Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1648 (GAU)

Purabi Deka Bose v. Gauhati University

2018-11-27

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. P. Barman, learned standing counsel, Gauhati University and Mr. N. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. An advertisement was issued by the respondent Gauhati University, inter alia, inviting applications for one post of Assistant Professor in Biological Science with specialization in Molecular Virology/Molecular Immunology/Molecular Biology. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 participated in the selection process. As per the statement of marks prepared by the Selection Committee constituted by the Gauhati University for the post of Biological Science, the petitioner Dr. Purabi Deka Bose was given 15 marks in the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices, whereas the respondent No. 6 was given 20 marks. The total marks under the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices is stated to be 30% of the total marks and accordingly, it is understood that the total marks thereof was construed by the Selection Committee to be 30. The petitioner assails the grant of 20 marks to the respondent No. 6 as well as the 15 marks to her for the under the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices. 3. The respondent authorities had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein a clear stand was not taken as to why the petitioner was granted 15 marks and the respondent No. 6 was granted 20 marks under the aforesaid heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices. In the circumstances, by the orders dated 30.03.2016 and 22.05.2018, a detailed affidavit was required to be filed by the authorities in Gauhati University stating the break ups of marks awarded to the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 under the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices. Consequent thereof, the affidavit dated 08.06.2018 has been filed wherein in paragraph 4, it has been stated that the Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices is evaluated under four different sub-heads, namely: (i) Teaching Experience (Both PG and UG) (ii) Research Experience. (iii) Seminar/Conference attended (both in International & National) (iv) Research paper submitted in International/National and Regional/Local Seminar/Conference. 4. (iii) Seminar/Conference attended (both in International & National) (iv) Research paper submitted in International/National and Regional/Local Seminar/Conference. 4. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it has further been stated that the writ petitioner had a teaching experience of 13 months in the undergraduate level and 9 months in the post graduate level with a total teaching experience of 22 months, whereas on the other hand, the respondent No. 6 had a total teaching experience of 25 months in the under graduate level. It is further stated that as regards research experience the petitioner had 6 years 3 months experience whereas the respondent No. 6 had 3 years 6 months experience. In respect of number of seminar/conferences attended, the petitioner had attended 6 international and 9 national seminar/conferences, whereas the respondent No. 6 had attended 3 national seminar/conferences. In respect of presentation of research paper, it is stated that the petitioner had presented 1 international, 2 national and 1 local research papers respectively, whereas the respondent No. 6 had presented 3 international, 1 national and 2 local research papers respectively. 5. The aforesaid information provided in the affidavit depicts a clear situation that the selection committee had the relevant materials before it in respect of the individual performances of the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 6 as regards the 4 sub-heads to be evaluated under the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices. 6. But in the affidavit, it is further stated that although the petitioner had 22 months of teaching experience, the respondent No. 6 had 25 months of total teaching experience, the authorities were of the view that the Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices is completely subjective and the allotment of marks is as per the discretion of the statutory Selection Committee. The said stand of the Gauhati University authorities clearly shows that without making any objective assessment, the Selection Committee eventually adopted a subjective evaluation taking it to be their discretion to do so. 7. Objective assessment is made on actual factual information that are available on record whereas subjective assessment is made when specific information is not available and the authorities are required to take a call on the basis of subjectivity. 7. Objective assessment is made on actual factual information that are available on record whereas subjective assessment is made when specific information is not available and the authorities are required to take a call on the basis of subjectivity. When specific information is available, we see no reason as to why the Selection Committee should fall back to make a subjective assessment of the situation where an objective assessment could have been made on the basis of the materials available as indicated above. When adequate materials are available on record, where objective assessment is possible, it is for the authorities to make an objective assessment of the situation and only when adequate and appropriate materials are not available to make an objective assessment, the authorities can fall back upon the subjective assessment of the situation. In the present case, as already concluded as adequate materials were available to make an objective assessment between the two candidates we see no reason as to why the Selection Committee must exercise its discretion and make a subjective assessment as regards the two candidates. 8. In view of the above, we are of the view that under the given circumstance, the authorities without there being any reason and in an arbitrary manner had fallen back upon the method of subjective assessment to make the relative evaluation of the candidates, which in our view would be a violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more so, when appropriate materials for objective evaluation are also available. 9. Accordingly, the selection made by the Selection Committee dated 25.09.2014 in respect of the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices is set aside in respect of the subject Biological Science. It is clarified that the assessment made by the Selection Committee in respect of other two heads are not interfered and the earlier assessment would prevail. In respect of the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices, the respondent University shall constitute a further Selection Committee which shall make a relative assessment of the candidates in respect of the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices and in doing so the relevant provisions as applicable shall be adhered to. 10. In respect of the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices, the respondent University shall constitute a further Selection Committee which shall make a relative assessment of the candidates in respect of the heading Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Practices and in doing so the relevant provisions as applicable shall be adhered to. 10. As the petitioner has also raised a question as regards the educational eligibility of the respondent No. 6 had during a part of teaching experience relied upon, the selection Committee shall also look into the said aspect while re-considering the matter. 11. The petitioner would be at liberty to make an application to the authorities in the Gauhati University specifically raising as to what educational qualification, the respondent No. 6 did not have and upon the said being pointed out the Selection Committee would consider the same. 12. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. As the appointment order dated 23.03.2015 was issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 based upon the earlier selection, we deem it appropriate that the said appointment order also stands interfered. 13. The authorities in the Gauhati University upon completing the selection procedure shall bring the process to a logical end. 14. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15. In view of the order passed today, the connected interlocutory application also stands closed.