NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. CHANCELLOR MAGADH UNIVERSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ applications have been taken up and heard together as the issues raised in them are common. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved with the selection process held by the respondent University for appointment of principals on regular basis in its constituent colleges, in which respondent nos. 7 to 32 were selected and appointed and the petitioners of the writ applications were unsuccessful.

(2.) PETITIONERS of the first writ application have prayed for quashing of notification contained in Memo No.64/2009 dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure-4), by which, under the signature of the Registrar of the respondent University, a panel of successful candidates under different categories was notified, which was meant to be taken into account for filling up future vacancies also. They have further prayed for quashing of Notification contained in Memo No.65/2009 dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-5), 96-01/2009 dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure-7) and 96-02/2009 dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure- 8), by which, in different transactions, the respondents have been appointed as principals of different constituent colleges of the University. Further prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the respondents to advertise the post of principals afresh, after quashing the above said notification. Prayer has also been made for restraining the respondents from joining and performing their duties and to further restrain the respondents from making any more appointment on the post of principal from the said impugned panel. The sole petitioner of the 2nd case has prayed in his writ application for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on a vacant sanctioned post of principal with all consequential benefits. The sole petitioner of the 3rd case, though of the same name, has prayed in his writ application for a direction to the respondents to award him three more marks for research papers and appoint him as principal with all consequential benefits. Apart from these three independent writ applications, some interventions have also been sought for in the matter by different parties.

(3.) IT was also submitted that the panel could not be used for filling up of any vacancy which may have become available after the advertisement and after the panel was prepared and finalized. It was also submitted that the panel could not be used for filling up of vacancies of any category which was not notified in the advertisement itself as, in absence of such notification in the advertisement, large number of candidates of the said category may not have applied at all. It was next submitted that the chart prepared by the Selection Committee, as contained in Annexure-3, shows that against the name of many candidates an endorsement was made that they were not found suitable. This clearly shows that the said candidates were put out of the consideration zone only on the subjective consideration by the Selection Committee, for which no valid reasons were mentioned in the said Chart. There being no cut-off/pass marks in either academic achievements or publication/research or interview, no candidate could be put out of consideration zone merely because of some reasons which the Selection Committee, at the time of preparation of the chart, may have thought appropriate. It was also contended that the selection elsewhere, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, could not be a valid ground in law for eliminating any candidate from zone of consideration. Still, just to deprive meritorious candidates the chances of appointment, they have not been considered only on the ground that they were selected elsewhere.