RANDHIR KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against an order dated 05-09-2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 549 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition, preferred by the appellant, was dismissed. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner (appellant herein) had prayed for directing the respondents to appoint him in place of private respondent no. 6 (Dr. Kundan Kishor Rajak) on the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology Department, Mahatma Gandhi Central University, Motihari, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the 'University').

(2.) Short fact, as per memo of appeal, is that an Employment Notice, bearing No. 003 of 2016 dated 05-07-2016, was issued by the University inviting applications in the prescribed proforma for filling-up various posts at the level of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in various disciplines on regular/re- employment (after superannuation) basis. On 08-07-2016, notice was issued to incorporate the eligibility as per the 4 th amendment in University Grants Commission (for short "UGC") Regulation 2010, published in the year 2016, with assurance to issue requisite information about the aforesaid advertisement. On 13-08-2016, as per schedule, the written examination was held and on 17-08-2016, the provisional list of candidates, who had qualified in the written examination for their interview, was published. On 19-10-2016, the University published final list of selected candidates for interview, in which, respondent no. 6 was not declared eligible by the Screening Committee with remarks "neither NET nor Ph.D.". Thereafter, on 22-10-2016, the respondent no. 6 sent e-mail attaching required documents and mentioned therein that documents were already supplied alongwith the application form. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 was provisionally allowed to appear for the interview. Finally, the respondent no. 6 was selected and appointment was made on 28-10-2016 and after lapse of fifteen months on 18-01-2018, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 549 of 2018 for his appointment in place of respondent no. 6.

(3.) Sri Rajendra Nath Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, differing with the impugned order, has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 6 mainly on two grounds:-