Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 339 (GAU)

Kevizonuo Kuolie v. Nagaland University

2021-04-07

S.HUKATO SWU

body2021
JUDGMENT : S. Hukato Swu, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ for protection of the constitutional rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution. 2. Facts leading to the present writ petition is that Nagaland University had issued Advertisement No. 1/2029 dated 30.05.2019 and also indicated with the same advertisement, Corrigendum dated 11.06.2019 and Notification dated 25.06.2019, for teaching post under the Nagaland University (NU). The advertisement contained the post of Associate Professor, Tenyidie. The Department of Tenyidie in NU is composed of inter-discipline department consisting of English Literature, Linguistics and Tenyidie. The post advertised was for candidate from English Literature. The petitioner being eligible applied for the said post and she received a calling letter dated 01.11.2019, to appear for early interview on 19.11.2019. Out of the 4 (four) applicants, the petitioner was the only candidate recommended by the Screening Committee for interview. It is also to be mentioned here that the post of Associate Professor in the Tenyidie Department has been advertised for consecutive 15 years but there were no eligible candidates. After she sat for the interview, the recommendation of the Interview Board was that for the post which has been advertised more than 15 times since 1995, a single candidate is eligible to be called for interview. As per the guidelines of UGC Regulations vide notification dated 18.07.2019, the Constitution of the Selection Committees and guidelines on selection procedure, the criteria provided is that 3 (three) experts in the subject field concerned nominated by the Vice Chancellor, out of the names approved by the relevant statutory body of the University would compose the Selection Board. Constitution of Selection Committee and guidelines of selection procedure under Regulation No. 5(II)(a)(iii) provides that 3 (three) experts in the subject/field concerned nominated by Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names approved by the relevant statutory body of the University. Again, under Regulation No. 5(II)(b) it provides that atleast 4 (four) members including 2 (two) outside subject experts shall constitute the quorum. The above being the requirement of the Selection Committee, after having ascertained that in the interview that was held on 19.11.2019, only one subject expert was included in the Selection Committee. Again, under Regulation No. 5(II)(b) it provides that atleast 4 (four) members including 2 (two) outside subject experts shall constitute the quorum. The above being the requirement of the Selection Committee, after having ascertained that in the interview that was held on 19.11.2019, only one subject expert was included in the Selection Committee. This was revealed by filing of RTI by the petitioner. The RTI was replied dated 27.05.2020, wherein it was clarified that the under mentioned members were selected as Selection Committee members, which is reproduced herein below:- "Nagaland University (A Central University established by the act of Parliament, 35/1989) Department of Tenyidie Kohima Campus, Kohima-797004 PANEL of EXPERTS FOR SELECTION of TEACHERS UNDER DIRECT RECRUITMENT & CAS DEPARTMENT of TENYIDIE (The Expert List consists of Experts in Tenyidie, Linguistics and English Literature as the subject includes all three components) Sr. Name Address, Contact No, Email id Specialization and year of Experience as Professor Tenyidie 1 Dr. Shurhozelie Liezietsu President, Ura Academy kohima, Nagaland – 797001 Mob. 7085055756 Tenyidie Literature & Language 2 Rev. Dr. V.K. Nuh Member Board of Ura Academy kohima, Nagaland – 797001 Mob. 9436005990 Tenyidie Literature & Language 3 Mrs.Vitsulie – ii Sekhose Member Board of Ura Academy kohima, Nagaland – 797001 Mob. 897424733 Tenyidie Literature & Language 4 Mr. Vipralhuo Kesiezie Member Board of Ura Academy kohima, Nagaland – 797001 Mob.9436010670 Tenyidie Literature & Language Linguistic and Sister Languages 5 Prof. (Ms) Badalpin War Department of Khasi North Eastern Hill University, Mawkynroh, Umshing, Shillong Meghalaya – 793022 Mob. 09863063750 Email – bwar57@yahoo.com Khasi Literature & Language 6 Prof. (Mrs.) Madhumita Borbora Department of English and foreign Languages Tezpur University, PO-Naapam, Tezpur- 784028 Assam, Mob. 09435082112 Email- mmb@lezu.emet.in Linguistics 7 year as Professor 7 Prof. Ch.Yashawanta Singh Department of Linguistics Manipur University, Imphal, Chanchipur, Manipur- 795003 Mob. 09436025438 Email.-Chugkhamyash@gmail.com Linguistics 15 year as Professor English Literature 8 Prof. (Mrs.) Esther Syiem Department of English, North Eastern Hill University, Mawkynroh, Umshing, Shillong, Meghalaya- 793022 Email-esthersyiem17@yahoo.co.in Phones -0364-2723503,2723513(o), 2547775® Mobile -09436336158 British Fiction, Modern Literature, Creative Writing, Afro-American Literature (13 Year as Professor) 9 Prof. (Mrs.) kynpham Singh nongkynrih Department of English, North Eastern Hill University, Mawkynroh, Umshing, Shillong Meghalaya- 793022 Mobile -09436336158 Email-kynphamsing@gmail.com British Fiction, Commonwealth Literature with Northeast Literature (7 Year as Professor) 10 Prof. (Mrs.) Margaret C.Zama, Retd. Professor Department of English, Mizoram University, Aizawl, Mizoram -796004 Email-margaretzama@yahoo.com Mob. (Mrs.) kynpham Singh nongkynrih Department of English, North Eastern Hill University, Mawkynroh, Umshing, Shillong Meghalaya- 793022 Mobile -09436336158 Email-kynphamsing@gmail.com British Fiction, Commonwealth Literature with Northeast Literature (7 Year as Professor) 10 Prof. (Mrs.) Margaret C.Zama, Retd. Professor Department of English, Mizoram University, Aizawl, Mizoram -796004 Email-margaretzama@yahoo.com Mob. 09436142413 British Fiction, Commonwealth Literature with Northeast Literature (15 Year as Professor) 11 Prof. (Ms) Nandana Dutta  Department of English, Gauhati University Guwahati, Assam- 781014 Mob. 09864156214 Email-nandana@gauhati.ac.in Literary Theory, American, British @ Commonwealth Literature (14 years as Processor) 12 Prof. Desmond L. Kharmawphlang Department of Folklore and Creative Studies North Eastern Hill University Mawkynroh, Umshing, Shillong Meghalaya- 793022 Email-desmonkharmawphlang@gmail.com Phone – 0364-2723374 Folklore/ English Literature (10 years as professor) 13 Prof. K.C. Baral Department of Indian Studies, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500605 Email-mail2baral@gmail.com Mobile- 09436117351/ 09612498286 Commonwealth  Literature with Indian @ Northeast Literature Literary Theory & Criticism, Translation 21 Year as Processor (Ms. Kethokhrienuo Belho) Head, i/c Department of Tenyidie Nagaland University, Kohima Campus" 3. On perusal of the RTI reply, it was revealed that it was not in conformity with the provisions of the Regulations as contained in Regulation No. 5(II)(a)(iii) and 5(II)(b). Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation dated 26.11.2019, for re-interview in accordance with the UGC guidelines. The representation is reproduced below: "To, The Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University, Headquarters: Lumami via Mokokchung Sub:- Representation Sir, I have the honour to draw your kind attention pertaining to the recent interview held on 19-11-2019 at Nagaland University SASARD Campus, Medziphema 'to demand for nullification' of the concluded interview and call for re-interview in respect of the Department of Tenyidie at the earliest. This representation is submitted to your authority on ground of irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Committee for the post of Associate Professor, Department of Tenyidie. May I refer to the provision of The Gazette of India Extraordinary (Part III-SEC: 4) 5.0 Constitution of Selection Committees and Guidelines on Selection Procedures and 5.1 (II) Associate Professor in the University, "Three experts in the subject/field concerned nominated by the Vice Chancellor, out of the panel of names approved by the relevant statutory body in the university". Also a sub-clause (b) "At least four member, including two outside subject experts, shall constitute the quorum" is provided for practical convenience. Also a sub-clause (b) "At least four member, including two outside subject experts, shall constitute the quorum" is provided for practical convenience. To be precise, out of the three outside subject experts present in the interview for selection of candidate for the post of Associate Professor of English literature in the Department of Tenyidie, only one member is from the subject of English literature. Let me furnish hereunder the actual scene of sitting arrangement of the three subject experts- (i) Prof. Nandana Dutta, Department of English, Gauhati University, sat on the chair of Subject Expert-1 is the only Subject Expert from English Literature (ii) Rev. Dr. V.K. Nuh, who sat on the chair of Subject Expert-2 is an expert for Tenyidie literature but not English literature (iii) Prof. Madhumita Borbora, Tezpur University who sat on the chair of subject expert-3 is an expert for the discipline of Linguistics but not English literature Therefore, you are requested to nullify the said interview and call for re-interview of the Associate Professor post in English literature within 10 days Yours faithfully, (Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie) The Aggrieved Candidate" However, the Executive Council, NU held a meeting on 14.02.2020, with regard to EC: 51:4:4 (A) (Teaching Direct Recruitment) Serial No. 61 wherein it was decided that the post of Associate Professor, Tenyidie, cancelled due to technical reasons was to be re-advertised vide No. NU/ECCELL-1/06(VOL II)-7998 dated 28.02.2020, issued by the Registrar, NU, Lumami, Zunheboto, Nagaland. 4. The petitioner herein is praying for review and to revoke the meeting minutes dated 14.02.2020, only with regard to the post of Associate professor, Tenyidie and to direct the respondent authorities to constitute a fresh Board as per UGC norms and regulations and call for a fresh interview in terms of the advertisement dated 30.05.2019, corrigendum dated 11.06.2019 and notification dated 25.06.2019. 5. Appearing for the petitioner, learned senior counsel, Mr. Taka Masa submits that the resolution of the 51st Executive Council meeting minutes reflects that, "further, it was resolved to re-advertise those posts where interview could not be held due to lack of candidates/applicants or candidates not found eligible by the Selection Committee". However, in the case of Associate Professor, Tenyidie Department, the reasons shown was 'cancelled due to technical reasons, to be re-advertised'. However, in the case of Associate Professor, Tenyidie Department, the reasons shown was 'cancelled due to technical reasons, to be re-advertised'. Therefore, the learned senior counsel argues that the resolutions of the 51st Executive Council meeting minutes clearly depicts that the selection could be re-advertised only on the condition that there was lack of candidates or when applicants/candidates were found not suitable by the Selection Committee. In the instant case, the authorities have decided to re-advertise the post and has shown to have cancelled due to technical reasons. This is incorrect. He has placed reliance upon the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 at para 8, wherein the Apex Court has held that, "the second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J in Gordhandas Bhanji: 'Public orders, publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be considered in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he may not, or of what was in his mind, or what it intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities which are meant to have public effect and recommended to affect the actings and conducts of those to whom they are addressed and must be considered by judicially with reference to the language used in the order itself.' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 6. The purpose of placing reliance upon the above said judgment is that the reasons given for re-advertisement of the post of Associate Professor, Tenyidie was "technical error". What is technical error has not been explained and there is no ground or valid reasons for re-advertisement of the post. The State respondents would, in their effort to justify their action file explanatory reasons with respect to the order impugned which cannot be allowed. What is technical error has not been explained and there is no ground or valid reasons for re-advertisement of the post. The State respondents would, in their effort to justify their action file explanatory reasons with respect to the order impugned which cannot be allowed. The relying of the Apex Court in the instant case clearly defines that the order has to be self-explanatory and the orders passed must not be validated by supplementing fresh grounds which would take altogether different shape and can cause illegality. 