the respondent No. 5 by Annexure-N order dated 1.4.2004, which is impugned in this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondent No. 5 was not even an applicant for the leave vacancy, there was no question of permitting her to appear in the interview and consequently to select and appoint her against the post. 7. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. Their stand, inter alia, is that the petitioner does not have any legally enforceable vested right to claim appointment to the post of lecturer for which there was interview and selection. According to them the respondent No. 5 has been selected validly by the Selection Committee and she has been appointed and has been working in the department. The respondents have generally admitted the appointment of the petitioner as tutor and her activities in the department, however, according to them such appointment of the petitioner is for the purpose of supplementing the existing teaching staff. The respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioner that eligibility qualification can be relaxed. The respondents have generally admitted the appointment of the petitioner as tutor and her activities in the department, however, according to them such appointment of the petitioner is for the purpose of supplementing the existing teaching staff. The respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioner that eligibility qualification can be relaxed. They have also denied that .the petitioner was called for the interview as a special case. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. 8. I have heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the University. During the course of hearing, Mr. Choudhury was requested to obtain certain instructions and while furnishing those instructions, he has also produced certain documents relating to the selection, which include the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 23.3.2004.1 have also perused the same. 9. As against the submission of Mr. Chaliha that the respondent No. 5 having not applied for the leave vacancy and she being a candidate, only against the regular vacancies and clause 5 under the head "Important notes" of the employment notice having specified that separate application is required for each post, the respondent No. 5 could not have been interviewed by the selection committee, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, referring to clause 2 of the same note submitted that the said clause having provided for the discretion to the University to consider names of suitable candidates who may not have applied formally, there was nothing wrong in considering the case of the respondent No. 5, more particularly, when she was already a candidate for the regular post. 10. Before adjudicating the legality and validity of the appointment of the respondent No. 5, the preliminary issue, which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner herself was eligible for offering candidature and consideration of her case for selection. As per the own statement of the petitioner made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, she was doing her Ph.D. at the time of filing the writ petition and was to submit her thesis paper for Ph.D. degree in December 2004. As per the own statement of the petitioner made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, she was doing her Ph.D. at the time of filing the writ petition and was to submit her thesis paper for Ph.D. degree in December 2004. As per the advertisement, the qualification of NET was the requirement, relaxable in respect of the candidates who have completed M.Phil, or submitted Ph.D. thesis upto 31.12.2002. There is no dispute that the petitioner is not a Ph.D. degree holder and as per her own admission, she was to submit her thesis for Ph.D. in December 2004. She has also not cleared NET. Thus, the relaxation and /or exemption applicable to the candidates who had submitted Ph.D. thesis upto December 2002 was also not applicable to her. Consequently, she was not qualified and/or eligible even to offer candidature. 11. As against this position of the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 is a Ph.D. degree holder and she has obtained her Ph.D. degree in 2002 itself; Thus, she was exempted from NET qualification as per the UGC guidelines issued vide notification dated 31.12.2002, a copy of which has been produced by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the University. This exemption was also mentioned in the employment notification. It is in this context only, the remark in respect of the petitioner in Annexure-I lists forwarding the names of the candidates by which it was suggested that although the petitioner had not cleared NET, but might be called for interview, having regard to her experience of teaching in the Department will have to be understood. The petitioner herself being not qualified cannot question the particular selection and the appointment thereof. Any judicial relief at the instance of the petitioner, who herself does not fulfil the requisite criteria, will be misplaced. 12. I now proceed to examine the plea of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 having not applied for the leave vacancy of lecturer by a separate application and she being only a candidate for the regular posts, the Selection Committee could not have interviewed her. This is merely a technical plea, which also requires consideration in terms of the conditions stipulated in the employment notice about which a mention has been made above. This is merely a technical plea, which also requires consideration in terms of the conditions stipulated in the employment notice about which a mention has been made above. Under the head "important notes", although as per clause 5 separate application was required for each post, but clause 2 under the same head permitted and authorized the University to consider names of suitable candidates who may not have applied formally. Thus, when the candidature of the respondent No. 5 for the post of regular lecturer was already there, there was nothing wrong to consider the same against the leave vacancy for the same Department, more so, when the University was empowered to do so in terms of clause 2 of the "important notes" and there was dearth of suitable candidates. 13.1 have gone through the minutes of the Selection Committee held on 23.3.2004. The duly constituted Selection Committee considered the candidatures of not only the petitioner, but also the respondent No. 5, aforesaid Smt. Seema Mishra and one Shri Dipendu Das. Upon consideration of their cases, the Selection Committee recommended the respondent No. 5 for appointment as lecturer against the post. The selection as such is not under challenge. It is true that by making the challenge to the appointment of the respondent No. 5, the petitioner has virtually challenged her very selection tut such challenge is solely on the ground that she was not an applicant for the post. No other grounds have been assigned, including the ground of any mala fide and/or arbitrary exercise of power by the Selection Committee and/or any violation of the University statutes. 14. The circumstances, in which the candidature of the respondent No. 5 was considered has been discussed above. The Annexure-I communication dated 22.12.2003 mentioning the name of the candidates, was only at the interlocutory stage of the selection. From this document, it cannot be conclusively said that the University and for that matter the Selection Committee was to consider only those two candidates. The Annexure-I communication dated 22.12.2003 mentioning the name of the candidates, was only at the interlocutory stage of the selection. From this document, it cannot be conclusively said that the University and for that matter the Selection Committee was to consider only those two candidates. Having regard to the candidature offered by the respondent No. 5 for the post of lecturer in the same Department and also having regard to dearth of candidates, if the University authority decided to invoke clause 2 of the "important notes" of the employment notice and thereby considered the case of not only the respondent No. 5 but also one Sri Dipendu Das for the temporary post, no fault can be attributed to the University authority. After all, the basic requirement and the interest of the University was to secure the services of the best lecturer. The respondent No. 5 having conformed the eligibility criteria laid down in the employment notice and the requirements of the Department, and when she was already a candidate for the regular posts, there was nothing wrong in considering her case against the temporary vacancy. 15. In view of the above, and in absence of anything to show that the University authority has acted arbitrarily, mala fide and in violation of the statutory rules towards selecting the respondent No. 5 and having regard to the ambit, scope and jurisdiction of interference in the matter of selection by a statutory body, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 vide impugned appointment order dated 1.4.2004 (Annexure-N). Consequently, the writ petition merits dismissal. 16. Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.