KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the Annexure P-1 and P-2 i.e. the Order of appointment of Respondents No.4 and 5 respectively, on the post of Lecturer (Economics) and also seeking for a direction to the Respondent University to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on the said post, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

(2.) Facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the instant Writ Petition are that, an Advertisement inviting applications for various faculties in the University Teaching Department was published on 23/9/2006. Initially, the last date for submission of the application was 31/10/2006, however, it stood extended up till 30/1/2007. The post, in dispute, from the said recruitment is the post of Lecturer (Economics). Petitioner and Respondents No.4 and 5 had applied for the said post. For the said recruitment process, a Selection Committee was constituted consisting of four Members with the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent University being its Chairman. After the assessment being made, interviews were held on 21/6/2007 and thereafter appointment orders were issued on 24/7/2007 in favour of the Respondents No.4 and 5.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the Selection Committee showed undue favour to the Respondents No.4 and 5 both in the academic qualification and experience as also in the interview. The allocation of marks have been erroneously made and the Respondent No.4 has been awarded marks much more than which could be awarded. The Respondent No.4 has also been awarded extra marks for her experience, whereas she was not entitled for it because she had only worked as a Guest Faculty which could not fetch her any marks towards experience. Similarly, extra marks have also been allotted to the Respondent No.4 for her publications so also for the National and International Workshops/Seminars. Even in the interview, the Respondents No.4 and 5 have been given exorbitant marks, i.e., 19/20, as compared to 3/20 awarded to the Petitioner. The Respondents No.4 and 5 were in fact permitted to submit the application even after the cut off date. Further, the Respondents No.4 and 5 were also permitted to produce documents in support of their candidature in piecemeal at regular intervals. This would also have made the Respondents No.4 and 5 disqualified from being considered.