Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1849 (RAJ)

University Of Rajasthan v. Ujala Nyola

2019-07-01

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - This appeal has been preferred by appellant-University of Rajasthan against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 3.1.2019 by which the writ petition, filed by respondent-Dr. Ujala Nyola, has been allowed with direction to the appellants to re-assess her merit at the interview held on 10.10.2013, for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany), pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.11.2012 by adding thereto 0.38 (point thirty eight) marks on account of appropriate weightage for Secondary School Examination of 60% and further 1(one) mark for research performance on account of one research paper published in a recognised journal. It was further directed that on such re-assessment, if the petitioner falls in merit higher than those already appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany), she be given appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) in OBC-NCL category by creating a supernumerary post along with all notional benefits. Compliance of the judgement was ordered to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order before the appellant-university. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants issued an advertisement on 1.11.2012 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment against 294 posts of the Assistant Professor in different 42 subjects including 8 posts in the subject of Botany. The interviews were held on 10.10.2013. Appointments were made at the end of the year. The respondent-writ petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2694/2014 alleging irregularities committed by the Selection Committee in the selection process. It was alleged that candidates though mentioned publication of the research papers in the application form, but could not produce them before the Selection Committee on any day before the last date of application form, yet they were awarded marks therefor. Moreover, only 1.5 marks have been awarded to the respondentwrit petitioner for secondary school examination with 60%, whereas in the same process of selection pursuant to same advertisement, 1.86 marks were awarded to all those falling in the higher bracket of 60%-70%. The learned Single Judge of this Court by judgement dated 4.11.2015 disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the allegations made by the writ petitioner required a probe and therefore a Committee be constituted to examine them. The learned Single Judge of this Court by judgement dated 4.11.2015 disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the allegations made by the writ petitioner required a probe and therefore a Committee be constituted to examine them. Respondent-writ petitioner was required to make a detailed representation to the Vice Chancellor of the appellant-University within 15 days, duly supported by the documents and the Vice Chancellor of the University was required to constitute a Committee in his discretion. It was directed that the Committee shall be given a time limit, not exceeding three months, within which it would submit its report. The Vice Chancellor after receipt of the report would take an appropriate action to ensure fairness and transparency of the selection to meet the ends of justice. The required exercise would be completed within six months. Petitioner accordingly submitted a detailed representation on 23.11.2015. The Vice Chancellor accordingly constituted a Committee headed by Professor P.R. Sharma, the Dean Faculty of Science, which submitted its report on 27.01.2016. The Vice Chancellor, upon consideration of the report, finally by order dated 22.3.2016 rejected the representation primarily on two grounds; firstly that as per the report of the Committee 1.5 weightage had been given to all those candidates having 60% marks in the secondary school examination in the subject of Botany, therefore, no discrimination has been practised against the respondent and secondly that she did not submit her research papers along with the application upto the last date of submission of application form and mentioned "Nil" in her own hand writing in the relevant column of asking about research papers, in the application form. 3. We have heard Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Dr. Ujala Nyola, respondent-writ petitioner, who has appeared in person. 4. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel for the appellantuniversity has submitted that the respondent-writ petitioner has failed to show as to in what manner she is more meritorious than the other selected candidates in OBC category, who have already been appointed as Assistant Professor (Botany) in her place. The learned Single Judge has erred in law in not considering the fact that the respondent has knowingly mentioned "Nil" against clauses 25 and 26 meant for research papers/publication in her application form inasmuch as she did not attach any list of her published research papers along with application from. The learned Single Judge has erred in law in not considering the fact that the respondent has knowingly mentioned "Nil" against clauses 25 and 26 meant for research papers/publication in her application form inasmuch as she did not attach any list of her published research papers along with application from. It is also admitted that she did not even try to get her research paper(s), if any, attached to her application form before the last date of submitting complete application form, for consideration by the selection committee. It is only during course of arguments that she stated that though she got her research paper published in 2009 but she did not mention or attach any of her alleged research paper(s) along with application form as she was not having their copies at that time. But this was not alleged by her even in the representation as well as in the writ petition The respondent cannot be now permitted to set up a new case against her own admitted statement and blame appellant-university for any discrimination or wrong doing. