ASHOK Vs. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition takes exception to the selection process adopted by Respondent No. 1 for filling up the posts of Store Keeper, advertised vide Exh.A to the Petition. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the selection process conducted by Respondent No. 1 is contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by giving go by to the merit criteria. It is submitted that, the petitioner, who participated in selection process for the appointment on the post of Store Keeper, secured 45 marks out of 70 marks. It is submitted that, the petitioner stood first in merit list in written examination. It is submitted that, though it was not provided in the Government Resolution to have the oral interview, contrary to Government Resolution dated 19th October, 2007 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra, oral interviews were conducted and marks were assigned to such oral interview. Since petitioner has secured highest marks and there was no question of conducting interviews in view of the Government Resolution dated 19th October, 2007, referred hereinabove, the petitioner ought to have been appointed on the post of Store Keeper.

(2.) It is submitted that, during oral interview the petitioner has given satisfactory answers. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the questions asked to him and answers given by him in oral interview and submits that, Respondent No. 1 so as to accommodate Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 and not to appoint the petitioner on the post of Store Keeper, had given three and half marks out of 20, though the petitioner satisfactorily replied the questions asked to him. It is submitted that, under Right to Information Act, he sought information about the questions asked to him and answers given by him and accordingly, the same information is placed on record. It is submitted that, the petitioner was over age on the date of application is devoid of any substance and good for being rejected. It is submitted that, the post of Store Keeper is ministerial cadre post and therefore, is liable to be filled in on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination and no interviews are to be conducted. Merely because the petitioner participated in interview, Respondent No. 1 cannot justify its action of holding interviews, although such interviews have specifically been prohibited under Government Resolution dated 19th October, 2007. It is submitted that, the powers given to the Respondents are not absolute and unfettered but are channelized by the policy decision of the Government, especially when such policy decisions are subsequent in point of time.

(3.) It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, His Excellency the Chancellor under Government Resolution dated 31st January, 2009 has specifically directed to ensure that, the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and various Government Resolutions promulgated by the Government from time to time, and observed and implemented by the Universities, and therefore, Respondent No. 1 was obliged to follow the relevant provisions of the Act and also the Government Resolutions issued from time to time by the Government of Maharashtra. At the cost of repetition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, holding of interviews itself was not contemplated in the selection process for the posts falling in ministerial cadre, the entire exercise becomes misplaced and irrelevant and is liable to be quashed. Merely because high placed officials were members of the interview committee, the selection cannot be saved as conducting of interviews itself is prohibited specifically under the Government Resolution dated 19.10.2007. It is further submitted that, other candidates have secured more marks than the petitioner because excessive marks were given to them in the interview and excessively less marks given to the petitioner in interview. The petitioner was given less than 20% marks, whereas the selected candidates have given more than 60% marks. Precisely to avoid such allocation of disproportionate and unreasonable marks, the Government took a policy decision not to provide any marks for oral interview under its policy decision dated 19th October, 2007.