Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3 (MAN)

CHANDAM INGO SINGH v. MANIPUR UNIVERSITY

2017-01-19

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Jotibala Devi, learned counsel for the Manipur University. Also heard Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel for the U.G.C as well as Ms. Joan Kipgen, learned counsel for the Union respondent. 2. On 10.11.2016, this Court passed the following order:- "Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the Manipur University and Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the UGC. The issue involved in this writ petition is about eligibility of the petitioners who applied for the post of Assistant Professor (UR) in Hindi as advertised under advertisement No. 3/2013 dated 31.10.2014. The said 1 (one) post of Assistant Professor in Hindi has been mentioned to be for Applied Linguistic as stated in the information sheet issued by the Manipur University. In other words, the said lone post to be filled up in the grade of Assistant Professor is that of Applied Linguistics. Therefore, the issue involved is about the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi (Applied Linguistics). The case of the University respondent is that all the petitioners are not eligible which has been stated in para No. 3 of the additional affidavit filed on 30.08.2016. However, the document annexed at Annexure, B/4(Colly) at page No. 13 of the said affidavit states that all the petitioners are eligible. Therefore, there seems to be certain contradiction in what the University had stated in para No. 3 of the said additional affidavit to the documents annexed at Annexure, B/4 (colly) to the said affidavit. Therefore, the University authority is to clarify this apparent contradiction. Secondly, the essential qualifications for the advertised post as stated by Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel has been mentioned in the information sheet of the said advertisement dated 31.10.2014. As regards the post of Assistant Professor, the essential qualifications have been mentioned as follows : "ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (other than Dance, Engineering and Management) : 1. Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master ' Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent from an accredited foreign university. 2. Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master ' Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent from an accredited foreign university. 2. Besides, fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates must have cleared the eligibility test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clauses 1 & 2 above candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. 4. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. 5. A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and master's level for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Differently-abled (physically and visually differently-abled) categories for the purpose of eligibility and for assessing good academic record during direct recruitment to teaching positions. The eligibility marks of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) and the relaxation of 5% to the categories mentioned above are permissible, based on only the qualifying marks without including any grade mark procedures. 6. A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D. Degree holders, who have obtained their Master's Degree prior to 19 September, 1991." Clause (1) provides that a candidate must have a Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject or an equivalent degree from an Indian/Foreign university. Clause (2) deals with requirement of NET as essential qualification to be possessed by the candidates. Clause (3) deals with exemption of required minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for those candidates who had been awarded Ph.D. Degree. Clause (4) also deals with non-requirement of NET/SLET/SET for master programmes. Clause (5) provides the relaxation by 5% of the eligibility which the petitioner No. 3 who belongs to differently able category is claiming. Clause (3) deals with exemption of required minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for those candidates who had been awarded Ph.D. Degree. Clause (4) also deals with non-requirement of NET/SLET/SET for master programmes. Clause (5) provides the relaxation by 5% of the eligibility which the petitioner No. 3 who belongs to differently able category is claiming. As far as Clause (6) is concerned, these are not applicable to the petitioners. Therefore, the essential qualification which is material in this writ petition is about the Clause (1) which deals with good academic record with at least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level in relevant subject. All the petitioners claim to possess more than 55% marks in the Master Degree in the relevant subject, which the Manipur University denies they do. Therefore, the issue zeros to the expression "in the relevant subject". The case of the petitioners is that the "relevant subject" means subject of Hindi and all of them had undergone their Masters in Hindi and as such, they are eligible under the clause (1). On the other hand, the stand of the M.U. is that "relevant subject" means the "Applied Linguistics in Hindi" which the petitioners do not have. In view of the above, the University needs to clarify as to whether there is any subject of "Applied Linguistic in Hindi" at the Master Degree level. In other words, whether there is any subject for Applied Linguistics in Hindi at the Master level which the candidates must possess for being considered for the said advertised post. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the M.U. prays for some time to clarify this matter. Let him do so by way of filing an affidavit along with relevant UGC guidelines or any other decision of the competent authority. Let the matter be listed at 02:00 P.M. of 22.11.2016. