Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 762 (GAU)

Sumita Kumari Sharma v. Union of India

2021-12-02

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2021
ORDER : 1. The matter pertains to a challenge to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 in the post of Assistant Professor-II (Scientist-C/Equivalent) (‘Assistant Professor’) in Plasma Physics in the Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology (‘Institute’). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from the respondent No. 5's academic career being inferior to her, the said respondent No. 5 is not even eligible as per the advertisement in question. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for interference with the said selection and appointment with a further prayer for considering her case in accordance with law. 3. To appreciate the issue involved, the facts of the case are required to be narrated in brief. 4. An advertisement was issued on 11.8.2017 for different posts, including the aforesaid post of Assistant Professor. Since the foundation of the case is on the eligibility criterion, it would be convenient if the eligibility criterion is quoted hereunder which is as follows: “4. Name of the post: Assistant Professor-II (Scientist C/Equivalent) in Plasma Physics (One position, Regular) Pay: PB Rs. 15,600-Rs. 39,800 GP Rs. 6,600 p.m. Qualification and Experience: Essential: Ph.D. in Plasma Physics with consistently good academic record with at least four years of post-doctoral research experience (emphasis given) in the relevant fields in reputed Govt. R&D institution or reputed private R&D organization in Numerical/ Computational work in, the plasma waves, instabilities and sheath phenomenon. Proven record of high quality independent research (impact factor publications). Experience of supervising research work of students.” 5. The thrust of the argument is that a candidate should be Ph.D. in Plasma Physics with consistent good academic record with “at least four years of post-doctoral research experience” in the relevant field. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that records would reveal that the respondent No. 5, who has been subsequently selected for appointment, does not meet the eligibility criteria of having at least four years of postdoctoral research experience in the relevant field. 7. I have heard Shri H.K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the Union of India-respondent No. 1 is represented by Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government counsel (CGC). I have also heard Shri D Gogoi, learned counsel for the Institute-respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 8. I have heard Shri H.K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the Union of India-respondent No. 1 is represented by Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government counsel (CGC). I have also heard Shri D Gogoi, learned counsel for the Institute-respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 8. Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this court to the advertisement dated 11.8.2017 submits that the last date of submission of application was 30.9.2017 and as indicated above, one of the essential criterion is to have a Ph.D. Degree in Plasma Physics with at least four years of post-doctoral research experience in the relevant field. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plain meaning of the essential criterion indicated above is that the post-doctoral research experience has to be for a period after conferring acquiring the Ph.D. Degree. By drawing the attention of this court to the application submitted by the respondent No. 5, more particularly, those containing the academic qualifications, Shri Mahanta, learned counsel has submitted that it is the admitted fact that the respondent No. 5 had acquired the Ph.D. Degree in the year 2014 and if the same” is taken into consideration, he does not fulfil the requirement of having four years of post-doctoral research experience before submission of the’ application in response to the advertisement dated 11.8.2017. If the respondent No. 5 is not eligible in terms of the advertisement in question, the very fact of short listing him for facing further procedure was itself illegal and erroneous which requires a corrective measures from this court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the principal argument regarding the eligibility, Shri Mahanta, learned counsel further submits that on comparison of the inter se merits so far as the academic qualification is concerned, the petitioner stands on a better footing than the respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the marks allotted in the interview is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel, accordingly submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the respondent No. 5 was eligible, he could not have competed against the petitioner, who stands on a better footing so far as the academic curriculum is concerned. 9. The learned counsel, accordingly submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the respondent No. 5 was eligible, he could not have competed against the petitioner, who stands on a better footing so far as the academic curriculum is concerned. 