BIRENDAS Vs. TEZPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Registrar, Tezpur University issued the advertisement dated 5.4.2003 calling for applications for the post of Finance Officer and Deputy Director (Training & Placement). The writ petitioner who is an Assistant Registrar of the University having requisite qualification, applied for the post of Deputy Director (Training & Placement). Twelve candidates including the writ petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 22.4.2003. The Composition of the Selection Committee surprised the writ petitioner. The Selection Committee was comprised of eight members contrary to the provisions in Section 9 of the Statute-2 which provide for the composition of the Selection Committee by six members. The Selection Committee comprising eight members is a nullity and any recommendation made by them is void in the eye of law. According to the writ petitioner, the Selection Committee was constituted with ulterior motive to select a person of their choice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this petition for declaration that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee is illegal and void.

(2.) While issuing Rule by the Order dated 3.4.2003, the University was directed not to give effect to the appointment order, if any, issued in the meantime. Shri P. C. Deka, learned counsel for the University, during the course of argument, informed that the authority has already issued the appointment orders appointing the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee.

(3.) The respondents in their affidavit aswell as in additional affidavit challenged the statements made in the writ petition. Their plea is that the petition is bared by the principle of acquiescence since the writ petitioner participated in the interview without any protest and, now, he cannot question the legality of the composition of the Selection Committee. According to them, the petitioner being the Assistant Registrar of the University and having full knowledge of the procedure adopted was under an obligation to point out the defect, if any, before initiation of the selection process. The petitioner remained silent obviously with the expectation that he would be selected. The petitioner cannot raise the plea of technical defect to advance his cause after having taken part in the interview. In para -11 of the affidavit, it is pleaded that the petitioner ought to have informed the authority that he was a candidate for the same post. The Selection Committee, according to the answering respondents, comprised of six members and not eight members, as alleged. According to them, Professor S. K. Dolor and Professor B. D. Phukan were not members of the Selection Committee, but were asked to make themselves available to clarify any point that might have arisen during the course of interview. They did not participate or played any role whatsoever in the interview or the selection process. Besides, it is also pleaded that the petitioner cannot get any relief since the members of the Selection Committee had not been impleaded as respondents.