NAZEEMA P K Vs. ABIDHA BEEGUM V S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitions are filed by the 9th respondent and the University. At first, the contention of the 9th respondent in R.P.No.908 of 2016, would be dealt with; which is supported by the University also, the petitioner in R.P.No.810 of 2016.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent would take me through Exhibit P10, the notification issued by the University and Exhibit P11, the application form containing the instructions to candidates to explain the manner in which the selection is to be done. It is the contention of the 9th respondent that there was no stipulation in Exhibit P10 that a candidate should have 2 [two] years of experience in the University. Exhibit P11 under the Note, grants the Vice-Chancellor discretion to call for more number of candidates in excess of 1:5 ratio and also persons who had at least two academic years of work experience at the University, which are separately specified and are quite distinct from each other. The discretion exercised, according to the 9th respondent, was one evidenced from the third bullet in the Note, which reads as under:

(3.) The University also supports the case of the 9th respondent and produces the files again before this Court, which was once perused by this Court at the time of judgment. Based on letter No.MPMC/1114/4A/2015 dated 02.12.2015 it is contended that the discretion exercised was only with respect to increasing the number of candidates called for the interview and not of calling persons who had two years service in the University. It is pertinent that the University in their review does not have such a case and merely supports the plea of the 9th respondent which, coming from the 9th respondent can only be a surmise or conjecture. The University having no such plea it could be discarded at the outset; but this Court owes a duty to set the record straight.