9. Defending the impugned action, Shri D Gogoi, learned counsel representing the Institute respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submits that the foundation of the challenge is a misconceived one. By drawing the attention of this court to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 8.1.2021, more particularly, the certificate presented by the respondent No. 5 in connection with his research issued by the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics dated 23.12.2016, the learned counsel has submitted that the period from 24.5.2013 to 25.5.2014 in which the respondent No. 5 was holding the post of Senior Research Fellow (Extended) is in connection with duties performed/experience gained for post-doctoral research in physics. The learned counsel explains that conferment of Ph.D. Degree is not like an ordinary examination and the moment the Ph.D. thesis is submitted, any research done thereafter is construed to be post-doctoral research subject to the condition that subsequently the Ph.D. Degree is conferred on the thesis submitted. It is further submitted that the meaning sought to be given by the petitioner to the term post-doctoral research to mean for a period after conferment of the Ph.D. Degree is erroneous in view of the established fact that any research done by a Scholar after submission of the thesis of the Ph.D. is for all practical purpose considered to be post-doctoral research as the conferment is on the basis of the thesis which has been submitted at earlier point of time. As regards the comparative academic qualification, Shri Gogoi, learned counsel has submitted that the records of the case would reveal that while the petitioner had obtained 31 marks, the respondent No. 5 had obtained 46 marks. Though in the Head of “Presentation”, both the incumbents had secured the same marks of 40, in the interview, the mark obtained by the petitioner was 226 while that of the respondent No. 5 is 228. The learned counsel, accordingly submits that while the challenge based on eligibility is fallacious one, on a comparative merit of the candidature of both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, the Selection Board, duly constituted, had found the respondent No. 5 to be more suitable. The learned counsel, accordingly submits that while the challenge based on eligibility is fallacious one, on a comparative merit of the candidature of both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, the Selection Board, duly constituted, had found the respondent No. 5 to be more suitable. Shri Gogoi, learned counsel accordingly submits that the writ petition is not liable for any consideration and accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 10. Ms. A. Gayan learned CGC submits that the Institute is an autonomous body under the Central Government and, therefore, it can be assumed that no error has been committed in the section process which has been done in a bona fide manner. 11. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 while endorsing the submissions of Shri Gogoi, learned counsel for the Institute, submits that there is no manner of doubt that any research done by a candidate after submission of the thesis for Ph.D. is regarded as a post-doctoral research. In this connection, the learned counsel assertively submits that it is the date of submission of the thesis of the respondent No. 5 which will be of crucial importance for counting the period of four years which is the eligibility criterion laid down in the advertisement dated 11.8.2017. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the date of submission of the Thesis by the respondent No. 5 which is 24.5.2013 and if the period of research done thereafter is counted as on the date of submission of the application pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.8.2017, the said respondent No. 5 meets the eligibility criterion of having at least four years of post-doctoral research experience. To fortify his submissions, Shri Borthakur has drawn the attention of this court to an additional-affidavit filed by the said respondent No. 5 on 10.9.2021 with which the Guidelines for Post-Doctorate Research of the Presidency University has been annexed. Under the heading “Eligibility Criteria for the Applicants”, it has been stated as such: “All applicants with one year of awarding of their Ph.D. degrees in Science or Humanities/Social Sciences are eligible to submit the application. Those who have submitted their Ph.D. thesis and are awaiting award of the degree are also eligible to apply.” 12. Under the heading “Eligibility Criteria for the Applicants”, it has been stated as such: “All applicants with one year of awarding of their Ph.D. degrees in Science or Humanities/Social Sciences are eligible to submit the application. Those who have submitted their Ph.D. thesis and are awaiting award of the degree are also eligible to apply.” 12. It clearly appears from such eligibility criteria fixed by ah Institute of high repute that the period after submission of the Ph.D. thesis is to be included as a period wherein research done as post-doctoral research. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has relied upon another document of the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata where a similar eligibility criteria is given which clarifies that Ph.D. being an eligibility criteria, a candidate, who have submitted his thesis can also apply. Lastly, another document has been relied on which is pertaining to the Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology. In the said document also, regarding essential qualification, a similar interpretation has been given. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel, accordingly submits that there should not be any doubt regarding treating of the research done after submission of the thesis on 24.5.2013 as post-doctoral research. 