Sunita Jogram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

(1)

WP-11582-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.11582 OF 2015

¶5

Dr. Sunita d/o. Jogram Rathod,
Age: 41 Years, Occupation: Service,
R/o. Flat No.44, Yamuna Apartment,
Near Thatte Haud Runwal Residency,
Begampura, Aurangabad.

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

(1) The State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Through its Secretary.

¶9

(2)His Excellency,
The Hon'ble Chancellor,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad.

¶10

(3) The Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad.

¶11

(4) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar. ..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Ms. P. S. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. P. Basarkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3
and 4.

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶14

 SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶15

Closed for Orders on :11.07.2018.

¶16

Order Pronounced on :24.08.2018.

¶17

(2) WP-11582-2015

¶18

FINAL ORDER (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶19

1.The petitioner seeks direction against
respondents to declare the result of the petitioner
for the post of Assistant Registrar pursuant to the
advertisement dated 06.03.2012, with further
direction to consider the claim of the petitioner
for the post of Assistant Registrar and to issue
appointment orders for the post of Assistant
Registrar and Deputy Registrar from Open, VJ-(A)
and Women category. The petitioner by way of an
amendment assails the letters dated 26.10.2015 and
12.01.2016 issued by the respondent thereby
cancelling the selection process for the post of
Assistant Registrar.

¶20

2.Ms. Talekar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the respondent no.4-
University had published an advertisement on
06.03.2012 for filling up various posts in Group
'A' and Group 'B' cadres, including three posts of
Deputy Registrar (Group 'A'). Out of three posts,
one each were reserved for Open, O.B.C. and VJ-(A)
and six posts of Assistant Registrar (Group 'A').
Out of six posts, one each were reserved for VJ-(A)
and O.B.C. category and the remaining four posts
were for Open Category, of which one was reserved
for Women. The petitioner applied for the post of
Deputy Registrar as well Assistant Registrar. The
petitioner belongs to VJ-(A) category. In view of
that the petitioner can compete for VJ-(A), Open
and Open (women). The respondent no.4–University

¶21

(3) WP-11582-2015

¶22

conducted written test on 20.11.2013, for the posts
of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The
petitioner secured 35 marks out of 70 marks for
both the posts. The petitioner secured her name in
two categories i.e. Open and VJ-(A) for the post of
Deputy Registrar and in three categories i.e. VJ-
(A), Open and Open (women) for the post of
Assistant Registrar. The petitioner was declared
selected in the written examination and was called
for interviews for the posts of Deputy Registrar
and Assistant Registrar. However, because of
interim orders, the interviews for the post of
Deputy Registrar were stayed. The petitioner was
called for the interview for the post of Assistant
Registrar scheduled on 27.07.2015. The interviews
for all the three categories i.e. VJ-(A), Open and
Women were held on the same day. The petitioner
appeared for the interview on 27.07.2015 for the
post of Assistant Registrar, but the result was not
declared. The respondent no.4 did not conduct
interview for the post of Deputy Registrar.

¶23

3.The learned counsel further submits that
it was erroneous on the part of the respondent to
cancel the selection process of Deputy Registrar,
when the written examination was held and the only
interviews were required to be conducted. No
appropriate reason is given for not proceeding with
the selection process. The interim orders by this
court were only for interregnum period and after
the interim orders are vacated, the interviews

¶24

(4) WP-11582-2015

¶25

could have been conducted. The learned counsel
submits that the cancellation of selection process
without assigning reasons is arbitrary. The
learned counsel relies on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Munna Roy vs. Union
of India and Others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 283.
The learned counsel submits that the respondent be
directed to complete the selection process for the
post of Deputy Registrar.

¶26

4.The learned counsel submits that, the
decision of the respondent to term the petitioner
not suitable for the post of Assistant Registrar is
arbitrary, irrational and does not stand to any
reason. The learned counsel submits that the
petitioner had qualified for the interviews having
passed the written examination. The petitioner is
held to be unsuitable only on the basis of viva-
voce. Interview can not be the sole criteria for
the selection. The learned counsel relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of
Praveen Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others
reported in (2000) 8 SCC 633. The learned counsel
submits that the cut-off marks are to be prescribed
beforehand. The rules can not be changed after the
game is played. The learned counsel relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of K.
Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another

¶27

reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512. According to the
learned counsel, if a particular thing is to be
done, it has to be done in that manner only, no

¶28

(5) WP-11582-2015

¶29

other process can be adopted. The learned counsel
relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
a case of Zuari Cement Limited vs. Regional
Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Hyderabad and Others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 690.
The learned counsel submits that if the marks
allotted in viva-voce for the post of Assistant
Registrar is considered, the member of the
committee related with the University have given
very less marks than the marks given by the
independent member of the committee. This itself
shows the manner in which the viva-voce is
conducted. The learned counsel submits that on the
spur of the moment, the petitioner was directed to
write a letter. The same cannot be a procedure of
conducting vice-voce. The selection suffers from
malice. The petitioner was eligible, as such,
ought to have been issued the appointment order.
The petitioner cannot be held to be not suitable.

