RIPUDAMAN SINGH Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No.4- Vishva Bandhu Singh, to the post of Assistant Professor (Geography) on the ground that 2 extra marks had been given under wrong assessment and the marks awarded are hit by wrong parameters. The petitioner having got more marks and was more qualified and therefore, entitled for the said appointment.

(2.) It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he had applied against the 2 posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography in response to the advertisement dated 1/2012 (Annexure P-1) and the last date for applying was 31.01.2012. It is his case that 2 candidates were selected, namely, Dr. Simrit Kahlon and Vishva Bandhu Singh-privaterespondent No.4. Both secured final score of 81.76 and 65.68 marks, respectively, as per Annexure P-2. Petitioner's grouse is that respondent No.4 has been given weightage for his experience as Map Curator, which is a non-teaching position. It is, thus, his case that if 2 marks would have not been given to the private respondent, for the teaching experience, his merit would fall to 63.68 and therefore, the petitioner's merit of 64.18 marks, would bring him within the zone of consideration and he had wrongly been placed on the wait-list.

(3.) Reliance has been placed upon information supplied by the Department of Geography on 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-7) to contend that it was a non-teaching post and that it was in the pay-scale of Rs.8000- 13,500/- and the essential qualifications were M.A. in Geography with 55% marks and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System from an institute/ University, recognized by the Government. Reliance has, accordingly, been placed upon the budget estimate (Annexure P-9) to show that the said post fell within the non-academic staff. Reference was made to the reply of respondentUniversity to show that the said private-respondent had worked as Map Curator from 04.12.2006 to 18.03.2013 and had taught classes of PostGraduate Diploma Remote Sensing and GIS System, Masters in Disaster Management and Masters in Remote Sensing and GIS from January, 2007 to January, 2009. Reference was also made to the reply (Annexure R-5) wherein the Selection Committee had examined whether there was any irregularity regarding his appointment and it had been resolved that there was no such irregularity and the Vice-Chancellor may proceed further, in view of the authorization given by the Senate. It was noticed that the Committee had taken into account the fact that the name of the said respondent figured in the time-table and he has been doing teaching work as assigned to him by the Department. Reference is also made to the reply of the said respondent, wherein plea was taken that one Mehar Singh, Map Curator, was working on the said post in 1976 and he has even been designated as a Teacher in the light of the fact that he has taught various courses in the subjects of Remote Sensing and GIS classes. It is, thus, the contention of the Senior Counsel that as per the details of the teaching work done by the said respondent, as annexed vide Annexures R-4/3 and R-4/4, there was recommendation that the post be designated as Lecturer. Once there was recommendation dated 16.09.2009 (Annexure R-8) for designating to the said post as Lecturer, it would all go on to show that it was a non-teaching post and therefore, the 2 marks should not have been awarded under the work experience.