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider that there was no explanation on record by the respondent as to why 'NIL' was mentioned by her at 8 places in clauses 25 and 26 against the column for 'research publication' in the application form filled in by her with her own handwriting. Even if copies of research papers were not submitted, list and details thereof should have been mentioned in the application form. It is submitted that the other candidates, who participated in the selection process, have been given marks according to the papers/documents, if they had any, mentioned against the column nos.25 and 26 of the application form. It was therefore not at all a case of discrimination. 5. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel for appellants has further argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that any document produced after the last date of submitting complete application form cannot be considered in favour of any candidate applying for the said post. The respondent has allegedly submitted her three research paper(s) at the time of interview before the selection committee i.e. on October, 2013, to the verification team. The respondent has allegedly submitted her three research paper(s) at the time of interview before the selection committee i.e. on October, 2013, to the verification team. If the respondent is permitted to do so, the other candidates appearing in the same process of selection would also be entitled to the same treatment and allowing such a facility to the respondent would be discriminatory against other competing candidates. The learned Single Judge has erred in observing that as per advertisement dated 1.11.2012 application form was necessarily not required to be accompanied by supporting documents on which evaluation of merit could be done as it was not mandatory to submit all the documents along with application form. And if any document existed prior to date of application and could not be submitted along with the application but was submitted upto the time of interview, it ought to have been considered and therefore she is entitled to 1 (one) mark for one research publication. The learned Single Judge in making this observation overlooked the note given with the clause 25, which required that (a) detailed statement for sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 25 to be submitted and (b) to produce two reprints of each paper, if any, as far as possible, to be attached. It is also argued that the research paper on the basis of which the respondent-writ petitioner claimed one mark was not her actual research paper, but was jointly submitted by her along with her Guide Prof. K.C. Sharma, Department of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. She cannot therefore claim having exclusive credit for this research work. The research paper ought to be individually for the personal credit of the candidate and not in joint name. 6. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel argued that the learned Single Judge has wrongly considered that as per respondent's submission, she presented her research publication(s) to the verification team which considered her one (1), out of her three (3) research papers and allegedly awarded her one (1) mark for it, whereas, in fact, the verification team was formed only to assist the selection committee for verifying and tallying the documents submitted by the candidates with the documents mentioned by them in their application forms. The verification team was not authorized to accept, judge and award marks(s) to the candidates on the basis of any freshly submitted document including research paper, of which no mention was made in the application form. It is submitted that there are two markings regarding Research papers/publication on the original application form of the petitioner. One note says 'RP Nil' and other says 1RP'. Firstly, the second note put by the verification team was without jurisdiction and even otherwise, the verification team was formed only to verify the documents mentioned in the application forms of the candidate. Any marking done by verification team should have been conformed to the contents of the form i.e. what has been mentioned in the application form. 7. Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied on the judgement passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Dr. Swati Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18191/2013 and other connected petitions dated 14.11.2013 on the question of award of 1.88 as per higher bracket (60%-70%) instead of 1.50 as per lower bracket (50%-60%) for securing 60% marks in secondary school exam. In doing so, the learned Single Judge has overlooked the observations made by this Court while deciding the writ petition filed by Dr. Swati Sharma that any candidate securing equal to 60% should have been awarded equal marks as per higher bracket but in the present case also awarding equal award of 1.5 marks, albeit as per lower bracket, was not discriminatory as it did not cause any prejudice to any of the candidates. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the factual situation that for 5 subjects, including that of botany, for which respondent applied under OBC category, interviews and selections were already over when the aforesaid observations were in the judgement of Dr. Swati Sharma delivered by this Court. Therefore, all the candidates having marks in the overlapping brackets had been awarded marks as per lower bracket. Swati Sharma delivered by this Court. Therefore, all the candidates having marks in the overlapping brackets had been awarded marks as per lower bracket. This is the reason, why respondent was awarded 1.50 marks in lower bracket of 50%-60% instead of 1.88 marks in higher bracket of 60%-70% as per Table II(a) of Appendix III of Ordinance 141E of the University Ordinance, which was supported by the example of one Indu Shankhala (at S.No.18), who appeared in interview along with writ petitioner and was awarded 1.50 marks in the lower bracket for securing 60% marks in secondary examination. There was no discrimination, in any way, with the respondent-writ petitioner in awarding 1.50 marks as per the lower bracket since all the candidates were awarded identical marks. Learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the respondent was called for the interview only on the basis of her total marks under the head 'academic performance'. She raised no objection at that time for awarding her 1.50 in the lower bracket of Table II(a) of Appendix 3. She approached this Court only when she failed to secure appointment as Assistant Professor Botany (OBC category) for the reason of not having figured in the main merit of 8 candidates and secured placement in wait list at S.No.2. She did not raise any objection of discrimination at that time and has now raised this argument by way of afterthought. She is estopped from doing so at this stage as she has participated in the process of selection without any murmur. 8. It is argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in directing that appointment be given to the respondent on the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) pursuant to advertisement dated 1.11.2012, but if that is done by implementing the impugned judgement, her score would be much higher than three selected candidates and she would be placed above three selected candidates at Serial nos.6 to 8, who were appointed and are working as Assistant Professor, Botany for last five years. They have vested right to continue and cannot be pushed down in merit or removed without giving them opportunity of hearing as doing so would be against the principles of natural justice. They have vested right to continue and cannot be pushed down in merit or removed without giving them opportunity of hearing as doing so would be against the principles of natural justice. Even though the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that all those eight (8) candidates, who have been appointed against sanctioned posts are already working for more than 5 years and cannot be removed for the reason of equity, but in order to overcome this difficulty, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant university to give appointment to the respondent by creating 'supernumerary' (extra) post with all notional benefits, which is wholly illegal. As per advertisement dated 1.11.2012, the number of posts of Assistant Professors of Botany under OBC category was fixed and cannot be increased or decreased without prior sanction and approval of the State Government and that too without public notice inviting applications for the same. The State Government was not even made party to writ petition. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no such direction could be given. 9. Learned senior counsel has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in T. Jayakumar vs. Gopu & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 403 , especially the observations made in para 10 and 11 of the report, to argue that it has been held by the Supreme Court that no document can be accepted after the last date of submission of application form. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Mrs. Parul Gupta vs. University of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18844/2013 dated 20.02.2014, wherein it has been held that any document submitted after the last date cannot be legally accepted. The aforesaid judgement was upheld by division bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.721/2014 decided on 24.11.2015. It is argued that the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 754 , relied by learned Single Judge is distinguishable on facts because in that case even the OBC certificate was issued by the competent authority after the last date. It is argued that the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 754 , relied by learned Single Judge is distinguishable on facts because in that case even the OBC certificate was issued by the competent authority after the last date. This was not the case where the document was not submitted with the application form although it was available with appellant therein, whereas in the present case, the respondent-writ petitioner even failed to mention the details about the research papers in the application form, let alone submitting copy thereof therewith. