SWATI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions pertains to selection on the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor pursuant to advertisement issued by the University of Rajasthan (for short "University"). The petitioners are those, who applied for the post of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor. Since, issues are common, thus all the writ petitions were heard together.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit/s that criteria for selection has been provided by the University Grants Commission (for short. "UGC") under its Regulations, so as the University by the Ordinance, however, ignoring the aforesaid, short listing of candidates is based on academic performance of the candidate/s. It denies consideration of good teaching experience so as research work, which should be pre-dominant consideration for appointment of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor and Professor. It is not an appointment in the school where only academic record may be relevant. Ignoring the good teaching experience and research work, the University has short listed the candidates based on marks in the academics. It is in violation of Ordinance 141(b) so as Ordinance 141(d)(1) where general requirement and qualification are prescribed apart from the procedure for recruitment and selection. The respondents have ignored the aforesaid while short listing the candidate/s. As per the Ordinance 141(b)(1), the University should have conducted screening test to short list the candidate/s, if application forms have been received grater in number to the post advertised.

(3.) The candidate/s having excellent academic record and even gold medalist have been deprived to get right of consideration to the post in question. It is nothing but to sacrifice the meritorious candidates in the hands of others, who are not entitled to hold the post for teaching at the level of College/University. In view of above, criteria of short listing adopted by the respondent University should be quashed with the direction to either hold screening test or in the alternative to provide other appropriate objective criteria for short listing. It should be with the component of not only academics but contribution of the candidate/s towards research and teaching experience. To have transparency, the respondent University could have adopted different brackets of marks for research and even for teaching work. It is by keeping greater marks for international research work than at the national level and such similar criteria for other research work. Instead of doing so, short listing criteria is based on academic record, which eliminated those, who are having teaching experience of years together. It is more so when selection in question has been conducted by the respondent University after more than two decades. The meritorious candidates waiting for the selection would be deprived in view of criteria of short listing adopted by the University.