KARUNA KUMARI Vs. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to absorb her on the post of Assistant Professor -cum Junior Scientist (Home Science) or any other equivalent post. The facs of the case are as follows: The petitioner passed the Bachelor of Science (Home Science) examination from the College of Home Science Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa on 1.7.85 vide notification no. 1498/RAU. She was selected for admission under the Master 's Degree Programme in extension education. It may be stated here that the Academic Council of Respondent -Rajendra Agricultural University ( 'the University ' for short) had decided in its 24th meeting held on 5.11.84 to make arrangement for the PG training of its students after passing the B.Sc. course so that their services could be available to the University on a more assured basis, since the College of Home Science which was established in the year 1982 had failed to recruit or retain the required number of faculty members in different cadres in different subjects due to paucity of suitably trained and experienced candidates or their lack of enthusiasm to live at Pasa. The said decision of the Academic Council was approved by the Syndicate of the University in its 33rd meeting held on 16.2.85. It was accordingly decided to grant Fellowship to the two top ranking students in each subject completing B.Sc. (Home Science) Degree from the said University for undergoing Master 's Degree Programme in different subjects selected Institutions. Thus, vide letter no. 1445/RAU dated 29.6.85, the names of 10 candidates including the petitioner were sponsored for their admission in different colleges. It may be mentioned here that the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) had approved the scheme for admission of the students of the said University under Master 's Degree Programme in extension education, and it was through the Council that the candidates were admitted in their respective colleges. The petitioner was admitted in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Before that, vide letter no. 2198/RAU dated 23.8.85, she was asked to execute an Agreement Bond in the prescribed proforma which she submitted. After the completion of the M.Sc. Degree, vide office order no.178 dated 15.11.89. The petitioner was appointed as Instructor in the Home Science extension education on the consolidated emolument of Rs. 2,000/ - per month. She joined the said\ post on 15.11.89. In the meantime, it appears she had appeared for interview for the posts of Assistant Professor -cum -junior Scientist (Home Science) and Trainee Associate (Home Science) on 4.2.89. The grievance of the petitioner is that other similarly situate candidates who had also completed M.Sc. Degree, along with her, have been appointed, and absorbed in the University Service but the petitioner has not been absorbed so far. According to the petitioner under the aforesaid Faculty Improvement Programme and by virtue of the aforesaid Agreement Bond the candidates who had been selected for M.Sc. Degree were to be absorbed in the faculty of Home Science of the University on completion of the degree. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein they have inter alia, stated that the selection of the candidates for the M.Sc. degree under the Faculty Improvement Programme does not guarantee any employment under the University. The Bond binds such selected candidates to serve the University in any capacity suited to her qualifications (if required by the University) but on that basis they cannot claim any right for their employment. As regards the petitioner, it has been stated that, she appeared in the interview and selection for her appointment to the post of Assistant Professor -cum -Junior Scientist, but could not succeed in the test and therefore, she was not appointed.

(2.) IT appears that while submitting the proposal before the Syndicate, the Academic Council of the University had also framed rule called "Rules regulating the grant of fellowship/scholarship of the students of Home Science nominated or deputed by the University to undergo higher study in selected Institutions" as well as draft of the Agreement Bond to be executed by the selected candidates. The Syndicate while approving the proposal had also approved the said rules and format of the Bond. The relevant part of the said Rules runs as follows: - "Students so selected for nomination/deputation shall be required to fill up a bond on stamp paper to the effect that she will complete the Masters Degree Programme successfully for which she has been deputed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of her admission in the course concerned and after completion of the said degree programme she shall serve the University in any capacity suited to her qualification if required by the University, but they will not have any claim for employment in the University", (emphasis added) The relevant part of the Agreement Bond may also be quoted as hereunder : - That I also undertake to serve this University on return after completion of my Master 's degree programme for a minimum period of three years in whatsoever capacity the University likes provided the job is offered to me within one year of passing the examination for which I am being deputed." (emphasis added)

(3.) I am however, not able to appreciate as to how all the candidates selected along with the petitioner vide the aforesaid letter No. 1445/RAU dated 29.6.85, have been absorbed except her. In paragraphs 12 and 13 the petitioner has mentioned the names of 8 out of 10 candidates (except Ms. Sangeeta Rani and the petitioner herself) who have been absorbed in course of time. The reply of the respondents vide para nos. 20 and 21 of the counter affidavit, is rather vague and omnibus. It has been stated therein that the persons concerned have been appointed against the posts for which they had applied and selected by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was not found fit by the Selection Committee and therefore, not appointed. Except that, nothing has been stated. It would have been more appropriate if the respondents had brought on record the minutes of the Selection Committee which could indicate the reasons for the non -selection of the petitioner. That would also have enabled this Court to satisfy itself that the case of the petitioner was duly considered and the same was not arbitrarily rejected. It does not stand to reason, prima faice, that while all other candidates (except Ms. Sangita Rani who does not appear to be aggrieved) would be found suitable, the petitioner alone was found unsuitable, even though she had completed the M.Sc. degree along with them. Counsel for the petitioner lamented the fact that after completion of the M.Sc. degree vide the aforesaid order dated 15.11.89, the petitioner was selected as Instructor under a temporary scheme which lapsed and now she has become over -age.