Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 624 (ORI)

Raghunath Meher v. University Grants Commission

2016-08-10

A.K.RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. By this application Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the offer of appointment of opposite party no.4 in the post of Associate Professor in Oriya in Central University of Orissa. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the case of the petitioner is that the Registrar, Central University of Orissa, opposite party no.3, issued an advertisement, vide Annexure-1, in the local newspaper for filling up various teaching posts. In the advertisement, it was specifically stated that the selection shall be made as per the minimum qualifications and API score as per UGC norms. The petitioner, who was otherwise eligible, applied for the post of Associate Professor in Oriya. He has 30 years of experience as a faculty in Oriya at different Colleges and Universities. He is an eminent scholar. He has been awarded Ph.D in 1986. He is engaged in research work till date. Under his guidance, 12 scholars have been awarded Ph.D. On 8.11.2012, a call letter was issued to him to appear before the Selection Board on 10.12.2012 along with certain documents for verification. Apart from the petitioner, two other candidates including opposite party no.4 had been called for the interview. Since the result was not published, he engaged an advocate to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. While the matter stood thus, he came across news item published in the local newspaper that the opposite party no.4 has claimed that she has been selected in the interview. Opposite party no.4 has less experience and API score. She even does not possess minimum eligibility criteria. But then, she was selected. Alleging unfairness and prejudice, he made several representations. He obtained the copy of the appointment letter of the opposite party no.4, vide Anneuxre-5. It is further stated that after the recruitment process started, the selection process and procedure has been changed from time to time as per the whim and caprice of the opposite parties. The process of selection was not transparent. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the University Grants Commission, opposite party no.1. The process of selection was not transparent. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the University Grants Commission, opposite party no.1. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite party no.1 is that the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the UGC”) has been constituted under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Act was enacted to make provisions for coordination and determination of standards in the Universities. The Commission has been entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it thinks fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and determination and maintenance of standards of teaching. For the said purpose, the Commission has been vested with the power to recommend any University the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advice the Universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendation. Referring to various provisions of the Act, it is stated that the Commission has issued regulation prescribing the qualification for the post of teaching staff of a University and the institutions affiliated to it from time to time. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3. It is stated that the advertisement was issued for the post of Associate Professor in Oriya along with other vacancies. The post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The candidates, who had been called for the interview, belong to Scheduled Tribe community. Pursuant to the advertisement, four applications had been received. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The University constituted a committee for screening of the applications with Ex. Head of the Department (Oriya), Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar; Department of Oriya, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar and Department of Oriya, Berhampur University, Berhampur. The committee evaluated four applications and recommended the name of three candidates for the interview including the petitioner. Since one candidate did not possess the required criteria, he was not called for the interview. Three candidates had been called for the interview on 10.12.2012. The selection committee consisting of subject experts, representatives from the Ministry, UGC and EC Members evaluated the performance of the candidates basing on the performance in the interview, in addition to the educational qualification and experience. Three candidates had been called for the interview on 10.12.2012. The selection committee consisting of subject experts, representatives from the Ministry, UGC and EC Members evaluated the performance of the candidates basing on the performance in the interview, in addition to the educational qualification and experience. The rules and regulations stipulated by the UGC from time to time had been strictly adhered to. The selection process was completed on the day of the interview. Basing on the recommendation of the selection committee, the file was processed for the approval of the competent authority. The opposite party no.4 was selected in the interview. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued to her. During intervening period, the petitioner had made wild allegations. The information sought for by the petitioner under the RTI Act was supplied to him. It is further stated that the selection process is confidential. The University publishes the result of the entrance test as per the practice. The assertion of the petitioner that the selection process was revised to suit a particular candidate has been specifically denied. Opposite party no.4 was selected on merit. She has possessed the requisite qualification. No relaxation of qualification was given to any of the candidates including the selectee in the process of screening, selection and appointment. The assessment made by the petitioner to be more qualified and more suitable for the post is self-acclaimed. 5. Heard Mr.Aditya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party no.1, Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 and Mr. K.K. