SUDIP DEY (DR.) Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Khan, learned Standing counsel for the respondents/NEHU

(2.) The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

(3.) Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having a brilliant academic career and the UGC Regulation, 2010 empowers the Selection Committee to select or reject a candidate only on the basis of interview performance of the candidate and assessed by the Visitor's nominee and the subject experts. Regulation 6.2.0 provides that Table II (a) and Table II (b) shall be the norms for CAS promotions and Table II (c) of the Appendix III is applicable for direct recruitment. He further submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Professor, SAIF NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY, Shillong under the open specialization in response to an advertisement dated 7th December, 2011, published by the Respondent University. The interview was held on 20.04.2012 where the petitioner was the lone candidate who appeared for the interview; however the Selection Committee did not recommend the selection of the petitioner on the ground that he was not found suitable as he has no management experience and lack of knowledge of analytical equipments other than SEM, whereas in the advertisement the post was advertised under open specialization and the two criteria mentioned above were not available in the advertisement. He also submits that the rejection of the Selection was challenged by the petitioner in the WP(C) No. (SH) 191 of 2012 before the Shillong Bench of the then Gauhati High Court and after hearing the parties the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment and order dated 6.11.2012 was pleased to allow the said writ petition holding that the ground for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was illegal. However, the respondents called the petitioner for interview on 14.02.2013 and thereafter he was informed by the respondents vide letter dated 28.03.2013 that the Executive Council had considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee, which did not find the petitioner suitable for the post of Professor erroneously without any ground whatsoever leading to the miscarriage of justice. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Committee dated 14.02.2013 and the Executive Council dated 28.03.2013 filed a fresh writ petition before this Hon'ble High Court which was registered as WP(C) No. 110 of 2013 praying for his appointment by the respondents and this Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties set aside and quashed the proceedings of the selection committee dated 14.02.2013 and was pleased to direct the Selection Committee of the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2014. The respondent University thereafter conducted a fresh interview for the petitioner on 16.02.2015 wherein the Selection Committee, awarded the petitioner the score of 51 out of 100 which is more than the minimum 50 out of 100 prescribed by the UGC. Despite this, the Selection Committee once again rejected the selection of the petitioner arbitrarily stating that: