DR. RAJIV SHANKAR KHER Vs. GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction, inter alia, that the selection of the respondent No. 2 in the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 5.6.2005 for the post of Reader (Physics) be quashed and the respondent No. 1 be directed to appoint the petitioner on the said post.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) in the Department of Physics in the Government Science P.G. College, Bilaspur. After completing 21 years of service, the petitioner applied for selection to the post of Reader in the Department of Physics, pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.2.2005 (Annexure -P/2). The qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Reader was as per the norms of UGC/AICTE University/MCI i.e. for the post of Reader (Open Selection). The UGC guidelines provides the following qualification for the post of Reader (Open Selection):

(3.) THE petitioner claims to be eligible and more qualified than the respondent No. 2, still the respondent No. 2 was selected and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. Shri P. Diwakar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the discrepancy is writ large. The petitioner has guided in total 8 candidates for Ph.D. degree, which is evident from Annexure -P/1, whereas the respondent No. 2 has not guided a single candidate. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to 25 marks and the respondent No. 2 was entitled to '0' marks against the column No. 1 for guidance of candidates for Ph.D. degree. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are entitled to 20 marks for research publication, for book publication they are entitled to 10 marks. For post Doctoral Degree/Visiting Professor the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are not entitled to any marks. On confidential reports of last five years both are entitled to 15 marks. Apart from the fact that the petitioner was awarded '0' marks in interview. The petitioner in total ought to have been awarded 70 marks and the respondent No. 2,45 marks. Thus, the petitioner was better qualified and was entitled to appointment on the post of Reader. The Selection Committee has completely ignored the guidelines fixed by the Coordination Committee for awarding marks for the post of Reader as stated above. Thus, the recommendation of the Selection Committee in favour of the respondent No. 2 for his appointment on the post of Reader is illegal, contrary to the guidelines, unreasonable and speaks for favoritism. Per contra, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, supported the selection of the respondent No. 2 on the post of Reader. Learned counsel would submit that the Selection Committee was fully competent to scrutinize the records and give due weightage to the merits of the candidates. Recommendation of the Selection Committee i.e. the expert body need not be interfered as the expert body is more competent to assess the merit of the candidates. The recommendation of the University Coordination Committee held on 5.3.2005 at Raj Bhawan, Raipu for allocation of marks i.e. allotment of 25 marks for guiding students for Ph.D. degree (5 marks each candidate), 20 marks for research publication, 10 marks for book publication, 10 marks for post Doctoral Degree/Visiting Professor and 15 marks for confidential reports of last 5 years is neither applicable nor binding. The Selection Committee derives its power from Section 49 of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2002. Further since the Coordination Committee decided about the allocation of marks after publication of the advertisement, the said recommendations were neither applicable nor binding in the selection process. Shri Shrivastava, would further submit that in the field of education, a Court of law cannot sit as an expert. Normally therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications should be better left to educational institutions. This is particularly so when it is supported by an expert committee. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bihar Public Service Commission and others vs. Kamini and others, : (2007) 5 SCC 519, The University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, : AIR 1965 SC 491 and Vijay Syal and Another vs. State of Punjab & Others, : (2003) 9 SCC 401.