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the judgement of the Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria & Ors. vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 752 relied by the learned Single Judge is also distinguishable on facts because therein the copy of the degree was provided to the petitioner with delay by the competent authority and it was not in power and possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman & Ors., (2005) 9 SCC 779 relied by the learned Single Judge is also distinguishable on facts because as per the facts of that case, the competent authority had issued an incorrect certificate earlier to the petitioner and later on issued correct certificate, which he submitted at the time of counselling for admission. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgement be set aside. 10. Per contra, Dr. Ujala Nyola, the respondent, who chose to appear in person, has disputed the contentions of the appellantuniversity that the last date of submission of the application form was 15.2.2013. She submitted that the last date of submission of application form was 01.11.2012, which was extended upto 31.01.2013. A notice to that effect was issued by the Offg. Registrar on 31.12.2012 and was also simultaneously displayed on the website of the university. It is submitted that the notification dated 31.12.2012 categorically provided that those who have already applied can furnish the additional documents, if necessary. The respondent-writ petitioner submitted her research paper on 30.1.2012. It is submitted that the reference to the research paper has been given by the writ petitioner in para 17 of the writ petition. It is submitted that the notification dated 31.12.2012 categorically provided that those who have already applied can furnish the additional documents, if necessary. The respondent-writ petitioner submitted her research paper on 30.1.2012. It is submitted that the reference to the research paper has been given by the writ petitioner in para 17 of the writ petition. As per the prevalent practice, even though the research may be conducted by the student, but the paper has to be published in the name of the Researcher along with the name of the Guide. Petitioner had made reference to the list of reputed Journals approved by the academic counsel as per the requirement of Clause 7 of the Ordinance 141-B-1 enclosed with the letter dated 10.5.2012 circulated to all the Heads of the Universities and attached Departments in which name of Journal of Phytological Research, in which the research paper of the petitioner was published, was mentioned at S.No.139. Respondent submitted that even if she has mentioned 'Nil' in sub-clause (1) of column 25 of the application, this would not affect her because since she claimed benefit of only one research paper and the research papers were not multiple in number, mentioning of 'Nil' would suffice the purpose. 11. Respondent relying on the division bench judgement of this court in Dr. Rashmy Nair & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20344/2013 and connected petitions dated 7.8.2014, submitted that it has been held therein that final evaluation of the Research Performance can be made only by the Selection Committee when the candidate appears for interview and that it cannot be examined on a straight jacket formula while evaluating Research Performance of the individual. In the present case, the appellant-university has already in advance evaluated the research paper and awarded the marks to the candidates and in most of the cases, undeservingly. Many candidates have been awarded marks for research papers even though they did not have any published paper to their credit and their research papers were not verified. 12. The respondent also argued that despite interim direction in earlier writ petition of the writ petitioner dated 5.10.2015 to the respondent-university to bring the original record of eight candidates named in the application filed by the respondent-writ petitioner, the respondent-university failed to produce the record. Therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the appellant-university. 12. The respondent also argued that despite interim direction in earlier writ petition of the writ petitioner dated 5.10.2015 to the respondent-university to bring the original record of eight candidates named in the application filed by the respondent-writ petitioner, the respondent-university failed to produce the record. Therefore, an adverse inference should be drawn against the appellant-university. In fact, on one date, this Court imposed a cost of Rs.20,000 on the respondent-university. Respondent argued that she submitted a detailed representation, but the Expert Committee, has failed to consider most of her arguments. 