RAVI SHANKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid issue has cropped up in relation to the facts and circumstances, which are enumerated hereunder: -

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University wherein, inter alia, it is stated that respondent no.6 has better qualification than the petitioner and in this connection a comparative chart with educational qualifications and experience was also filed as annexure 3 to the counter affidavit to demonstrate that respondent no.6 is more suitable for the post in question than the petitioner. It was further stated that in the Selection Committee there were six members and out of them two members were experts of their subjects, two members represented Backward Caste and Scheduled Caste Community and other two being the Vice Chancellor and the Head of Department. The Selection Committee had decided to allot the marks on the performance of each candidate and the Vice Chancellor had given his marks in a sealed envelop and that when the recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Council, where all the marks allotted by the members were counted and it was found that respondent no.6 got maximum marks and, therefore, she was recommended for appointment on 23.1.2005.

(3.) More or less, a similar counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.6 wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that as she was found at serial no.1 in the panel after including the marks of the Vice Chancellor, thus there was no illegality in the decision of the Executive Council and that after inclusion of marks given by the Vice Chancellor respondent no.6 has shifted to serial no.1 and, therefore, it is incorrect to allege on behalf of the petitioner that he was at serial no.1.