7. The above has been further upheld in the case of State of Punjab vs. M/S. Bandeep Singh and Others with Punjab State Leather Development Corporation and Others vs. Bandeep Singh and Others, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 at para 4 which is reproduced herein below:- "4. There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be composite and self sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., New Delhi of which the following paragraph deserves extraction: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J in Gordhandas Bhanji: 'Public orders, publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be considered in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he may not, or of what was in his mind, or what it intended to do. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J in Gordhandas Bhanji: 'Public orders, publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be considered in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he may not, or of what was in his mind, or what it intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities which are meant to have public effect and recommended to affect the actings and conducts of those to whom they are addressed and must be considered by judicially with reference to the language used in the order itself.' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Therefore, the above decision on the issue that the statutory order has to be self-explanatory is well established. The respondents may not be allowed to explain their scope of cancellation of interview by way of filing additional affidavits and by bringing fresh explanation to give out different meaning to the order in question. 8. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Taka Masa has also come with preemptive argument that the State respondents would be coming with the plea that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection process because the law of estoppel would be applicable to the petitioner. However, the actual position in law is explained by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar and others etc. vs. Shakti Raj and others etc., reported in (1997) 5 SCC 526 at para 16, which is reproduced below:- "16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the post from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the post were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter, the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. Thereafter, the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal vs. State of J & K and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn around and challenge either constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case, thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law." 9. The above being the ruling of the Apex Court with regard to principles of estoppel by conduct of the petitioner would not apply in matters where there are glaring irregularities committed by the Selection Committee or Board and where Rules have blatantly been violated. He has argued that the law of estoppel would not apply to him as the provisions of constitution of Selection Committees and guidelines of selection procedures under Regulation No. 5(II)(a)(iii) and 5(II)(b) has been violated. The petitioner was not in the knowledge of the Constitution Board. It came to light only after the petitioner filed an RTI as indicated and therefore, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner willfully sat for the interview. The petitioner is apprehensive that the respondents may change the guidelines, thus, disprivileging the petitioner from appearing in the next interview. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the petitioner should seek for interview in terms of advertisement dated 30.05.2019, corrigendum dated 11.06.2019 and notification dated 25.06.2019. The learned senior counsel prays that fresh interview may not be advertised against the post of Associate Professor since the petitioner, after having gone through all the process of selection has accrued and vested right on the advertisement dated 30.05.2019. The petitioner has vested/accrued rights which may not be taken away. The learned senior counsel prays that fresh interview may not be advertised against the post of Associate Professor since the petitioner, after having gone through all the process of selection has accrued and vested right on the advertisement dated 30.05.2019. The petitioner has vested/accrued rights which may not be taken away. He has placed reliance upon the two cases of the Apex Court: (i) J.S. Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 570 (ii) Chairman Railway Board & Ors. vs. C.R. Rangadhanaiah & Ors., reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 The Regulation No. 5.1(II) clearly provides that the nomination of 3 (three) experts in the subject/field has to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, it is prayed that a direction towards this end may be issued for constituting the Selection Board in terms of the regulations and give opportunity to the petitioner alone in the accrued right as established in terms of the advertisement dated 30.05.2019. 