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties." 3. Pursuant to that direction, the Manipur University filed an affidavit on 07.12.2016 stating that there is a subject of Applied Linguistics at Master Degree level for which the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi Department, Manipur University with specialization in Applied Linguistics was advertised as quoted herein below:- "5. Pursuant to that direction, the Manipur University filed an affidavit on 07.12.2016 stating that there is a subject of Applied Linguistics at Master Degree level for which the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi Department, Manipur University with specialization in Applied Linguistics was advertised as quoted herein below:- "5. That, in view of the above referred facts and circumstances, it is very clear and also clarify that there is a subject of "Applied Linguistic" at Master Degree level for which the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi Department, Manipur University with specialization in "Applied Linguistic" was made/advertised under Advertisement No.3/2014 dated 31.10.2014." 4. In the said affidavit, the University respondents had annexed a copy of the Information Sheet as Annexure-C/1 and also the relevant provision of the UGC regulation as regards the eligibility criteria laid down by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, which has been already quoted above in the order dated 10.11.2016 of this Court. The University also annexed certain documents marked as Annexure-C/4 to show that there is a subject called "Applied Linguistics" in Hindi at Master degree. After considering the said affidavit filed by the Manipur University on 07.12.2016 and since the said stand taken by the Manipur University was seriously contested by the petitioners, the following order came to be passed by this Court on 15.12.2016 to enable the Manipur University to clarify as to whether there is any Master Degree Course in Hindi with specialization in Applied Linguistics and if there be any such, furnish the supporting documents and syllabi for that particular course:- "Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Tapan Sharma, learned counsel for the Manipur University. Also heard Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel for the U.G.C. When this matter was taken up, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel for the Manipur University has referred to a document at Annexure-C/4 which contains a Syllabus in respect of Paper-3 of Linguistics and Hindi Language to substantiate the averments made in para No.5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 7.12.2016 that there is a subject of Applied Linguistics at Master Degree level in Hindi for which the post of Assistant Professor with specialization in Applied Linguistics in Hindi Department, Manipur University was advertised under Advertisement No.3/2014 dated 31.10.2014. This contention of the Manipur University has been seriously disputed by the counsel for the petitioners contending that what Annexure-C/4 provides is merely one of the papers in the syllabus of Hindi in Manipur University and hence, is merely a part of the syllabus of Hindi at the Master Degree level and as such, it cannot be said that there is a subject of Applied Linguistics in Hindi at the Master Degree level on the basis of the said document. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Applied Linguistics in Hindi being merely a part of the comprehensive syllabus for Hindi at Master level, it would not be proper to come to the conclusion that there is a subject of Applied Linguistics in Hindi at the Master Level as contended by the University. In this regard, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel submits that he would like to file an additional affidavit in order to clarify this position further, which he may do so. While filing the additional affidavit, the University authorities may also clarify as to whether there is any Master Degree Course in Hindi with specialization in Applied Linguistics, if there is such, what are the supporting documents and syllabuses for that particular course. Petitioners may also file additional affidavit, if so advised, to show that the petitioners had specialised in Applied Linguistics in Hindi at the Master level. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties. Let the matter be listed on 19.01.2017." 5. In terms of the aforesaid order, the Manipur University filed another affidavit on 19.01.2017 in which it has been stated by the Manipur University that due to bona fide mistake, it has been mentioned in the earlier affidavit filed on 07.12.2016 at para No.5 that there is a subject of 'Applied Linguistics' at Master Degree level. It was also clarified that instead, it should have been mentioned as "there is a course at Post M.A. Diploma in Applied Linguistics in Hindi" on the basis of which stand, it was stated by the Manipur University authority that only Hindi Paper No.3 which was annexed as Annexure-C/4 to the Affidavit of the University filed on 07.12.2016 can be taught by an expert who is well equipped in the concerned subject and not by a general Hindi teacher. It has been further stated in the said affidavit that except for the petitioner No.3, none of the four candidates who had applied, were eligible for the said post. The said para No.5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 19.01.2017 by the Manipur University reads as follows:- "5. That, I beg to submit that, in my Affidavit filed on 7-12- 2016 at para No. 5 I have made a bona fide mistake by mentioning that "there is a subject of 'Applied Linguistics' at Master Degree Level", instead it should have been mentioned as "there is a course at Post M.A. Diploma in Applied Linguistics in Hindi". It was not intentional but a bona fide mistake. Therefore, Hindi Paper No.3 (Annexure-C/4 to the Affidavit of the respondent No.1) can be taught by an expert who is well equipped with the concern subject and not by a general Hindi teacher." 