13. The respondent further submitted that Selection Committee has made a lot of mistakes in preparation of the merit list of the candidates by awarding the marks to them. She has given the example of one Mukesh Kumar Meghwanshi, whose case was examined by the Committee constituted on her representation by the Vice-Chancellor of the appellant-university. The Committee admitted that despite 20 marks earmarked for research performance, Mukesh was awarded 31 marks due to typographical mistake in the column of research performance. Since this candidate was absent in the interview, he was not selected by the Selection Committee. 14. Respondent cited the Single Bench judgement of this Court in Dr. Swati Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18191/2013 and other connected petitions dated 14.11.2013 and submitted that a categorical stand was taken by the appellant-university pertaining to the same process of selection pursuant to the same advertisement on the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor. In that case, if a candidate secured 60 per cent marks, he/she was entitled to 1.88 marks by applying bracket of 60% to 70% to all such candidates, thus not causing any discrimination or disadvantage to anyone. The university could not take a contrary stand now in the case of the respondent-writ petitioner as it has in that matter taken an interpretation favourable to the candidate by granting them marks in higher bracket. 15. It is argued that the respondent has all along been contesting the matter and therefore even if she has not impleaded selected candidates as party, that would not be fatal for her case as she could not be made to suffer for the fault of the appellantuniversity. 15. It is argued that the respondent has all along been contesting the matter and therefore even if she has not impleaded selected candidates as party, that would not be fatal for her case as she could not be made to suffer for the fault of the appellantuniversity. Thus, the direction of learned Single Judge to appoint the respondent by adding thereto 0.38 marks on account of appropriate weightage for Secondary School Examination of 60% and further 1 mark for research performance on account of one research paper and then by creating a supernumerary post is perfectly just, equitable and reasonable in the facts of the case. No interference be therefore called for and the appeal of the appellant-university be dismissed. 16. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 17. In so far as the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the issue of giving 1.88 and not 1.50 marks to the respondent for having secured 60% marks in the secondary school examination is concerned, though the case of the appellant was that the candidates were treated similarly in so far as the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) is concerned and none with 60% marks in the secondary school examination was given weightage of 1.88 in terms of the Table II (a) of Appendix III of Ordinance 141E of the University Ordinance and everyone was given 1.50 marks for lower bracket of 50%- 60% marks, but the appellants are not in a position to dispute that Syndicate of the University, following the observations in Dr. Swati Sharma, supra has allowed the weightage provided in higher bracket of 60%-70% i.e. 1.88, to the candidates where the obtained percentage overlapped two brackets of 50%-60% and 60%-70%. The division bench of this Court in Dr. Rashmy Nair & Ors., supra has upheld that interpretation of Single Bench in Dr.Swati Sharma, supra. We do not find any infirmity in so far as the view taken by the learned Single Judge on that aspect is concerned. 18. The division bench of this Court in Dr. Rashmy Nair & Ors., supra has upheld that interpretation of Single Bench in Dr.Swati Sharma, supra. We do not find any infirmity in so far as the view taken by the learned Single Judge on that aspect is concerned. 18. Coming now to the issue of award of 1 mark for one research paper to the respondent-writ petitioner, we find on perusal of the original application form of the respondent-writ petitioner that in column no.25(1) of the application form regarding "Research Activities", wherein query was as to the "No. of papers published before taking doctorate degree", she clearly indicated "Nil". Her argument is that since she was claiming benefit of only one research paper and since "No. of papers" signifies plural, she was not required to indicate "1" in that column. In column 25(1)(a) where the query was with regard to "Papers published in Foreign Journals with names (list to be attached)", she indicated "Nil" and in column no.25(1)(b) where the query was "Papers published in Indian Journals with names (list to be attached)", she again mentioned "Nil". Then thereafter in column no.25(2), in answer to a query as to "No. of papers published after taking the doctorate degree", she mentioned "Nil". And again when she was asked in column no.25(2)(a) about "Papers published in Foreign Journals with names (list to be attached)", she indicated "Nil". What is more, in column no.25(2)(b), where the query was "Papers published in Indian Journals with names (list to be attached)", she again mentioned "Nil". It is thereafter there is a Note, of which reference has been found in the order of learned Single Judge, which reads as under: "Notes"- (a) Detailed statement for Nos.(1) & (2) above be submitted. (b) Two Reprints of each paper, if any, as far as possible to be attached." 