10. Learned senior counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir appears for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 assisted by Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel. 11. The learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. C.T. Jamir submits that the petition has been filed on misconceived facts. The actual position of the matter is that the interview was decided to be cancelled because of the fact that the respondents received representation dated 13.12.2019 from Prof. D. Kuolie, Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Tenyidie, NU who happened to be the father of the petitioner, who had made categorical statement, which is reproduced as below:- "Can any sensible person justify that a non-subject expert commands over other subject experts or non-subject experts to give below 50% in such professional selection process?" Therefore, the representation of Prof. D. Kuolie, father of the petitioner, indicated total knowledge of percentage of marks purportedly awarded by each member of the Selection Board. This being a matter of serious concern amounting to breach of confidentiality and sanctity of the selection process considering the fact that the Selection Committee's recommendation are kept in sealed envelope, the University decided to place the matter before its Executive Council in its 51st meeting in the best interest of the University. The Executive Council in its 51st meeting held on 14.02.2020, considered all aspects of the matter and resolved to re-advertise the post of Associate Professor, Department of Tenyidie. The Executive Council in its 51st meeting held on 14.02.2020, considered all aspects of the matter and resolved to re-advertise the post of Associate Professor, Department of Tenyidie. There is no biasness or discrimination in the action of the respondent authorities. The document of Prof. D. Kuolie, which is an important document, which was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner, was concealed and the petitioner had rather suppressed this fact to mislead the Court for favourable order. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court without clean hands and on that count alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The representation of the petitioner has been complied with by the University and there is no cause of action. By a representation to the Vice Chancellor, NU dated 26.11.2019, the petitioner had demanded for nullification of the concluded interview and called for re-interview in respect of the department of Tenyidie at the earliest. Accordingly, the University has called for re-advertisement of the post of Associate Professor, Tenyidie vide No. NU/ECCELL-1/06(VOLII)-7998, dated 28.02.2020, issued by the Registrar, Nagaland University. Therefore, the letter dated 26.11.2019, has been allowed and there should be no grievance. The learned senior counsel has also argued that the prayer of the petitioner is unsustainable as the desire of the petitioner is that a part of the advertisement process should be accepted while a portion of the advertisement should be declared null and void. This is an exercise which cannot be made by writ Court. If a process is vitiated then the whole of the process has to be declared null and void. It would be ridiculous to say that a portion of the process is to be complied with while a portion of the process should be done away with. This prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. 12. The learned senior counsel argued that the process by which the interview was ordered to be re-advertised is well known. It culminated as a result of revelation that the petitioner came to know the marks allotted to her prior to the declaration of the result, which made Prof. 12. The learned senior counsel argued that the process by which the interview was ordered to be re-advertised is well known. It culminated as a result of revelation that the petitioner came to know the marks allotted to her prior to the declaration of the result, which made Prof. D. Kuolie, Adjunct Faculty, Department of Tenyidie, NU to file representation before the Vice Chancellor on 13.12.2019, which is contained in Annexure-X of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents as reproduced herein below: "December 13, 2019 To, The Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University HQ Lumami via Mokokchung Sub: Representation Sir, I am pained but compelled to write this representation by stance of biological father of the aggrieved candidate, Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie, who has faced the recent concluded interview for the post of Associate Professor for English literature in the Department of Tenyidie, Nagaland University. In addition to her representation addressed to you dated 26th November, 2019. I am bringing the series of dubious design calculatedly exercised by Dr. Mimi K. Ezung, Head, Department of Tenyidie, Nagaland University ever since the screening of applications for various vacancies advertised or the Department of Tenyidie. Being the father of Miss Kevizonuo Kuolie and a senior teacher (of Adjunct Faculty) of the Department, I was deeply hurt at the tactic of double-crossing role in killing the career opportunity of a qualified candidate on the one hand, and with the intention to deviate and sabotage the legitimacy of the whole process of recruitment in the Department of Tenyidie on the other. The series of events are narrated here under for your serious perusal and necessary action. 1. Under your authority, those applications, of all cases have been processed for academic screening. 2. Accordingly, the Dean, School of Humanities and Education constituted committees for screening the applications of various departments under whose jurisdiction. 3. Dr. Mimi K. Ezung, Assoc. Professor & Head of the Department of Tenyidie was a Member of the 4-Members Screening Committee for the Department of Tenyidie. On that appointed-date they sat together and scrutinized the whole applications for both Associate and Assistant Professor posts and concluded smoothly. 4. Based on the criteria of Committee's unanimous decision before starting of the screening exercise, the distribution of posts - Associate and Assistant Professor was ascertained. 5. After five days of screening done, Dr. Mimi approached the Dean to have a re-check of the application of Dr. 4. Based on the criteria of Committee's unanimous decision before starting of the screening exercise, the distribution of posts - Associate and Assistant Professor was ascertained. 5. After five days of screening done, Dr. Mimi approached the Dean to have a re-check of the application of Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie who allowed her. She further checked it even the following day. By the third time, Dr. Mimi asked the Dean for rescreening of the Associate Professor's post in the presence of several professors who were doing screening of applications of other departments. One Member of the Committee tried to explain her with rules but Dr. Mimi did not listen to anything. When the Dean declined her proposal for rescreening, she threatened the Dean that she would write a letter to Vice Chancellor that she did so. Her attempt also contains a serious question to the credibility of other Screening Committee Members who all are senior to her. Similarly, her behavior is a disgrace to the office of the Dean of Humanities & Education. At all such instances she never calls for meeting of the faculty in the department. 