NITIN JAGLAL UNTWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petitioner challenges the selection and appointment to the post of Associate Professor of Management (Finance) at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad. By invoking Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India he challenges the order of appointment of respondent No.6 on the said post by respondent Nos.4 and 5 University, thereby he is demanding issuance of writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ.

(2.) The petitioner contends that he is qualified as Ph.D., M.B.A. (Finance), M.A. (Economics). He had qualified for the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "UGC") State Eligibility Test in subjects of Commerce and Management in the year 2013 and 2016 respectively. He has served as Associate Professor (Finance) at G.S.P.M. College, Pune. His total experience on the teaching side is about 9 1/2 years, out of which he has served in the capacity as Associate Professor (Finance) for a period of four year. Lastly, he was working at M.I.T. Aurangabad. He was in search of a permanent job in a Government institution and then he came across the advertisement dtd. 10/8/2021 published by respondent No.5 inviting the applications for 08 posts including the post of Associate Professor of Management (Finance) in the pay scale as per 7 th CPC at academic level 13A with rationalized entry pay of Rs.1,31,400.00. It was the solitary post to be filled in the form of unreserved category. The petitioner applied for the said post by proper channel. Thereafter, under communication dtd. 8/3/2022 the respondent No.5 had issued the call letter for interview to him and asked him to remain present for the said interview on 26/3/2022 at 11.00 a.m. at Hotel Benchmark (Wockhardt Training Centre, Nakshtrawadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad). He caused his appearance for the interview as per the letter and it was found that about 08 applications were received for the said post and after scrutiny only 03 persons were called for the interview. Those three persons were the petitioner, respondent No.6 and one Dr. Ruchi Bhandari. The interview was taken, however, for a considerable time the result was not declared. In the second week of May, 2022, he gave complaint in respect of same to UGC and then the Sec. Officer of UGC gave communication to National Law University, Aurangabad. Thereupon it was informed by respondent No.5 that it has constituted scrutiny committee/screening committee to scrutinize the applications. 08 applications were received and then the selection committee duly constituted as per UGC had conducted the interview and selected respondent No.6 as a rank first candidate, second was Dr. Ruchi Bhandari and the petitioner was third. The petitioner contends that from the E-mail which he had received the language employed made him to believe that the process of selection was not taken in accordance with the norms set out by the UGC under the Notification dtd. 18/7/2018. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5 had replied his third point i.e. in respect of "The Academic Performance Indicator score sheet of all candidates with Scrutiny Committee Report", which is sought to procure under the Right to Information Act . But the said reply said that in the said selection process, the API score was only used for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates, who have applied for the said post and that the API score was not part of the criteria for the assessment of the candidates during interview by the selection committee as mentioned above. The petitioner contends that the thrust of the petitioner was on API as was highlighted in the UGC Regulations, 2018 and that it was to carry 75% weightage while making assessment of the candidates, meaning thereby only 25% weightage was to be given to the interview and the marks to be allotted at the time of interview. According to petitioner, the University i.e. respondent No.5 has given a total go bye to API of the petitioner and the other candidates and based their selection only on the basis of the interviews. The other two candidates at the merit position of Nos.1 and 2 were having acquaintance with few members of the selection committee as both the candidates were the colleagues of faculty in other universities at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad and N.L.U. Jodhpur. The petitioner is relying on the selection and screening criteria adopted by Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur and Siddharth University, Kapilvastu, Siddharthnagar, which say that 80% marks to be given to API and 20% for the interview. According to the petitioner, on the backdrop of the facts and circumstances he has narrated that the respondents have violated the UGC Regulations, 2018 by giving 100% weightage to the interview which has prejudicially affected him. He says that he is relying on the decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana and others [1985(4) SCC 417] in support of his contentions. For the grounds narrated in the petition he has prayed for the appropriate writs to be issued.

(3.) Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been given by Dr. Supriya Dahiya, serving as Education Officer in the Government of India, has stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have based their selection purely on the basis of interview. She has stated that as per clause 4.1 (II) of UGC Regulations, on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance and Standards in Higher Education, 2018, the UGC has amended all its circulars/letters/public notice from time to time and it is necessary and mandatory to follow them.