19. The learned Single Judge has taken a view that since clause (b), supra of the note, required the candidate that "two reprints of each paper, if any, as far as possible to be attached", the stipulation therein was directory and not mandatory in nature. Therefore, even if no paper was attached, it would not make her application defective. The learned Single Judge has taken a view that since clause (b), supra of the note, required the candidate that "two reprints of each paper, if any, as far as possible to be attached", the stipulation therein was directory and not mandatory in nature. Therefore, even if no paper was attached, it would not make her application defective. But then, this has to be viewed in the light of consistent stand of the respondent-writ petitioner in the declaration made by her in response to different queries about the "Research Activities" as "Nil". Even if she did not attach the copy of any research paper, she was expected to make a mention of such research paper in her application form, to be considered for marking. This becomes significant because all other candidates claiming marks on the basis of research paper/s, did mention about their research paper and accordingly were awarded weightage therefor. The appellant-university in this connection has produced on record the application form of one of the selected candidates namely; Chandra Singh Pal (Annexure-R/4 at page 14- 18) wherein he has mentioned "2" in column 25 provided for research papers and was awarded "2" marks under the head of "research performance". How possibly then respondent-writ petitioner can allege discrimination with her by the appellant? The indication on the application form that 1 mark was awarded to her for research paper, has therefore to be viewed in the totality of circumstances because in the original application form, it is first mentioned in the red ink as "RP/NIL" and thereafter again another marking is made, also in red ink as "1 RP". This as per the respondent has been done not by the Selection Committee, but by subsequent to marking, originally made. According to the appellant-university, verification team could not judge her research paper and award one mark on the first page of her application form. There appears to be therefore multiple marking, but earlier one appears to have been made on the basis of actual entries made by the respondent in column no.25 of the application form. Moreover, according to the appellant-university, the task of the verification team was only to verify the documents submitted by the candidates in consonance with those mentioned in the application form originally submitted by him/her and it did not have any competence to award any mark for the research paper. Moreover, according to the appellant-university, the task of the verification team was only to verify the documents submitted by the candidates in consonance with those mentioned in the application form originally submitted by him/her and it did not have any competence to award any mark for the research paper. The allegation of the respondent was examined by a Committee constituted on her representation pursuant to the direction of this Court. The Committee on this aspect of the matter has found that respondent did not disclose her three research papers in the application form upto the last date of submission thereof. She claimed that she submitted such three research papers at the time of interview on 10.10.2013, which was not accepted, but in column no.25 and 26 pertaining to "Research Activities" and "Other Publication's" respectively, she clearly mentioned in her own handwriting in answer to all the queries as "Nil". The allegation of the respondent-writ petitioner that one Dr. Anivash Tripathi was given 12 marks for 7 research papers was also not found correct by the Committee. As per the record, he submitted 6 research papers along with 6 magazines articles. The Selection Committee awarded him only 6 marks for Research Performance and yet he was not selected. 20. The original record of the Selection Committee has been produced for perusal of the Court by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-university. The proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting held on 10th and 11th October, 2013 for the post of Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Botany read as under: "Total number of candidates called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany, from OBC category was 72. In all 53 candidates were interviewed during the period under reference. The Selection Committee examined the academic record, including their research output and also conducted a detailed interview of each candidate to assess their academic domain, knowledge and professional competence including their overall performance, aptitude and commitment to the cause of teaching. This was done in respect of each candidate who appeared for interview. The members of the Selection Committee awarded the marks earned by each candidate in all prescribed parameters. The total marks of the candidate (summing up of the marks in all these parameters) were recorded on the assessment statement sheet against the name of each interviewed candidate under the signature of all the members. The members of the Selection Committee awarded the marks earned by each candidate in all prescribed parameters. The