6. Few days later, Dr. Mimi told that they should screen a candidate known to her for the post of Associate Professor which was refused by the Dean as the candidate lady had not applied for the post of Associate Professor. 7. Dr. Mimi K. Ezung had made a private inquiry on my daughter, Kevizonuo Kuolie from Dr. Rengsenmenla and Mr. Osangnok, two colleagues of Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie in ICFAI University, Sovima, Dimapur through phone. It shows her sinister intention to go against Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie is malicious. 8. Dr. Mimi knew well that Kevizonuo Kuolie is my daughter and her hideous attempt in sabotaging my daughter's opportunity in selection process is not only a direct insult to me but also a step to destroy the growth of the Department of Tenyidie. 9. Dr. Mimi K. Ezung has taken a trip to Tezpur University during 13-14 October, 2019. During the period she might have shared what she wanted. Even in the morning of 19-11-2019 she sat with the said assigned external subject expert in the Nagaland University Guest House, SASRD Medziphema beyond reasonable time. Thus, she might have convinced Prof. Madhumita Borbora that during interview the said External Subject Expert supported Dr. Mimi K. Ezung. 10. During the period she might have shared what she wanted. Even in the morning of 19-11-2019 she sat with the said assigned external subject expert in the Nagaland University Guest House, SASRD Medziphema beyond reasonable time. Thus, she might have convinced Prof. Madhumita Borbora that during interview the said External Subject Expert supported Dr. Mimi K. Ezung. 10. As far as the service conditions of Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie is concerned, she taught at Oriental College, Kohima for 3 years (2010-13) and her subsequent joining to ICFAI University as Assistant Professor is without break in service continuation. Historically, after series of advertisements floated by Nagaland University in 23 years, Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie is the only one found to be eligible for the post of Associate Professor in English literature that the Screening Committee recommended her to be called for the interview it is purely a matter of her academic achievement. 11. As per the UGC rules & regulations 2018 the eligible criteria for the post of Associate Professor under direct recruitment, a candidate should have (i) M.A. with minimum 55%, (ii) NET, (iii) Ph.D., (iv) 8 years of teaching experience, (v) 7 research papers published in research journal, (vi) one orientation course. Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie has (i) 1st Class M.A. (English), NET, (ii) Ph.D. in English literature, (iv) 9 years teaching experience, (v) 8 research papers publication, (vi) one orientation course. WHAT MORE CRITERIA DOES DR. MIMI K. EZUNG SPECIFY FOR DR. KEVIZONUO KUOLIE (or for the Department of Tenyidie)? 12. It is further learnt that in the post-interview scene, Dr. Mimi K. Ezung, the Head, Department of Tenyidie protested that Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie should not be given the post of Associate Professor nor Assistant Professor in the Department of Tenyidie. What authority has Dr. Mimi K. Ezung? Does the Department of Tenyidie belong to her personal? She is a linguist, but why did she play that total destructive game not only against Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie but also English literature? Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University is answerable to this serious issue. You are also to think seriously to this pertinent question. "Can any sensible person justify that a non-subject expert commands over other subject experts or non-subject experts to give below 50% in such professional selection process?" 13. Kevizonuo Kuolie but also English literature? Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University is answerable to this serious issue. You are also to think seriously to this pertinent question. "Can any sensible person justify that a non-subject expert commands over other subject experts or non-subject experts to give below 50% in such professional selection process?" 13. Till date the candidate has submitted a simple representation asking your authority for "nullification of the interview and call for re-interview" as there was only one External Subject Expert in the Selection Committee and not the mandatory number of External Subject Experts from other subject. However, there is no response so far from your end. 14. Vice Chancellor, Sir, I am putting up these two-points demands furnished under the following- (1) Firstly, the official designation of Head, Department of Tenyidie" should be stripped off from Dr. Mimi K. Ezung as her calculated attempts have proved the trend of destroying the Department of Tenyidie from further growth. (2) Secondly, her service record is a fit case for demotion to lower grade as she was appointed to Associate Professor in less than 8 years of service at Assistant Professor grade in Nagaland University which is a clear violation of the specified UGC norm of completion of 8 years. The representation is harsh but real. This is not a threat but statement on real situation. I therefore, pray your honour to kindly take early necessary action to solve this crisis. Yours faithfully, Prof. D. Kuolie Adjunct faculty Department of Tenyidie Nagaland University" This was followed by a letter calling for explanation from the Vice Chancellor, which is reproduced below: "NAGALand UNIVERSITY (A Central University Estd. By the Act of Parliament No. 35 of 1989) Headquarters: Lumami - 798627 No. NU/REC/GEN-1/2016-1146 Dated: 20/8/2020 To, Prof. D. Kuolie, Department of Linguistics Nagaland University, Kohima Campus, Meriema Sub: Explanation Whereas you have submitted a representation dated 13th December, 2019, claiming that your were compelled to write the representation by stance of biological father of the aggrieved candidate, Dr. Kevizonuo Kuolie, who faced the interview for the post of Associate Professor, Department of Tenyidie, Nagaland University (Copy enclosed). and whereas, the interview for the post of Associate Professor was held on 19th November, 2020 and that the proceedings and meeting minutes were kept in