JYOTI KALYANI Vs. PUNJAB AGRCULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a candidate for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science, has approached this court raising a grievance that she was more meritorious than the selected candidate but was not selected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being fully qualified, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science, for which two posts were advertised by the respondent-University vide advertisement No. 3/2010. Only three candidates appeared for interview, out of which one was male and two were females. One male candidate has been selected, whereas both the female candidates have not been selected on account of biasness. In fact, the petitioner was more meritorious than the selected candidate. Even though in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, the petitioner is shown at Sr. No. 2, but still was not given appointment even though there were two posts. In the Selection Committee, one of the members was Director Principal of a private Engineering College, whereas two were from Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala. Though the selection was being made in Punjab Agricultural University, but still the Selection Committee was not constituted of the members serving in government institutions only. There was no lady member in the Selection Committee, even though some of the candidates were females. There is no reason given in the recommendations made by the Selection Committee as to why candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner had passed her Matriculation examination in first division with distinction. She secured good marks in her M.Sc. Examination and got degree of MCA in first division with distinction in the year 2004. Immediately thereafter, she passed National Eligibility Test for Lecturership conducted by University Grants Commission in June, 2005 in the subject of Computer Science and Application. Thereafter, she had been serving in different capacities in Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar since October, 2005. She had a publication titled as "Analysis of Virus Algorithms" in an international journal. The qualifications and experience of the selected candidate were not matching with the petitioner, but still he was selected and the petitioner was left out.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in response to the advertisement issued, 19 applications were received. Only 12 were found eligible and three appeared for interview. Out of three candidates, who appeared for interview, only one Anuj Kumar was recommended for appointment. Fair criteria was adopted for selection, where 85 marks out of 100 were meant for qualifications and experience and only 15 marks were for interview. It is also alleged that the selected candidate had cleared his NET examination from University Grants Commission. Rather, in addition to NET examination, he had also cleared NET examination conducted by Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, New Delhi. He further submitted that the petitioner has challenged the process of selection after she had participated therein, which cannot be permitted. In support, reliance was placed upon Gireesh Kumar and others v. Government of India and others, 2008 1 SCT 813 and Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 2 SCT 659. Even selection does not confer any right of appointment. Though in the present case, the petitioner has not been selected, it is wrong to allege that any discrimination was made against female candidates. All three candidates were considered by the Selection Committee and it is per chance that only one candidate was recommended and he was male. He further submitted that even the selected candidate, who initially joined, had resigned and the post has been advertised again. In response to that advertisement, even the petitioner has applied.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.