6. Thus, from the stand taken by the Manipur University in their affidavits, what emerges is that; (i) The advertisement dated 31.10.2014 had mentioned one post of Assistant Professor in Hindi under unreserved category, which is for Applied Linguistics. (ii) According to the University authorities, though there is no subject of Applied Linguistics in Hindi at the Master level, there is a course of Post M.A. Diploma in Applied Linguistics in Hindi (iii) According to the University authorities, none of the petitioners is eligible for the said post and the one who is eligible, is not before this Court. Accordingly, it is the stand of the Manipur University that since the petitioners do not possess the qualifications as required, their non-consideration for appointment to the said post of Assistant Professor in Hindi with Applied Linguistics cannot be said to be illegal. 7. The petitioners have contested this claim of the University respondent. The petitioners contend that what had been advertised was the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi with specialization in Applied Linguistics and all the petitioners, had undergone the subject of Applied Linguistics in course of completing their Master degree and Ph.D. and there is no separate course of Applied Linguistics in Hindi at the Master level. It has been further stated that the petitioner No.1 had completed his Ph.D course in Hindi which is in Applied Linguistics which has been also certified by the authorities. The remaining petitioner Nos. It has been further stated that the petitioner No.1 had completed his Ph.D course in Hindi which is in Applied Linguistics which has been also certified by the authorities. The remaining petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, had undertaken the subject in Applied Linguistics in Hindi at the Master level as part of the syllabi in Hindi at the Master level. 8. Mr. Rarry submits that the petitioner No.1 had completed his Ph.D. course in "Hindi Ayam Manipuri Sangya Padabandhong Ka Vyatirekee Adhyayan (A contrastive study in Hindi and Manipur noun phrases) on the basis of which, the degree of "Doctor of Philosophy" was awarded by the Manipur University in 2012, which has been certified to be a topic of Applied Linguistics by the Course in-charge, Department of Hindi, Manipur University as well as the Department of Linguistics, Manipur University. It has been submitted by Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 that since the petitioner No.1 had undergone academic studies in Applied Linguistics, as mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner No.1 is eligible for appointment to the said post. 9. Mr. Rarry submits that as far as the petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, they also possess this qualification of Applied Linguistics at the Master Degree in Hindi as they had studied this subject of Applied Linguistics while undergoing the Master Course in Hindi in Manipur University as part of the M.A. course in Hindi. In this connection, Mr. Rarry has drawn attention of this Court to the mark sheet of the petitioner No.2 issued by the Manipur University of the 1st Semester Examination of Master of Arts in Hindi. In the said mark sheet, the petitioner No.2 is shown to have successfully completed the course/subject of Bhasha-Vigyan Aur Hindi Bhasha or "HIN103" in which the petitioner No.2 obtained 66 marks out of 70 marks and she duly passed the same as evident from the mark sheet, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A/18. Similarly, in respect of the petitioner No.3, the petitioner No.3 also undergone this subject of Applied Linguistics in Hindi at Master level by securing 77 marks out of 100 marks in Paper II which consist of General Linguistics and History and Structure of Hindi Language as per the pre-revised syllabi as evident from the Annexure-A/17 enclosed to the additional affidavit. Thus, it is the case of Mr. Thus, it is the case of Mr. Rarry that all the petitioners have undergone this subject relating to Applied Linguistics in Hindi at Master degree and higher level as mentioned above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not eligible for the said advertised post. He submits that in fact, because of this reason, the Screening Committee constituted by the Manipur University vide order No.962 dated 09.12.2014 found them to be eligible in Applied Linguistics, which is evident from the document annexed as Annexure B/4 (Colly.) by the University Authorities themselves in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 30.8.2016 which contains the assessment of academic records of the applicants including the petitioners. In the said document, it has been clearly mentioned that all the petitioners are eligible as recorded in handwritten on the right portion of the column. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel has clarified that however, after cross-checking, they were not found eligible as mentioned in para No.4 of their affidavit filed on 07.12.2016. In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned in para No.4 that as per office order dated 13.5.2015 issued by the Registrar, Manipur University, a Committee was constituted for screening the applications submitted by the candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in the Hindi with specialisation in "Applied Linguistic" vide the Advertisement No.3/2014 dated 31.10.2014. The Committee submitted its report by indicating that 4(four) candidates were found eligible for the said post. However, when crosschecking was conducted by the University authority later, it was revealed that out of the four candidates, only one candidate whose name appeared at Sl. No.4, who is not a party in this petition, was found eligible as she possessed the qualification of Applied Linguistics. Therefore, the interview was not called and the matter was put up before the Deans of Students of Manipur University, which in their meeting held on 19.02.2016 unanimously resolved to re-advertise the said post. In support of the aforesaid contention of the Manipur University that only one candidate was found eligible, the Manipur University has relied on a certificate issued by the Delhi University in favour of one Charu Goel stating that the said Charu Goel had been awarded the certificate for Advanced Diploma in Applied Linguistics after having passed the examination held in 2009. Thus, according to the Manipur University, only the said candidate who had passed Advanced Diploma in Applied Linguistics was found to be eligible and none of the petitioners had the said certificate or any other certificate to show that they had completed the course of Applied Linguistics. 10. Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioners has objected to this stand of the Manipur University by stating that the said Diploma Certificate, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-B/5, does not show that the Advanced Diploma in Applied Linguistics was in Hindi subject as it could have been in any other Language or Discipline and therefore, in absence of any certificate or document to show that the said Charu Goel had passed the Advanced Diploma in Applied Linguistic in Hindi, it cannot be said that she is eligible for the said post. 11. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioners is that even if said Charu Goel is eligible, they are also eligible as they had undergone/studied Applied Linguistic in Hindi as part of their course in Master level in respect of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and in respect of the petitioner No.1, he had completed his Ph.D. course in Hindi in the subject of Applied Linguistics apart from publishing journals and articles in Applied Linguistics in Hindi. 12. Mr. Bimol, learned counsel for the UGC submits that as to whether the petitioners are eligible or not, it has be decided by the competent authority of the Manipur University in which exercise, UGC is not involved and further submits that the candidates must fulfil the qualifications as provided in the UGC Regulations and any other qualifications as may be prescribed by the University for applying for the said post. 13. Heard also Ms. Joan Kipgen, learned counsel for the Union of India who submits in similar lines as Mr. A. Bimol, contending that the candidates must possess the qualifications as prescribed under the rules and it is for the competent authority of the University to decide the same. 14. From the above, what transpires is that the issue involved in this petition is whether the petitioners fulfil the essential qualifications and are eligible for the said advertised post which the petitioners contend they are and the respondents insist they are not. 14. From the above, what transpires is that the issue involved in this petition is whether the petitioners fulfil the essential qualifications and are eligible for the said advertised post which the petitioners contend they are and the respondents insist they are not. As to whether a candidate is eligible or not is normally to be decided by the expert academic body. In this case, though no official notification was issued rejecting the candidature of the petitioners, they subsequently came to know that their candidatures were not accepted as evident from the office note dated 20.11.2015 issued by the then Vice Chancellor, a copy of which is annexed has been Annexure-A/16 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners. The said office note reads as follows:- "The recommendation of the screening committee in respect of Hindi (Associate Professor and Assistant Professor) has been examined. As per the RRs given in the Advertisement No.2/2013 dated 30.11.2013 and No.3/2014 dated 31.10.2014, many of the shortlisted candidates are not in conformity with the specializations. For the teaching posts of Political Science, History, Japanese/Korean, the advertisement was done a long time back. The matter may be discussed in the meeting of the Deans' Committee." 15. Perusal of the said office note indicates that the recommendation of the screening committee that the petitioners are eligible was not accepted and accordingly, they were not shortlisted on the ground that their candidature were not in conformity with the specializations and the Vice Chancellor accordingly directed the Registrar to put up the matter before the Deans' Committee for discussion. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the matter was duly considered by the Deans' Committee in their meeting held on 19.02.2016 and it unanimously resolved to re-advertise the said post. A copy of the said resolution of the Deans' Committee has been annexed as Annexure-C/3 to the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 on 07.12.2016. The relevant portions of the resolutions are reproduced herein below:- "4. Advertisement of faculty positions. The meeting discussed the recommendation of revised criteria for screening for the post of Assistant Professor vide Dean's Committee meeting held on 17.11.2015 and pointed out the need for re-advertisement of the posts which were advertised earlier. The meeting also discussed the advertisement of posts sanctioned for the new departments (Law and Fine Arts) as well as Teacher Education. Resolution 4. The meeting also discussed the advertisement of posts sanctioned for the new departments (Law and Fine Arts) as well as Teacher Education. Resolution 4. Resolved to advertise the sanctioned posts for Law, Fine Arts and Teacher education as under:- Department of Law : **** **** Department of Fine Arts: **** **** Department of Teacher Education: **** **** Resolution 5. In consequence of the re-definition of "Good Academic Record" vide Resolution No.3, Academic Council meeting dated 24- 04-2014 the Committee resolved to re-advertise the posts of Assistant Professors in Japanese, Political Science, History and Hindi which were advertised earlier. However, those who had applied for the said posts may update their Bio-Data or apply afresh." Perusal of the said resolutions do not indicate the reasons as to how candidature of the petitioners were found not acceptable contrary to the earlier recommendation of the Screening Committee. 