¶30

5.Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the petitioner was
interviewed by the duly constituted selection
committee for the Open as well as Open (women) and
N.T. category. During the course of interview all
candidates were asked to write a D.O. letter (Demi
Official Letter) that forms part and parcel of the
duties of Assistant Registrar. Inspite of
providing repeated opportunity to the petitioner,
she was not able to a write the letter. The
petitioner could not address a single letter either

¶31

(6) WP-11582-2015

¶32

in Marathi or in English. The petitioner accepted
the same in her own hand writing. The other
candidate drafted the D.O. letter in fluent
English. The Selection Committee found the
petitioner unsuitable for the post of Assistant
Registrar. The petitioner's performance was poor
in the oral interview and her selection is not
recommended by the selection committee for the post
of Assistant Registrar. Once the candidate has
appeared for the selection process, thereafter,
candidate can not question it. The learned counsel
relies on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in
a case of Madras Institute of Development Studies
and Another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others
reported in (2016) (1) SCC 454.

¶33

6.The learned counsel further submits that
for the post of Deputy Registrar one candidate from
S.T. category was selected and in respect of other
categories, the recruitment process is cancelled
and such a statement was made in writ petition
bearing No. 11301 of 2014. The said writ petition
is disposed of.

¶34

7.We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned counsel for respective
parties.

¶35

8.The petitioner had applied for the post of
Assistant Registrar, so also Deputy Registrar. It
appears that, the petitioner had appeared for the

¶36

(7) WP-11582-2015

¶37

written examination for both the posts and was
called for the interview for the post of Assistant
Registrar. In the interview the marks given by the
each member of selection committee are reproduced.
The petitioner has secured very less marks. The
petitioner is held unsuitable for the post of
Assistant Registrar. The respondents alongwith
their affidavit-in-reply has placed on record the
copies of the letter written by the petitioner
pursuant to the direction of the interviewing
committee.

¶38

9.The petitioner certainly was not in a
position to even write a single sentence. It is
not denied by the petitioner that the petitioner
was not in a position to write the proper letter.
It is only submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that it was inappropriate to ask the petitioner to
write the letter, thereby taking petitioner by
surprise. Communicating through letters would be a
part of the job of Assistant Registrar. There are
no malafides specifically alleged against each
member of the selection committee nor there is any
reason for the members of the selection committee
to have malice against the petitioner. The members
of the selection committee are experts. This court
would not sit in appeal over the decision of the
experts. The petitioner without any demur had
participated in the selection process and having
failed is assailing it, the same would not be
permissible. The marks obtained by the petitioner

¶39

(8) WP-11582-2015

¶40

in the viva-voce are too scarce for considering the
petitioner eligible, so as to inspire confidence in
the members of the selection committee.

¶41

10.In light of the above, the claim of the
petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar
negatived by the respondent does not appear to
suffer from any illegality.

¶42

11.Thepetitionerhadgivenwritten
examination, even for the post of Deputy Registrar,
but the selection process for the said post has
been cancelled. The petitioner is not interviewed
for said post. There was litigation pending and
thereafter, the University decided to cancel the
process and start it afresh. No right was created
in favour of the petitioner, so as to seek
directions against the respondent to continue the
selection process for the post of Deputy Registrar.
If the fresh selection process is initiated, the
petitioner certainly will have opportunity to
participate in the same. The interviews for the
post of Deputy Registrar were never conducted. It
can not be said that the petitioner had gained some
advantage in the selection process for the post of
Deputy Registrar. In absence of any right being
created and the cancellation of the selection
process for the post of Deputy Registrar on account
of litigation could not create any right in favour
of the petitioner to seek directions against the
respondent to conclude the selection process for
the post of Deputy Registrar. Similar challenge

¶43

(9) WP-11582-2015

¶44

for not completing the remainderof the selection
process for the post of Deputy Registrar was
assailed in writ petition no. 11301/2014. The
statement was recorded in the said writ petition of
the learned counsel for the University that the
University has cancelled the said selection process
and fresh selection process shall be conducted by
issuing fresh advertisement. The said writ
petition was disposed on 26.02.2015. The
petitioner can compete in the fresh selection
process. The judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of D. V. Bakshi and Others vs. Union of India
and Others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 663 relied by
the petitioner would not inure to the petitioner.
In the said case there were allegations of bias.
The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the
allegations about bias should be supported by some
defendable proof. In the present case, there is no
proof that the members of the selection committee
had bias against the petitioner.

¶45

12.Considering the aforesaid, no case for
interference is made out. Writ petition as such is
dismissed. No costs.

¶46

(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Nandkumar Nandkumar Kale Kale Date: 2018.08.30 09:59:01 +0530

¶48

Devendra/July-18

Sunita Jogram Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Jogram Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Angad Bhagwanrao Dahiphale

Vishnudas Haridas Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Premnath Changdeo Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Laxman Mane Vs the Union of India and Another

Bhausaheb Bhikaji Navthar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bajirao Shamrao Kolte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others