ANGELIKA SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajesh Bindal, J 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the selection of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Assistant Professors in the department of Environmental Science. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the official respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially an Advertisement was issued on 3/3/2012 for selection to various posts, however, the process was not completed for obvious reasons, as some of the favourites of the official respondents were not eligible for the posts, especially the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who have now been selected. Otherwise there was no good reason for abandoning that process and against that, appoint the candidates on contractual basis. Out of all the applicants who were interviewed for that, the petitioner being meritorious was selected and appointed on contract basis vide order dtd. 27/7/2012.

(3.) The selection process was again initiated when Notification No. 03 of 2012 dtd. 13/2/2013 was issued for the same posts, which were advertised on 3/3/2012. The academic qualification required for the posts was good academic record with at least 55% marks in Master 's degree in the relevant Subject. The candidates should also have cleared the National Eligibility Test (in short, 'the NET ') conducted by University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC '), CISR, or similar test accredited by UGC like SLET/SET. Call letters for interview were issued on 17/5/2013 and the interviews were held on 3/6/2013, however, the result was not published, hence, the petitioner did not come to know about the same. When she came to know that respondent No. 4 had been appointed and respondent No. 5 had been kept in the waiting list, she tried to get information from the University but failed. Uncle of the petitioner had to file application under Right to Information Act for seeking information, which was supplied vide Communication dtd. 11/10/2013, providing for the criteria adopted for selection and also the marks secured by different candidates, who were selected. Being aggrieved of the selection process, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court, challenging the same.