total marks of the candidate (summing up of the marks in all these parameters) were recorded on the assessment statement sheet against the name of each interviewed candidate under the signature of all the members. Taking into account of the marks obtained by each candidate, the final list of merit was drawn. The number of the existing vacancies being 08 in OBC category, the 08 recommended candidates, from OBC Category in order of the merit, as per the sheet allocated of the category are given below. The Selection Committee unanimously resolved to recommend the following for selection/appointment in order of merit. S.No.Name Father's/Husband's Name Date of Birth Category Marks 1. Mr. Chandra Pal Singh S/o Mr. Bharat Singh 20.03.1984 OBC 68.13 2. Mr. Navneet Singh S/o Mr. Latoori Singh Choudhary 25.06.1979 OBC 67.78 3.Ms. Indu Singh Sankhala D/o Mr. Jaipal Singh Sankhala 01.03.1982 OBC 67.60 4. Mr. Jai Singh S/o Mr. Sheokaran Singh Saini 05.05.1985 OBC 67.35 5.Mr. Man Mohan Arya S/o Mr. Harbhan Singh 21.01.1986 OBC 67.00 6.Praveen Soni S/o Mr. Ram Kishore Soni 15.10.1983 OBC 66.51 7.Ms. Priya D/o Mr. Hari Singh Dudi 01.10.1989 OBC 66.38 8.Mr. Prakash D/o Mr. Shandeep 16.08.1986 OBC 66.16" 21. The Selection Committee was consisting of Prof. A.H. Munshi, Professor, Department of Botany, University of Kashmir, Srinagar as Subject Expert with Prof. V.P. Singh, Professor, Department of Plant Science, MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (UP) as Subject Expert, Prof. B.M. Sharma as Chancellor's Nominee, Prof. D.S. Chauhan, Dean Faculty Science, University of Rajasthan as Member, Prof. K.P. Sharma, Head, Department of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur as Member and also Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan Dr. Dev Swarup, who Chaired the Selection Committee. We have gone through the memo of writ petition and not found any allegation of malafide or else against any of the Members of the Selection Committee. When the evaluation has been made by the experts in the subject forming part of the Selection Committee and no malafide has been alleged against any of them, there is no reason to find fault with their evaluation. The appellants in support of this contention has also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. When the evaluation has been made by the experts in the subject forming part of the Selection Committee and no malafide has been alleged against any of them, there is no reason to find fault with their evaluation. The appellants in support of this contention has also relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372 and division bench judgement of this Court in Kanhya Lal Sain vs. Registrar Examination, R.H.C., (2016) 2 RajLW 1370 (Raj.) . 22. Even though the respondent-writ petitioner has argued that when the appellant-university by notification dated 31.12.2012 extended the last date for submission of application upto 31.01.2013, it also notified that those who have already applied can furnish additional documents, therefore, the research paper submitted by her on 30.01.2012 was rightly considered by the Selection Committee for award of 1 (one) mark, but stand of the appellant-university is that such paper was submitted by the writ petitioner to the verification Committee on 10.10.2013 at the time of interview. On scrutiny of pleadings, we have found the stand of the university is more in sync with the record than that of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner in para 7 and ground B of memo of her earlier writ petition no.2694/2014 categorically pleaded that she handed over her three research papers at the reporting counter at 8.00 pm on 10.10.2013 when she went to appear for interview and authority available at the counter accepted only one of them. This very assertion was made by her in para 11 of her detailed representation filed as Annexure-2 to writ petition no.10075/2016, which has been allowed by the impugned judgement. Again in para 17 of memo of this writ petition, she reiterated the same stand. In none of these three, has the respondent-writ petitioner maintained that she submitted the research paper in question to the university authorities on 30.1.2012 as is now being sought to be argued by her. Nowhere has it been pleaded as to when three or at least one research paper, were/was submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner and if so, to which officer of the university, prior to extended last date of 31.1.2013, let alone producing receipt thereof. Obviously, the respondent-writ petitioner cannot be permitted to develop a new case now. 23. Nowhere has it been pleaded as to when three or at least one research paper, were/was submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner and if so, to which officer of the university, prior to extended last date of 31.1.2013, let alone producing receipt thereof. Obviously, the respondent-writ petitioner cannot be permitted to develop a new case now. 23. In the overall merit list for OBC category prepared by the Selection Committee, name of respondent-writ petitioner Dr. Ujala Nyola appeared at S.No.13 with 65.75 marks. If as per her claim, 1 (one) mark for the research paper and 0.38 marks for the difference in the marks allocated in the higher bracket of 50%- 60%, thus total 1.38 marks are added thereto, her total marks would become 