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4. 6. Mr.Aditya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has a brilliant academic record. He is a Ph.D holder. He has 30 years of experience as a faculty in Oriya in different Colleges and Universities in the State of Orissa. To his credit, the petitioner has various publications in the national level research paper. Under the guidance of the petitioner, 12 scholars have submitted their thesis. Four scholars are continuing their work. The petitioner did well in the interview. But then he was not selected. He further submitted that the opposite party no.4 did not have the minimum qualification for the post of Associate Professor in Oriya. But then she was selected. The process of selection has been changed after advertisement issued. Four scholars are continuing their work. The petitioner did well in the interview. But then he was not selected. He further submitted that the opposite party no.4 did not have the minimum qualification for the post of Associate Professor in Oriya. But then she was selected. The process of selection has been changed after advertisement issued. Referring to the comparative chart in para-15 of the writ application, he submitted that the opposite party no.4 did not have the minimum eligibility for the post. To buttress his submissions, he cited the decisions of the apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 and Bishnu Biswas and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 2014 SC 1570 . 7. Per contra Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party no.1, submitted that the UGC issued a regulation from time to time with regard to appointment of teaching staff. The same has to be strictly adhered to by the Central University. 8. Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3, submitted that the petitioner has made wild and reckless allegation against the University without any basis. He submitted that the University constituted a screening committee of three eminent professors of the State of Orissa for scrutinizing the applications of the candidates. The said committee evaluated four applications and recommended the University in respect of three candidates, i.e., petitioner, opposite party no.4 and one Dr. Nawa Hanshadh. Since one of the candidates did not have requisite qualification, he was not called for the interview. The selection committee consisting of subject experts, representatives from the Ministry, UGC and EC Members conducted the interview on 10.12.2012. There were seven members in the committee, out of which two were the Vice-Chancellor & Pro Chancellor of the University and three Professors of the subject. The visitors’ nominee is an eminent Oriya writer and Jnanpith awardee. Basing on the recommendation of the selection committee, the competent authority approved the selection of opposite party no.4 and accordingly, issued appointment letter to her. He emphatically submitted that the criteria of selection have not been changed. He cited the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, etc. etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc., AIR 1990 SC 434 and Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. He emphatically submitted that the criteria of selection have not been changed. He cited the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, etc. etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc., AIR 1990 SC 434 and Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 . 9. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others, AIR 2002 SC 224 , the apex Court held that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. The same view was reiterated in Bishnu Biswas (supra). 10. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the criteria of selection have been changed after the advertisement issued, but on an anatomy of the pleadings it is evident that the same is without any foundational facts. The specific stand of the University is that the criteria of selection have not been changed. The Rules and Regulation prescribed by the UGC had been strictly followed. Thus the submissions have no legs to stand. 11. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, the apex Court held that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection. In Basavaiah (supra), the apex Court held that courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. The decision in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 12. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the case of the petitioner may be examined. 13. The University constituted a three member committee with Ex. The decision in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 12. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the case of the petitioner may be examined. 13. The University constituted a three member committee with Ex. Head of the Department (Oriya), Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar; Department of Oriya, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar and Department of Oriya, Berhampur University, Berhampur for screening of the applications. After scrutinizing the four applications, the committee recommended the names of three candidates i.e. petitioner, opposite party no.4 and one Dr. Nawa Hanshadh. The selection committee had been constituted by the University consisting of subject experts, representatives from the Ministry, UGC and EC Members. The minutes of the selection committee, vide Annexure C/2, shows that the selection committee consists of seven persons. The visitor’s nominee is an eminent Oriya writer and a Jnanpith awardee. The others are Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor, Former Professors of Oriya of different Universities of Orissa. The selection committee scrutinized the merits of the candidates and recommended the name of the opposite party no.4. Thereafter, the order of appointment was issued to the opposite party no.4. 14. There being no illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the selection committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection process, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection of opposite party no.4 for the post of Associate Professor in Oriya in Central University of Orissa. 15. In the ultimate analysis, the petition, sans any merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.