Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 255 (GAU)

Jayashree Nath(Dr. ) v. State of Assam

2016-04-01

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2015 passed in WP(C) 4066 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed. 2. Matter pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Chemistry at J.B. College, Jorhat. Challenging the selection made in favour of the respondent No. 5, it is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that the Selection Board had wrongly withheld award of 2 marks to the appellant under the head "Research Performance", more particularly in respect of sub-clause –(v) of the Guidelines governing the selection procedure. The said sub-clause –(v) pertains to award of marks in respect of "Presentation of papers in international/national Seminar, Workshop, etc." carrying 2 marks for each paper, subject to a maximum of 5 marks. The said sub-clause makes mention that there would not be any marks for attending seminar, workshop, etc. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that in the application seeking appointment she had clearly indicated the symposia/conferences attended and, therefore, she was legitimately entitled to 2 marks which had not been awarded to her. Taking it further, the appellant submits that 2 marks had been wrongly awarded to the respondent No. 5, inasmuch as, as against sub-clause (iv) and (v) of the 2 Guidelines regulating the selection procedure, marks had been awarded in respect of text book with ISBN number as well as for presentation of paper on the same work. The appellant contends that if the 2 marks had been awarded in her favour, she would have secured the 1st position in the selection, over and above the respondent no. 5. 3. In the writ proceedings the learned Single Judge noticed, having regard to the application made by the appellant and the UGC Guidelines, 2010 which had been circulated to all Principals of Colleges of Assam by the Director of Higher Education, Assam vide letter dated 13.12.2011, that award of required marks could not be on account of attending seminar, workshop, etc. It was noticed that the appellant in her application had only indicated her participation/attendance in symposia/conference in various places and there was nothing to indicate that she had made presentation of papers in such symposia/conferences. It was noticed that the appellant in her application had only indicated her participation/attendance in symposia/conference in various places and there was nothing to indicate that she had made presentation of papers in such symposia/conferences. Further, it was also noticed that even in the writ petition the appellant did not make mention of having submitted any supporting documents along with her application in support of fulfilment of the requirement under sub-clause –(v) of the Guidelines. All that had been produced is a Certificate of presentation of a poster/lecture entitled "VO? F (dmpf)? Catalysed One Step Amination of Benzene and Toluene with Hydroxylamine", which had been stoutly denied by the respondent nos. 3 & 4 in their affidavit. While rendering the judgment the learned Single Judge also expressed displeasure on the shifting stand of the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Director of Higher Education, Assam, short of taking-up a suo moto proceeding against the said official for perjury. 4. Per-contra, Mr. N. Baruah submits that the Certificate relied upon by the appellant to justify presentation of paper was not before the Selection Committee, inasmuch as, the application filed by the appellant along with her Bio-Data did not indicate presentation of poster as in the Certificate. This, according to Mr. Baruah, is an afterthought and has been brought on record for the very first time before this Court. The submission is that the appellant not having fulfilled the requirement under the aforesaid sub-clause –(v), as 3 such, no fault can be attributed to the selection process. In fact, the appellant was rightly not awarded marks under that category. 5. Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel representing respondent no. 5 refers to the application made by his client Dr. Bhupen Kumar Baruah to show that marks had been duly awarded to him in every category as deserving and to that end he had not only given the particulars of the research papers that he had presented in international and national seminars, but had also submitted supporting documents in respect of the same. The allegation of the appellant that marks had been wrongly awarded to him has been categorically denied. 6. We have heard the counsels for the parties. The allegation of the appellant that marks had been wrongly awarded to him has been categorically denied. 6. We have heard the counsels for the parties. We have also perused the entire materials on record and find that the appellant, apart from indicating that she had attended the symposia/conference in various places, no supporting documents had been furnished with regard to presentation of papers in such national/international symposia and conference. It also appears from the Guidelines that no marks are to be awarded merely for attending seminar/workshop etc. It may be a case where the appellant had materials to fulfil the requirement of sub-clause –(v) of the Guidelines, but it is another case whether the same was made available before the Selection Committee. There is nothing to show that the appellant had submitted the required materials to justify presentation of papers in national/international seminars/conferences. The Certificate of presentation of poster, where much emphasis has been laid, do not find mention in her application. 7. The learned Single Judge had correctly held that for the eventual disqualification of the appellant for not submitting the supporting documents which could be in her possession, she herself is to be blamed. No insinuation in that regard could be made against the Selection Committee. 8. The findings and decisions of the learned Single Judge, both in respect of the appellant as well as the respondent no. 2 are reproduced here under: "9. On perusing the aforesaid set of documents, I find that there is considerable force in the contention of the respondent 4 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 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. 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. I fact, the respondent No. 4 asserts at paragraph 9 of the counter that "[I]n 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 5 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. 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 "[a]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 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 6 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 behave 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." 9. We are in respectful agreement of the judgment and order dated 01.09.2015. In our endeavour to have a re-look into the matter, we have perused the entire materials on record and in our considered view this appeal do not merit consideration and is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly done. We are in respectful agreement of the judgment and order dated 01.09.2015. In our endeavour to have a re-look into the matter, we have perused the entire materials on record and in our considered view this appeal do not merit consideration and is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly done. The appellant cannot complain of non-award of 2 marks as she was not entitled to the same in the absence of any material before the Selection Committee justifying her fulfilment of the requirement under sub-clause (v) of the Guidelines. For the fact that the appellant has insisted to pursue this matter on a lost cause thereby causing valuable loss of time of the Court, the same warrants imposition of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- against the appellant. 10. In view of the above the appeal stands dismissed with cost as quantified above.