confidential sealed envelope. and whereas in the point 12 of the said representation you have stated. and whereas, the interview for the post of Associate Professor was held on 19th November, 2020 and that the proceedings and meeting minutes were kept in confidential sealed envelope. and whereas in the point 12 of the said representation you have stated. "Can any sensible person justify that a non-subject expert commands over other subject experts or non-subject experts to give below 50% in such professional selection process?" Now, therefore, you are directed to submit an explanation with documentary proof, within 10 (ten) days from the date of issue of this communication, as to how the marks awarded were known. If no reply is received within the specified period, it will be presumed that you do not want to offer any explanation and the University authority shall take an appropriate action as per rules. (Prof. Pardeshi Lal) Vice-Chancellor" Thereafter, the reply to the explanation filed by Prof. D. Kuolie, department of Linguistic dated 28.08.2020 is reproduced here below:- "August 28, 2020 To, The Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University, Headquarters, Lumami Sub: Reply to the Explanation Cal Sir, In response to your Explanation call No. NU/REC/GEN-1/2016-116 dated 20-08-2020 received by email on 20-08-2020, an explanation is submitting here under:- "I do not know the awarded marks of the said interview. As far as I understand, the 50% is usually drawn as the minimum qualifying for ST/SC/OBC in many selection processes. The line you have quoted is a clear rhetorical question, the fact that the constitution of the Selection Committee for the interview held on 19-11-2019 for the post of Associate Professor of English literature in Tenyidie Department is not as per the UGC rules and regulations. For the reason, the pertinence is raised as to how a subject expert of a discipline of study can dispense justice unto the credibility of performance of a scholar of another discipline of study. The content does not bear allegation to any person." Your esteem authority may kindly consider my explanation in the right perspective in the facts and circumstances of the issue in question. Kindly acknowledge the submission. Yours sincerely, Prof. D. Kuolie Department of Linguistics" 13. The University, in its 51st executive meeting, after having considered this, decided to re-advertise the selection process. This being serious concern amounting to breach of confidentiality and sanctity of the selection process. Kindly acknowledge the submission. Yours sincerely, Prof. D. Kuolie Department of Linguistics" 13. The University, in its 51st executive meeting, after having considered this, decided to re-advertise the selection process. This being serious concern amounting to breach of confidentiality and sanctity of the selection process. Considering the fact that the Selection Committee's recommendations are kept in sealed envelope, and by the Executive Council's 51st meeting in the best interest of the university, decided to re-advertise the post of Associate Professor on 14.02.2020; all these processes were known to the petitioner. However, it was suppressed, therefore, the petitioner came with unclean hands. The learned senior counsel has relied upon the case of Ramjas Foundation & Another vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 at para 29 and 30, which is reproduced herein below: "29. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse the process of Court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the Court in passing order in their favour and observed: "1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis supplied) 30. In our view, the appellants are not entitled to any relief because despite strong indictment by this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, they deliberately refrained from mentioning details of the cases instituted by them in respect of the land situated at Sadhora Khurd and rejection of their claim for exemption under clause (d) of notification dated 13-11-1959 by the High Court and this Court." The petitioner has come with unclean hands and no relief can be granted, as ruled by the Apex Court in the case referred above. 14. The law of estoppel must apply to the petitioner. She was in full knowledge that the selection process was re-advertised due to technical reasons, which is attributable to the revelation of marks pending the result of the interview conducted. The sanctity and the fair process to be adopted by the University must be protected. Despite this knowledge, the petitioner sought to suppress the facts which was the cause of re-advertisement. The law of estoppel is also applicable to the case of the petitioner. One cannot approbate and reprobate. The candidate petitioner has appeared for the exams and later on the petitioner cannot turn around challenging the procedure of selection. The petitioner is entitled only to challenge the process without sitting for the interview. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take chances and on being unsuccessful challenge the recruitment process. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai and others vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 at para 17: "17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted." In the case of D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478 at para 4 to 12, the Apex Court has held as follows: 4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that Respondent No. 1 having taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. 5. In G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows:- "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to get into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee." 6. In Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K, the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee." 6. In Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J & K, the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows:- "9. ...Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted......" 7. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, this Court held as follows:- "16. ...Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition." 8. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi the petitioners took part in the process of selection made under the general rules. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. This Court held as follows:- "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents." 9. Same view has been taken in Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan. 10. The Kerala High Court did not note the abovementioned judgments and ignored the well-settled position of law in rejecting the specific plea raised by the appellant herein that the appellant could not raise the issue that no direct recruitment should have been conducted once she had applied for and taken part in the selection process by direct recruitment. 11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No. 6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised. 12. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside order dated 25-07-2003 of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition O.P. No. 36563 of 2002 as being not maintainable." The above being the decisions of the Apex Court with respect to the law of estoppel, the petitioner is not entitled to come and challenge the selection process. 15. I have heard the parties. 16. The two issues involving this writ petition is that, firstly, the petitioner was denied the right to be interviewed by the appropriate forum as contained in the provisions with the selection process, wherein it is provided under Regulation 5(II) (a)(iii) that 3 (three) experts in the subject/field concerned nominated by the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names approved by the relevant statutory body of the University should form the part of the Selection Committee and also in terms of Regulation 5(II)(b) which provides that atleast 4 (four) members including 2 (two) outside subject experts shall constitute the quorum. The second prayer of the petitioner is that the advertisement brought out by the respondents should not be cancelled for re-interview considering that the petitioner has accrued vested rights after having gone through the lengthy process of selection. The petitioner has the apprehension that the respondents may change the terms and conditions for selection to the post of Associate Professor. With respect to the first contention, on scrutiny of the regulations, the regulation under 5(II)(a)(iii) provides for 3 (three) subject experts and under 5(II) (b) it provides for minimum of 4 (four) members, 2 (two) experts from outside. Therefore, there is nothing much to argue. The Selection Committee should be composed of the enumerated members as provided under the Regulations. The reflection of the RTI also clearly reveals that out of the members selected, only one is a subject expert, therefore, the petitioner was right in pointing out the error with respect to formation of the Selection Board. There is irregularity and it is to be constituted as per the guidelines. The plain reading of the guidelines requires 3 experts from the subject. There are no other interpretation possible. With respect to the second prayer, much has been argued on the operation of the law of estoppel and other allied legal principles regarding coming to court with unclean hands, accrued and vested rights. Once the issue whether the respondents were right or wrong in deciding to re-advertise the post of Associate Professor is answered, the other issues would be answered as these points would either lose their value if it is decided in the positive, or could only serve as a supplement to the decision if it is decided in the negative. Let us examine whether the authority of the University was right in cancelling the advertisement and calling for fresh interview to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Tenyidie. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued much upon the resolution of the 51st meeting and the decision thereupon. He has argued that the resolution contends that, "further, it was resolved to re-advertise those posts where interview could not be held due to lack of candidates/applicants or candidates not found suitable by the Selection Committee". However, with respect to item No. 61, Tenyidie, Associate Professor, it was remarked as "cancelled due to technical reason to be re-advertised". He has argued that the resolution contends that, "further, it was resolved to re-advertise those posts where interview could not be held due to lack of candidates/applicants or candidates not found suitable by the Selection Committee". However, with respect to item No. 61, Tenyidie, Associate Professor, it was remarked as "cancelled due to technical reason to be re-advertised". He has strenuously argued that the legal principle is that statutory orders must be self-explanatory and should not be supported by affidavits in the subsequent arguments to give meaning, therefore, the resolution is bad in law. The argument is that the interview could be cancelled only as per the resolution where the candidates/applicants not found suitable or due to lack of candidates not for any other reasons. The University has the right to cancel exams even after the results are declared if the process of the exams are later found to be suffering from varied reasons in the interest of confidentiality and fair play etc. it could be for technical reasons such as calculation errors in the marks obtained by candidates, it could be for technical reasons that the question marks were leaked, it could be for mishandling of answer scripts. We have the case of Assam Public Service Commission in WP(C) No. 3228/2019 wherein this court had held that: If the key evaluating the answer sheets were itself defective and the result of the examination on the basis of such wrong key patterning to the concerned question paper stands vitiated, which affect the result of the entire examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the application of the wrong key, any appointment made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. From the above decisions, it is clear that if there are technical errors in the process of recruitment it is the discretion of the authority to cancel the examination even after the results are declared. I do not agree with the view as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the resolution of the meeting must be applied in toto debarring any other eventualities which may be discovered at the later stage. "Technical error" as reproduced in the result column, is intended to notify the concerned parties. I do not agree with the view as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the resolution of the meeting must be applied in toto debarring any other eventualities which may be discovered at the later stage. "Technical error" as reproduced in the result column, is intended to notify the concerned parties. The small column brought out to declare results of so many disciplines obviously could not contain explanation of all the items in details. The fact that it came to light to the University that there was leakage of marks scored by the petitioner prior to the declaration of results is a "technical error" which compromised the confidentiality, transparency and sanctity of the selection process of the University. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the administrative function of the University in such matters. Facts viewed in the manner as described, we do not see how vested right could accrue upon the petitioner. Therefore, the second plea is also subsumed by the answer to the first plea. Argument of the learned senior counsel for the respondent, Mr. C.T. Jamir, that the petitioner cannot pray that a portion of the advertisement should be accepted while a portion of the advertisement should be declared null and void is well taken. In fact, the petitioner had earlier made a representation for the nullification of the said interview and call for re-interview of the Associate Professor post in English literature within 10 days. It seems the petitioner's prayer had been answered as it stood then, but for a change in the stand by filing the present writ. We also have the case of Manipur High Court in WP(C) No. 803/2016 and WP(C) No. 60/2017. The Main Examination conducted by Manipur Civil Service Commission in 2016 was not only quashed, but directed for CBI probe in 2018 for alleged irregularities. The successful candidates preferred appeal before the Apex Court but the appeal was dismissed. When there are irregularities detected, the results are liable to be quashed even after years of service. Therefore, plea that the petitioner has accrued vested right in the present facts and circumstances is not tenable. 18. On scrutiny of the results declared, the penultimate decisions taken in the selection process shows that it was decided to re-advertise with respect to item Nos. Therefore, plea that the petitioner has accrued vested right in the present facts and circumstances is not tenable. 18. On scrutiny of the results declared, the penultimate decisions taken in the selection process shows that it was decided to re-advertise with respect to item Nos. 59, 60 and 61 involved in the Professor of Environmental Science, Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Associate Professor of Tenyidie. In all these, the 3 (three) advertisements was shown "cancelled due to technical reason". What is technical reason can be explained by the authority concerned. The result was given just for the sake of information which can be supported by the reason thereof. The reasons elaborated is satisfactory since the decision was taken in the best interest of the University which is expected to maintain exemplary discipline, transparency and also confidentiality in the selection process. The correspondence letters exhibited between Prof. D. Kuolie, Adjunct Faculty, Department of Tenyidie and the explanation call issued by Prof. Pardeshi Lal, Vice Chancellor reflects that there is something amiss in the process of selection. The confidentiality with respect to selection process was clearly transgressed. In such circumstances, it would be unfair for the Court to interfere in the administrative function of the University when the serious issue of selection process and transparency in the University is concerned. Under the above said circumstances, when the advertisement is recommended for re-advertisement, the cause of the transparency and sanctity of the University function is protected and it does not deserve as accrued right, therefore, is no more sustainable. The issues which were elaborately discussed with respect to law of estoppel in our case does not apply, reasons being the results were never declared and the same was recommended to be re-advertised for transparency and for sanctity of the University norms. The anxiety of the petitioners is that the petitioner should be interviewed by the appropriate Board members as contained in Regulation No. 5(II) (a)(iii) and 5(II)(b). The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the same was constituted in terms of the regulations. However, the anxiety of the petitioner seems to be correct. The regulation requires 3 (three) experts in the subject matter. Therefore, it will be in the appropriate matter of things to compose the Selection Committee in terms of the regulations. 19. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the same was constituted in terms of the regulations. However, the anxiety of the petitioner seems to be correct. The regulation requires 3 (three) experts in the subject matter. Therefore, it will be in the appropriate matter of things to compose the Selection Committee in terms of the regulations. 19. The examination was cancelled purely on the ground that the transparency and fairness of the conduct of exams under the University should be maintained. The plea that technical reasons has been ascribed for cancellation and re-advertisement of the post is not in consonance with the decisions of the 51st Executive Meeting of the University is far-fetched. Technical reasons may be for varied reasons which is best known to the University. In the instant case, there is no reason to consider the action of the University as biased or arbitrary for indulgence of this Court. Here, the technical issue is the revelation of the marks prior to the declaration of the result which makes the selection process lose its confidentiality and sanctity. For all the reasons stated, this ground of prayer is not allowed. 20. In view of the above findings, the prayer that the exams should exclusively conducted for the petitioner stands rejected. 21. The prayer that the petitioner should be interviewed by the appropriate Selection Board is allowed. The respondents shall take steps for re-advertisement of the post on or before three months of the passing of this order. The respondents shall constitute the appropriate Selection Board as per the norms of the University Regulations and conduct the exams maintaining absolute transparency. 22. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed.