MOHAMMED YAMIN Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a candidate for the post of lecturer in department of History under unreserved category pursuant to advertisement No. 8555 dated 23.09.2009 issued by the Sambalpur University, Jyoti Vihar, Sambalpur has filed this application seeking to quash the proceeding of meeting of the selection committee recommending the name of opposite party No. 5 for appointment against the said post and further seeking for a direction to give him necessary appointment order since he has secured more marks in accordance with the objective system of evaluation as provided under Schedule -A of the University 1st statute.

(2.) THE skeletal facts outlining the factual conspectus would be briefly narrated so as to better comprehend the issues seeking adjudication:

(3.) MR . J.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual way strenuously urged that the selection committee recommended the name of Opposite party No. 5 vide Annexure -7 by arbitrarily and unreasonably awarding marks in national and international journal publications and also in CCRs so as to favour her malafidely as her husband is a faculty in the very same department of the university. It is further urged that on the basis of information received under the RTI Act vide Annexure -8 to the rejoinder, it appears that opposite party No. 5 had only two articles published in "Excavation of Senudor" against a total publication of two which was subsequently manipulated as "4", therefore she could not have been awarded '7' marks out of '10' in international publication and '4' out of '5' in national publication and '2' marks in CCR, where she had only three months? experience in P.G. study and thereafter she joined as a TGT of French in CBSE School, Gurgaon, Haryana w.e.f. 2.4.2009 and continued till the date of interview pursuant to advertisement in Annexure -1. But she has been awarded two marks for teaching experience. The selection committee has thus shown undue favouritism to opposite party No. 5 so as to select her. Therefore, this Court should interfere with the said decision of the selection committee and quash the same to facilitate the petitioner as he is the 2nd highest marks awardee of the very same selection committee. It appears that the assessment chart for evaluation of candidates for Lecturer in History under unreserved category has been annexed as Annexure -5, which the petitioner received under RTI Act on 1.10.2010, which indicates that opposite party No. 5 has secured 48 marks and the petitioner has secured 45.5 marks. Had the publications and CCRs so far as it relates to opposite party No. 5 been evaluated in consonance with the statute 258 then she could not have been selected, but as against her selection the petitioner name could have been recommended and she could not have been appointed as lecturer in History of the Sambalpur University pursuant to advertisement under Annexure -1. In order to substantiate his case, reliance have been placed on the judgments in Michikanta Rubber (India) Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka and others, : AIR 2012 SC 2915 : (2012) 8 SCC 216, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, : AIR 1996 SC 11 : (1994) 6 SCC 651, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and others v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and others, : AIR 1984 SC 1182 : (1983) 4 SCC 392, Union of India and others v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another etc., : AIR 2001 SC 3887 : (2001) 8 SCC 491.