SONIKA GUPTA Vs. DR. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner approaches this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the appointment of respondent No. 3 inter -alia on the ground that her case was not properly considered despite the fact that she was duly qualified for the consideration to the post of Assistant Professor in Production Economics and Natural Resource Economics in terms of the advertisement Annexure P1 issued by the respondent University.The petitioner was heard and record of the Selection Committee perused.

(2.) AT this stage, I would like to observe that it would not be for this Court to sit as an appellate authority over the expert committee to evaluate and assess the comparative merits of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 or to pronounce upon the eligibility on the facts on record. If perversity is established on the facts, this Court can certainly examine the decision making process and the conclusion arrived at. However, what this Court is called upon to adjudicate is the fact that despite the petitioner being found eligible for consideration to the post of Assistant Professor in Production Economics and Natural Resource Economics and similarly, respondent No. 3 being also found eligible by the Screening Committee as recorded in Annexure P -2, the case was not properly considered by the Selection Committee. The record of the Selection Committee, which comprises of seven members, was called for. However, when the selection of respondent No.3 was made, the Committee only records:

(3.) I find that despite the Screening Committee having found both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 eligible, the Selection Committee has not recorded any reasons as to why the petitioner cannot be considered against the post for which she was found eligible by the Screening Committee. It is in these circumstances that this Court is called upon to judge the legality of the selection made.