RAM CHANDER Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KEEPING in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 -University advertised five posts of Lecturers in Institute of Management Studies and Research, - -vide Advertisement No. 1 of 2008. Three out of five posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Without completing the process of selection, the posts were re -advertised, - -vide advertisement No. 3 of 2008. It was stipulated in the subsequent advertisement that the candidates who had applied in response to the earlier advertisement need not apply again. The petitioner had applied in response to the first advertisement. It is stated that the petitioner is fully eligible. Besides academic qualifications, the petitioner is LL.B. Professional, B.Ed and has also passed tests like UGC Test for Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lectureships in the year 1996, State Level Eligibility Test for Lectureship from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in the year 1995 and UGC -NET examination for eligibility for Lectureship in the year 2004. The petitioner has also worked as Marketing Manager in BM Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, The petitioner was called for interview, - -vide letter dated 19th September, 2008. Interview was held on 6th October, 2008. On completion of the process of selection, private respondents were selected for the post under the Scheduled Caste category. It appears that being not satisfied with the outcome of the selection, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act in respect of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview and merit position etc. - -vide application dated 2nd January, 2009. Official respondents furnished the information. - -vide its reply dated 19th January, 2009 (Annexure P -10). From the information furnished by the respondents, it has been revealed that no merit list was prepared on the basis of the performance in the interview and selection has been made without determining the inter se merit and without applying any rational and valid criteria.

(3.) IN the reply, it is admitted that no merit list was prepared. Without preparing the inter se merit of the candidates, how private respondents were assessed better than the petitioner since no marks are disclosed anywhere nor the same are revealed from the record of selection. Reply to question No. 2 given under the Right to Information Act establishes the total arbitrariness on the part of the respondent/selection body. Question No. 2 of the petitioner and response thereto are reproduced here under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_869_ILR(P&H)1_2011.htm</FRM>