Service Law:
Appointment/Selection – To the post of Asstt. Professor – In one advertisement (Adv. No. 3 of 2010) selection process not completed – Subsequent advertisement (Adv. No.3 of 2011) requiring that the candidates who had applied pursuant to previous advertisement need not apply afresh – Appellant (OBC candidate) and respondent (General Category candidate) did not apply afresh in response to subsequent advertisement – Appointment of appellant – Challenged by respondent contending that he was not given any credit for the “publications” in the subsequent selection process, whereas credit was given for the “publications” in the previous selection process – High Court allowed the writ petition directing to add to the score-sheet of the respondent five marks on the parameters of “publications” – In review petition High Court order was affirmed – Plea of appellant that such “publications” were not before the Search Committee as the respondent had not submitted any “publications” – Held: In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the “publications” were not before the Search Committee – However, it is for the experts to award marks for “publications”– The Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot award marks for “publications”.
Selection Process – Process of conducting separate interviews for the posts under General Category and OBC Category – Held: Such process is not fair and reasonable – Every person is a General Category candidate – If a reserved category candidate is in merit, he will occupy the General Category seat.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 As per the conditions pertaining to advertisement No. 3 of 2011, (subsequent advertisement) the applications submitted earlier were to be considered. This shows that the “publications” of the writ petitioner were with the University when the writ petitioner was granted marks for “publications”. Even if the Selection Committee has undergone a change as well as norms of selection as per the Regulations, the Selection Committee was within its jurisdiction not to award any marks for “publications”, if it was not meeting the requisite conditions. It cannot be said that the writ petitioner has not submitted any “publications”. Such “publications” were before the Search Committee when the writ petitioner was interviewed on May 13, 2012. [Para 12] [346-D-F]
1.2. However, it is for the experts to award marks for “publications”. The High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, does not sit in the arm chair of the experts to award the marks for publications, that too, on the basis of an earlier selection process. The marks obtained by the writ petitioner under the heading “publications” on May 13, 2012 were not before the High Court. The appellant was granted three marks for “publications” in the earlier selection process initiated vide advertisement No. 3 of 2010. Such “publications” were also required to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. [Para 13] [346-G-H; 347-A]
University Grants Commission & Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) (2013) 10 SCC 519 : [2013] SCR 521
– relied on.
2. The process of conducting separate interviews for the posts of Assistant Professor under general category and OBC category is wholly illegal. Though, none of the parties have raised any dispute about it but since the same is inherently defective, the Court is constrained to observe so. Every person is a general category candidate. The benefit of reservation is conferred to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category candidates or such other category as is permissible under law. If a reserved category candidate is in merit, he will occupy a general category seat. Therefore, the selection process conducted by the University cannot be said to be fair and reasonable. Consequently, the University is directed to re-examine the selection process by constituting an Expert Committee who shall consider the “publications” of the candidates who were being considered in pursuance of advertisement No. 3 of 2011 and make suitable recommendations accordingly by having a joint merit list of all the categories of candidates who applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. However, in such selection process, the appointment of candidates already selected will not be disturbed, except the appellant whose appointment shall be subject to the decision of the University on the basis of recommendation of the Expert Committee. [Paras 14 and 17] [347-B-C; 348-B-C]
Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454
– followed.
Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC
350 : [2016] 7 SCR 639 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.