VINEETA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and the fourth respondent vied for selection for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science. In the select list, which is prepared, petitioner is placed below the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent has been appointed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has sought a direction to produce the entire record of selection in regard to the said post. Further, petitioner has also sought to quash the appointment of the fourth respondent. A fair selection must be conducted is another relief sought. Finally, an inquiry is sought into the illegal appointment by respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent; Ms. Sonia Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University; and Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent / Management.

(3.) Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw our attention to a Chart (page no. 18), which shows the Academic Performance Indicator (wrongly written as All Round Performance Indicator) ('API' in short). It is his case that 16 candidates were found eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, Political Science. The Committee has prepared the API of all the candidates. Since we are only concerned with the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the marks which they have obtained, alone, are relevant and we refer to the same as under: