SUDIP DEY Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second time the petitioner is assailing the selection process of the Selection Committee for direct recruitment to the post of Professor (UR) in the Department of Sophisticated Analytical Instrumentation Facility (for short 'SAIF '), North Eastern Hills University (NEHU), Shillong. The earlier writ petition being WP(C)No.191(SH)2012 filed by the petitioner was allowed with certain directions vide judgment and order dated 06.11.2012, against which none of the parties preferred an appeal. Accordingly, the matter in issue in the present writ petition is not going to be decided in a virgin field and is to be decided in an area where both the parties had already ventured which result to the passing of the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.11.2012. Therefore, while deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.11.2012 is required to be kept in view.

(2.) HEARD Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Mozika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K Khan, learned standing counsel for NEHU appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THE University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC ') vide Memo No.F.3 -1/2009 dated 30.06.2010 had framed and published the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Higher Education, 2010, which provides for the qualifications for appointment to the Professor (Annexure -11 to the writ petition). Clause 6.2.0 of the said UGC Regulations for Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers, 2010 and Table II (c) of Appendix III provide the norms for direct recruitment of teacher to different cadres; while Table II (a) and Table II (b) provide for CAS promotions of teachers in Universities and Colleges respectively, which accommodate these differences. Clause 6.3.2 further provides that the candidates who do not fulfill the minimum score requirement under the API scoring system proposed in the Regulations as per Tables II (a) and (b) of Appendix III or those who obtain less than 50% in the expert assessment of the selection process will have to be re -assessed only after a period of one year. The date of promotion shall be the date on which he/she has successfully got re -assessed. It is clear from the UGC Regulations for Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers, 2010, that Table II (c) of Appendix III shall be followed for direct recruitment of teachers to different cadres and Tables II (a) and (b) of Appendix III shall be followed for promotions.