Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1110 (GAU)

Jayashree Nath v. State of Assam

2015-09-01

T.VAIPHEI

body2015
JUDGMENT : In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the selection of the respondent No. 5 by the Selection Board for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry for J.B. College, Jorhat. 2. Apparently, the petitioner has impressive academic credentials. She passed her HSLC, HSSC, B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Chemistry and IIT Examination in First Class and obtained PH.D in Chemistry, cleared NET for lectureship in the year 2003 and qualified in graduate aptitude test in Engineering in the year 2004. In response to the advertisement published in the Website of J.B College, she applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry: she fulfilled UGC norms with NET/SLET/SET. She duly appeared before the Selection Board on 17-5-2012 and hoped to be selected considering her good performance in the interview. However, the respondent No. 5 was recommended by the Selection Board for the said post whereupon the Governing Body of the College adopted the resolution dated 12-6-2012 resolving to appoint him for the post. The respondent No. 4 thereafter forwarded the name of the respondent No. 5 for his approval, and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, the Selection Board while making distribution of marks to the petitioner intentionally withheld 2 marks for the sub-head “Presentation of Paper in Seminar/Workshop” under the head of “Research Performance” of the candidates though presentation of paper in National level seminar organised by the Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and publication of the abstract were available on record. 3. On the other hand, the Selection Board placed the respondent No. 5 in the 1st position with higher consolidated marks of 60.26 and placed the petitioner in the 2nd position with 59.04 marks, which is illegal and contrary to the marks distribution procedure followed in the selection procedure for the post of Assistant Professor or in colleges as per UGC guidelines, 2010 circulated vide the letter dated 13-12-2011 of the respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, under the said guidelines, the candidates under the head of Research Performance for paper presentation are entitled to get 2 marks for each presentation of paper in International/National Seminar/Workshop subject to the maximum of 5 marks, but the Selection Board did not take into account her presentation of paper in National Level seminar organised by the Department of Chemistry, IIT, Madras and her participation certificate issued by the competent authority with relevant extracts and deliberately omitted to give 2 marks with a view to favour the respondent No. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that both the recommendation of the Selection Board and the resolution of the Governing Body for the appointment of the respondent No. 5 for the said post are vitiated and cannot be sustained in law. 4. Resisting the writ petition, the respondent No. 3 and 4, in their affidavit-in-opposition, refuted the contentions of the petitioner by stating that the candidates were properly interviewed and their documents were verified in accordance with the UGC guidelines issued on 13-12-2011: the respondent No. 5 secured the highest marks and was accordingly selected for the post. It is the case of the answering respondents that the petitioner had simply indicated in Annexure-I enclosed with her application that she had attended the symposia/seminar but without any supporting documents. Even assuming for the sake of argument, submits the answering respondents, that she had presented a Paper in the seminar, she ought to have clearly indicated the same to the Committee along with the title of the paper so presented instead of simply mentioning the theme of the seminar attended by her. The respondent No. 4 avers that even though he was one of the members of the Selection Committee, he came to know about the presentation of a paper in a National Level Seminar only after perusing this writ petition. He also further states that though the occasion was the 12th Biennial Symposium on Modern Trends in Inorganic Chemistry held at the Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, it is not clear whether seminar was national or international or whether it is a poster or lecture: marks can be legitimately awarded by the Committee only in respect of national/international level seminars/workshops attended and, that too, only for presentation of papers and not for mere participation. 5. 5. The respondent No. 3 and 4 flatly deny that the appointment of the respondent No. 5 was in any manner pre-conceived, vitiated by bias and the interview was a mere formality: the best candidate was selected by the Selection Committee based on academic records, verification of documents, interview performance and performance in demonstration class. The State-respondents through the respondent No. 2 also filed their affidavit and endorsed the contention of the respondent No. 3 and 4 and submits that the members of the Selection Committee allotted marks within the limits of the marks permitted by the extant guidelines contained in the said letter dated 13-12-2011.It is pointed out by the answering respondent that the respondent No. 1 has already its approval for the appointment of the respondent No. 5 but his appointment has been deferred due to the interim order dated 8-8-2012 passed by this Court. The stance taken by the respondent No. 5 in his affidavit-in-opposition is no different from that of the respondent No. 3 and 4 and need not be referred to for the sake of brevity. 6. Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner actually produced the certificate of presentation of the paper entitled “Vo2F(dmp)2 catalyzed one step amination (?) of bezene and toluene with hydroxylamine” with the publication of abstract in support of her bio data (CV) relating to the seminar attended by her, the Selection Board was wrong in holding that there was no presentation of paper in national/international level seminar workshop and denying 2 marks legitimately due to her on this score. According to the learned counsel, had 2 marks on that score been awarded to the petitioner, she would be getting more marks than the respondent No. 5 and, therefore, would be entitled to the 1st position over the respondent No. 5. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 2 in his letter dated 13-6-2015 addressed to the standing counsel for Education (Higher) Department has supported the case of the petitioner by stating that he, after re-examination, has found that the selection committee did not award any mark to the petitioner regarding poster publication whereas some irregularities were found in the marks awarded to the respondent No. 5 regarding publication of research papers. He, therefore, submits that the selection of the respondent No. 5 is illegal and is liable to be quashed and in that event, the petitioner would be entitled to be selected for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry. 7. Per contra, Mr. N. Barua, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, strenuously defending the impugned selection, contends that the petitioner never submitted any certificate of presentation of paper in national/international level seminar/workshop along with her application and her claim for 2 marks in this behalf was rightly ignored by the Selection Board, and once she could not get 2 mark on this score, other things being equal, the respondent No. 5 certainly has an edge over her. He maintains that such certificate was also never produced before the Selection Board at the time of the interview as averred by the respondent No. 4 in his affidavit: the respondent No. 4 himself was one of the members of the Selection Board. Under such circumstances, argues the learned counsel, there is absolutely no infirmity in the selection proceedings of the Selection Committee recommending the respondent No. 5 for the post in question. He further submits that due to the interim order obtained by the petitioner on grounds which turned out to be without merit, the respondent No. 5 has not been given the appointment, which calls for dismissal of the writ petition without further delay. 8. The pleadings of the parties have been carefully examined by me. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The question to be considered in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to 2 marks for presentation of paper in national/international level seminar/workshop. The Director of Higher Education, Assam vide his letter dated 13-12-2011 circulated to all Principals of Colleges of Assam has issued fresh guidelines for marking for selection of Assistant Professor/Librarian as per the UGC guidelines, 2010, which is at Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The bone of contention here is with respect to distribution of marks with respect to Research Performance (20 marks), concerning presentation of papers in international/national Seminar, Workshop, etc. The total marks under this head are 5 marks with 2 marks each for each paper subject to maximum of 5 marks. The bone of contention here is with respect to distribution of marks with respect to Research Performance (20 marks), concerning presentation of papers in international/national Seminar, Workshop, etc. The total marks under this head are 5 marks with 2 marks each for each paper subject to maximum of 5 marks. It is stipulated therein that there shall be no marks only for attending Seminar, Workshop, etc. and that the Selection Committee may like to verify the Abstract volume to authenticate the presentation of paper. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner never submitted any supporting document to show that she had merely indicated in Annexure-1 to her application that she had attended the symposia/seminar, but under the said UGC guidelines, no marks could be awarded merely for attending seminars/workshops. Nor did she produce any documentary evidence to demonstrate that she had actually made presentation of paper. A copy of the application of the petitioner together with the application format and Annexure-I is annexed to the affidavit of the respondent No. 3 and 4, which runs into 11 pages. 