SNIGDHA PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions since similar question is involved, as such directed to be heard together, accordingly the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In these writ petitions the orders passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in several original applications dated 25.7.2016 are under judicial scrutiny wherein the Tribunal has adjudicated the legality and propriety of condition no.6 of the advertisement in question and the process of selection made in pursuance thereto, (the original applications are O.A. Nos.744, 767, 794, 767, 768, 688, 601, 254(C), 137, 138, 605, 619, 953(C), 2156(C) and 2270 of 2015).

(2.) The facts leading to the instant writ petitions are that one advertisement was issued on 24.06.2013 inviting applications for recruitment of 281 posts of Lecturers in different disciplines under Group-A of Odisha Education Service (College Branch) of Government Degree Colleges of the State under the Department of Higher Education in the scale of pay of Rs. 15,600.0039,100.00 carrying Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000.00 with usual dearness allowances as may be sanctioned by the State Government from time to time reflecting therein the different numbers of vacancies in different disciplines with the reference of minimum educational qualification, method of selection and other conditions stipulated therein. The advertisement which contains the method of selection provides that the selection of candidates for recruitment to the posts will be made on the basis of career assessment and viva voice. The Commission at their discretion has preserved their rights to shortlist the candidates to a reasonable number for conducting interview by making a preliminary selection on the basis of evaluation of their academic career taking into account the requisite minimum educational qualification. The eligible candidates have submitted their online application in terms of the advertisement in question being advertisement No.5 of 2013-14 published by Odisha Public Service Commission (in short the Commission). The Commission has followed the method of selection by screening the number of candidates on the basis of evaluation of their academic career and thereafter called upon the candidates who have been found to be up to mark on the basis of evaluation of their career taking into account the requisite minimum educational qualification. The candidates, who have been screened out, have not been called upon to appear in the interview, as such they being aggrieved with the decision of the Commission for screening them out, have approached the Tribunal challenging the Clause No.6 of the advertisement in question, as also questioning the decision of the Commission with regard to the process adopted by it to screen out their candidature taking into account the academic qualification from Matriculation till Post Graduate, ignoring higher qualification such as Ph.D, Research Activities, M.Phil Degree and teaching experience, which according to them was in violation of the University Grants Commission guidelines which are mandatorily to be followed, as such rejection of their candidature is illegal.

(3.) The candidates who approached the Tribunal against the rejection of their candidature have taken the ground before it that the advertisement in question stipulates a condition under the heading 'Educational Qualification' that a candidate should possess Master's Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized University with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade with a 2nd Class in Bachelor's Degree along with NET, Ph.D Degree as required under the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 and as such rejecting their candidature is in violation of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 (in short UGC Regulations, 2009). The other ground assailing the decision of the Commission in rejecting their candidature is that the reliance put by the Commission under the Orissa Education Service (College Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 is absolutely illegal being not in consonance with the UGC Regulations, 2010, as such giving go bye to the UGC Regulations, in consideration of their candidature and putting reliance upon the Recruitment Rules, 1990 is incorrect decision of the authorities due to which they have suffered since their candidature has been rejected at the thresh hold on the basis of the condition mentioned in clause No.6 and as such they have also assailed the condition No.6 of the advertisement in question, whereby and where under their screening out has been done by evaluating their academic career. It has been urged that the UGC Regulations, will prevail upon the statute in view of the fact that UGC regulation is applicable to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the University concerned under clause(f) of Sec. 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be University U/s.3 of the said Act, and since the advertisement has been published inviting online applications to fill up the post of Lecturers in the Government Colleges, hence the provision of UGC Regulations, 2009 will be applicable, which provides the method of selection under clause No.6.1.0 which will be transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of candidates in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in the regulations in tables I to IX of Appendix III, provided that API scores will be used for screening purpose only and will have no bearing on expert assessment of candidates in Direct Recruitment/CAS, provided further that the API score claim of each of the sub-categories in the Category III will have the cap to calculate the total API score claim for Direct Recruitment category wise, as such according to the candidates whose candidature has been screened out, the Commission ought to have taken into consideration while screening out their candidature on the basis of API in place of evaluating it by their Academic career. On these grounds the rejected candidates have approached the tribunal. The tribunal has formulated four issues, while approving the action of the Commission for short listing of candidates, the procedure of preliminary selection adopted by the Commission has been quashed holding the process of screening out to be incorrect.