16. As mentioned above, the core issue to be decided is whether the petitioners possess the qualification of Applied Linguistics in Hindi at Master level so as to be eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi (Applied Linguistics). Normally, Court does not sit upon as a Court of Appeal on the decisions arrived at by the expert/academic body in the matter of determination of qualifications or selection. However, there is no complete embargo on the Court in interfering if the Court finds that such a decision has not been arrived at properly or has been arrived at irrationally and arbitrarily or in violation of the rules or malafide. In other words, though the scope of the Court to interfere in such academic matters is limited, yet it can interfere when a case has been made out where such decision of the expert body is found to be irrational or arbitrary or malafide or against the rules. Keeping the said principle in mind, it has to be examined in this case as to whether the decision of the Manipur University authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners and the subsequent cancellation of the advertisement is valid or not. 17. In the present case, what is evident from the records is that the petitioners were initially found to have been eligible by a Screening Committee set up by the University authorities as evident from the document annexed as Annexure-B/4 (Colly.) filed by the University authorities themselves. 17. In the present case, what is evident from the records is that the petitioners were initially found to have been eligible by a Screening Committee set up by the University authorities as evident from the document annexed as Annexure-B/4 (Colly.) filed by the University authorities themselves. In other words, at the time of initial process of the application of the petitioners by the Screening Committee, they were found to be eligible by the University Authorities, though the authorities have clarified that on subsequent crosschecking, they were ultimately not found qualified. In other words, there is one set of academic experts who had found the petitioners to be eligible. It is the case of the petitioners that such finding at the initial stage of the recruitment process that the petitioners are eligible cannot be faulted with inasmuch as all the petitioners had undergone academic studies in Applied Linguistics in Hindi at Master and higher level. As regards the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, they had studied this subject as part of their Master course in Hindi and as far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, he had undergone this subject as part of his Ph.D. course. Therefore, if the University authority initially found that the petitioners are eligible, unless there are proper reasons or adequate materials to take a contrary decision, the petitioners should have been declared to be eligible. 18. In that context, this Court examined the records produced by the University authorities, more particularly, with reference to the decision of the Deans' Committee which ultimately, found that the petitioners were not eligible. However, on perusal of the Deans' Committee proceeding as reproduced earlier, it is not understood as to how the Deans' Committee took a contrary view that the petitioners are not eligible, as no reasons were assigned for taking such a contrary view. Though, it is true that the decision of the expert body or the Selection Committee need not be interfered merely on the ground that the reasons have not been assigned for their decision, it may be necessary in certain circumstances. In this particular case, in the facts and circumstances as above, this Court is of the view that it was necessary to have recorded reasons when the Deans' Committee or any other authority took a contrary view to the recommendation of another expert body, which found the petitioners to be eligible. In this particular case, in the facts and circumstances as above, this Court is of the view that it was necessary to have recorded reasons when the Deans' Committee or any other authority took a contrary view to the recommendation of another expert body, which found the petitioners to be eligible. In other words, in absence of any reason assigned by the subsequent expert body, which is contrary to the opinion of another expert body, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the opinion of the subsequent expert body is reasonable and not arbitrary. It is also not the case that the petitioners do not have any kind of experience in Applied Linguistics as they have produced relevant documents or certificates to that effect. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioners that they possess the necessary qualifications cannot be brushed aside lightly without adequate reasons, which this Court finds to be absent in the present case. However, this does not mean that this Court itself will undertake the exercise as to whether the petitioners are really eligible or not, which this Court feels that it should be left to the wisdom of the competent expert body. 19. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The decision of the Deans' Committee and the subsequent decision of Manipur University in seeking to re-advertise the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in Applied Linguistics by not accepting the candidatures of the petitioners are set aside with the direction to the University authorities to re-examine the eligibility of the candidatures of the petitioners afresh. However, it is also made clear that while examining the candidatures of the petitioners, when the expert body makes any decision, such decision must be supported by adequate reasons as to whether they are eligible or not. Accordingly, the authorities are directed to re-examine the candidatures of the petitioners afresh by assigning reasons within a period of one month from today. In the event the petitioners are found to be eligible by the expert body so constituted by the Manipur University as per rules for the said advertised post, the University authorities are directed to proceed with the recruitment process by considering all the eligible candidates in terms of the aforesaid advertisement dated 31.10.2014, and there will not be any need to re-advertise the same as was decided by the Deans' Committee. Since the authorities are of the view that the post advertised is required for maintaining proper academic standard of the University, the Manipur University authorities are expected to complete the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi in Applied Linguistics as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.