9. On perusing the aforesaid set of documents, I find that there is considerable force in the contention of the respondent No. 3 and 4 that apart from indicating that she had attended symposia/conferences in various places, there is nothing to indicate that she had made presentation of papers in such symposia/conferences. Such indications with supporting documents are clearly implied inasmuch as one of the guidelines referred to earlier clearly stipulate that there shall be no marks merely for attending seminar/workshop, etc. No whisper of statement is also made by her in her writ petition as well as her reply affidavit that she submitted such supporting document along with her application. All that she said is that she produced a certificate of presentation of the paper entitled “Vo2F(dmp)2 catalyzed one step amination (?) of benzene and toluene with hydroxylamine” with publication at the time of interview. This statement is, however, stoutly denied by the respondent No. 3 & 4 in their affidavit. In fact, the respondent No. 4 asserts at paragraph 9 of the counter that “In spite of being member of the said Selection Committee, I have only recently come to know that the petitioner apparently presented a paper in a National Level Seminar and that too, only after perusing the copy of the writ petition served upon me. In fact, the respondent No. 4 asserts at paragraph 9 of the counter that “In spite of being member of the said Selection Committee, I have only recently come to know that the petitioner apparently presented a paper in a National Level Seminar and that too, only after perusing the copy of the writ petition served upon me. It is pertinent to note herein that the participation certificate enclosed by the petitioner with her writ petition (as Annexure-8 at page 28 of the petition), mentions that the occasion was the 12th Biennial Symposium on Modern Trends in Inorganic Chemistry, held at the Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, but is not explicit as to whether the seminar was national or international, or again whether it was a Poster or lecture.” 10. On the face of such denial by the respondent No. 3 and 4, it is not to hold that the petitioner had submitted any supporting document to show that she had made her presentation of paper along with her application or that she ever produced the certificate of presentation of the said paper. The requirement of the guidelines is that mere attendance in a seminar or workshop at the national or other level. If the petitioner claims that she made such presentation, then she has to prove it with a supporting document by enclosing it with her application. Mere statement will not do. Proof is required. This is a competitive recruitment process for the candidates and stipulates not only possession of the qualifications prescribed by the UGC guidelines but also requires a degree of care, alertness or absence of negligence by the candidate. The petitioner is expected to, and must, fill up her application and submit all the documents including supporting document wherever required, and if she is eventually disqualified for not submitting supporting documents which could be in her possession, she will have herself to blame. This is survival of the fittest. She might have been very good but there seems to be a candidate better than her. It is as simple as that. 11. At this stage, I cannot but express my disbelief in the shifting stand taken by the respondent No. 2 from time to time in this case. This is survival of the fittest. She might have been very good but there seems to be a candidate better than her. It is as simple as that. 11. At this stage, I cannot but express my disbelief in the shifting stand taken by the respondent No. 2 from time to time in this case. In his affidavit-in-opposition dated 5-2-2013, he made a statement that “accordingly 9 number of candidates appeared in the interview on 17-05-2012 and the Selection Committee after following the procedure of law and after proper scrutiny selected one Dr. Bhupen Kumar Baruah for the said post on the basis of merit”. However, in his letter dated 13-6-2015 quoted earlier, he states that “After perusal of the documents forwarded by the college authority for prior approval of the proposal for appointment as assistant Professor the department of Chemistry in the said college, it appears that that there are certain irregularities in awarding marks to the concerned candidates who appeared in the interview. It appears that the selection committee did not award any marks to Dr. Jayashree Nath for her performance regarding poster publication. Similarly, the marks awarded to Dr. Bhupen Kumar Baruah, though there are some irregularities regarding his publication of research papers.” It does not behove of a responsible officer like the respondent No. 2 to approbate and reprobate on a matter of importance to candidates seeking employment in a coveted post, which is hard to come by these days. Had these statements been made by him in the form of affidavit, I would have no hesitation to take up a suo motu proceeding against him for perjury. However, this much is for today. In any case, in the view that I have taken, the case of the petitioner cannot be improved by the unreliable statement made by the respondent No. 2 in his said letter dated 13-6-2015. 12. The offshoot of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. There shall be no order as to cost.