67.13. Contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that since name of the respondent finds place at S.No.10 of the OBC category, she being at no.2 in the wait list and on securing 67.13 marks, her name is liable to be interpolated at S.No.5 of the merit list. The candidates down below i.e. from S.No.5 to 9, would in that event, be liable to be pushed down. Resultantly, the last candidate in the merit list i.e. Ms. Prakash, with 66.16 marks, would go out of the merit and would be placed at S.No.1 in the wait list with Mr. Rohit Bishnoi being pushed down at S.No.2 in the wait list. None of the candidates, who would be affected by the outcome of the writ petition, have been impleaded as party-respondents. The learned Single Judge cognizant of that difficulty has observed that non-impleading the successful candidates in OBC category, who were already appointed, would not be fatal to the writ petition as the writ petitioner seeks no relief against any of them. The respondent-writ petitioner merely seeks her appropriate placement in the merit list on being fairly evaluated. It was further observed that it is for the University to put its house in order and ensure that the writ petitioner is given her rightful claim for appointment in terms of her merit. In order to neutralize that situation, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant-university to create a supernumerary post of Assistant Professor (Botany) in the academic year, the other 8 OBC candidates were appointed. 24. In order to neutralize that situation, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant-university to create a supernumerary post of Assistant Professor (Botany) in the academic year, the other 8 OBC candidates were appointed. 24. We called for the original file of earlier writ petition no.2694/2014 filed by the respondent-writ petitioner, which was decided by judgement dated 04.11.2015. Select list was placed at Annexure-8 in that writ petition by the respondent-writ petitioner herself. The appellant-university in its reply to that writ petition disclosed the placement of the respondent at No.2 in the wait list. Even if it is granted that the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to addition of 1.38 (0.38 + 1) marks, non-impleadment of the candidates likely to be adversely affected by outcome of the present writ petition would be fatal for its maintainability. The respondent-writ petitioner by not impleading the last candidate in the merit of OBC, who shall be pushed down by insertion of her name at S.No.5 in the merit list of OBC category, thus ousting such last candidate, has dis-entitled herself to any relief as the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for want of non-joinder of necessary party. 25. In T. Jayakumar, supra the application form was not bearing applicant's signature or received after closing date. The respondent no.1 was called for interview, but his candidature was rejected on the ground that his first application did not bear his signature and second application was received after closing date and thus both the applications were invalid. The Supreme Court in those facts has held that the decision of the authority concerned in rejecting respondent no.1's candidature was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. There was no valid ground for the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court to interfere. 26. The Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, (1997) 6 SCC 650 , in para 5 of the judgement has observed as under: "5.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the recruitment of the doctors in the clinic run by the Corporation is made in accordance with the statutory rules and by no other method. Under the rules the vacancies are advertised for inviting applications from eligible candidates. After the applications are received the Selection Committee is constituted to select the candidates for appointment in the Corporation's clinic. Only after the candidates are selected they are taken in the service. Under the rules the vacancies are advertised for inviting applications from eligible candidates. After the applications are received the Selection Committee is constituted to select the candidates for appointment in the Corporation's clinic. Only after the candidates are selected they are taken in the service. It is also noticed earlier that respondent appeared before the Selection Committee but was not selected. Under such circumstances, there is no room for sympathy or equity in the matter of such appointment specially where the recruitment in service is governed by the statutory rules." 27. This Court is cognizant of the fact that the appellantuniversity is serving solely on the grant of the State, without whose sanction, no new post could be created. Aside of the fact that direction for creation of new post could not be given, it, in any case, could not be directed without impleading the State Government as party-respondent. The law cannot be given a complete go bye at the alter of equity. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The learned Single Judge in our view was not justified in directing creation of supernumerary post for respondent. 28. In view of above discussion, the present appeal deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 3.1.2019 is set aside and consequently the writ petition is dismissed.