RAGHUNATH MEHER Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the offer of appointment of opposite party no.4 in the post of Associate Professor in Oriya in Central University of Orissa.

(2.) Adumbrated in brief, the case of the petitioner is that the Registrar, Central University of Orissa, opposite party no.3, issued an advertisement, vide Annexure-1, in the local newspaper for filling up various teaching posts. In the advertisement, it was specifically stated that the selection shall be made as per the minimum qualifications and API score as per UGC norms. The petitioner, who was otherwise eligible, applied for the post of Associate Professor in Oriya. He has 30 years of experience as a faculty in Oriya at different Colleges and Universities. He is an eminent scholar. He has been awarded Ph.D in 1986. He is engaged in research work till date. Under his guidance, 12 scholars have been awarded Ph.D. On 8.11.2012, a call letter was issued to him to appear before the Selection Board on 10.12.2012 along with certain documents for verification. Apart from the petitioner, two other candidates including opposite party no.4 had been called for the interview. Since the result was not published, he engaged an advocate to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. While the matter stood thus, he came across news item published in the local newspaper that the opposite party no.4 has claimed that she has been selected in the interview. Opposite party no.4 has less experience and API score. She even does not possess minimum eligibility criteria. But then, she was selected. Alleging unfairness and prejudice, he made several representations. He obtained the copy of the appointment letter of the opposite party no.4, vide Anneuxre-5. It is further stated that after the recruitment process started, the selection process and procedure has been changed from time to time as per the whim and caprice of the opposite parties. The process of selection was not transparent. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the University Grants Commission, opposite party no.1. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite party no.1 is that the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the UGC") has been constituted under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Act was enacted to make provisions for coordination and determination of standards in the Universities. The Commission has been entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it thinks fit for the promotion and coordination of University education and determination and maintenance of standards of teaching. For the said purpose, the Commission has been vested with the power to recommend any University the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advice the Universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendation. Referring to various provisions of the Act, it is stated that the Commission has issued regulation prescribing the qualification for the post of teaching staff of a University and the institutions affiliated to it from time to time.