13. Refuting the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner stands on a better footing on a comparison of the academic career, Shri Borthakur, learned counsel submits that it is the comparison is not only on the basis of the marks obtained till the Master Degree, but is dependent on a number of other factors, including submission of research papers, presentation, participation in seminars, national and international, etc., and all the factors were taken into consideration by the Selection Committee before allotment of the marks and the marks have been allotted bona fide and in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 additionally submits that the Selection Committee is a body of experts which has made the assessment of the candidates in a bona fide manner and in absence of any allegation of bias or mala fide, this court may not sit on appeal over the findings of an expert body. In support of his submissions, Shri Borthakur, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws: (i) Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 (ii) Sridip Chatterjee vs. Gopa Chakraborty, (2019) 15 SCC 59 14. In support of his submissions, Shri Borthakur, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws: (i) Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 (ii) Sridip Chatterjee vs. Gopa Chakraborty, (2019) 15 SCC 59 14. The case of Basavaiah (supra) has been cited to bring home the contention that the Selection Committee is an Expert Committee, the court should be loath in interfering with the findings of such committee, more so in absence of allegations of any mala fide against any member. 15. In the case of Sridip Chatterjee (supra), a similar view has been taken that decisions which have been taken by Experts that the incumbent has met the eligibility condition of the advertisement in question, the court should not interfere. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, accordingly submits that no case has been made out for interference by this court. 17. In reply, Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the research guide of the respondent No. 5 was one of the Members of the Selection Committee. However, in absence of appropriate pleadings, including the fact that such incumbents have not been made party by name, an oral argument alleging mala fide will not be accepted by this court. Though certain other allegations were sought to be raised, in absence of appropriate pleadings, those cannot be accepted by this court. 18. The question which would arise for determination is whether the respondent No. 5 meets the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement dated 11.8.2017. The thrust of the challenge is not meeting the essential, criteria of having at least four years of post-doctoral research, as the said respondent in his application has declared that the.Ph.D. Degree was conferred in the year 2014 and from that date, till the last date of submission of application which is 30.9.2017, the said respondent No. 5 would not meet the said criteria. The question arises as to whether research done after submission of the thesis for Ph.D. can be treated as post-doctoral research. 19. In the instant case, the date of submission of the thesis by the respondent No. 5 is 24.5.2013 and it is an admitted fact that based on the same thesis, the Ph.D. Degree has been subsequently conferred in the year 2014. 19. In the instant case, the date of submission of the thesis by the respondent No. 5 is 24.5.2013 and it is an admitted fact that based on the same thesis, the Ph.D. Degree has been subsequently conferred in the year 2014. This court finds force in the contention of Shri Gogoi, learned counsel for the Institute as well as Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 that the degree of Ph.D. is not an examination but the degree conferred based upon the thesis submitted for the said purpose. Subsequently, what will be of significant importance is the date on which such thesis was submitted. It would be a different matter if Ph : D. Degree is refused to be conferred on the thesis submitted and in that case, any research done after submission of the thesis may not be treated as a postdoctoral research. However, in the instant case, the Ph.D. Degree being conferred based on the thesis submitted on 24.5.2013, this court is of the opinion that research done thereafter has to be construed as post-doctoral research. This court also finds support in coming to the aforesaid finding by the documents placed on record by the respondent No. , 5 which clearly indicate that research done after submission of Ph.D. thesis has to be construed as post-doctoral research. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is unable to accept the first and principal submission made by the petitioner which. is the foundation of the instant challenge. 21. As regards the second leg of argument regarding comparative assessment, this court has seen from the records that the marks secured by the respondent No. 5 are much above than those secured by the petitioner and in absence of any allegation of bias or mala fide or perversity, this court may not be inclined to sit over the findings of the Selection Committee which is an expert body in making the assessment. As laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Basavaiah (supra) as well as Sridip Chatterjee (supra), this court would be loath in entering into the realm of assessment which is within the domain of an expert committee in the form of a Selection Committee duly constituted. 22. As laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Basavaiah (supra) as well as Sridip Chatterjee (supra), this court would be loath in entering into the realm of assessment which is within the domain of an expert committee in the form of a Selection Committee duly constituted. 22. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that no case for interference has been made out by the petitioner. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.