Saurabh Singh Vs Surguja University

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 162 of 2024

¶5

Saurabh Singh S/o Late Gautam Singh Gaharwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Opposite Central Bank Of India, Vijay Marg, Gurunanak Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surguja University Through Its Registrar, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh Now Known As Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya Sarguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh

¶9

University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002

¶10

All India Council For Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpad, New Delhi. 110001

¶11

Maheedher Dubey (Asst. Professor Electronics), S/o Shri Sachidanand Dubey, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Manoj Kuamr Dewangan (Asst. Professor Electronics), S/o Shri Sharwar Dewangan Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Ankit Arora (Asst. Professor CSE), S/o Shri Ravindra Arora Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

(Deleted) Ritesh Kumar Gupta As Per Honble Court Order Dated 06/03/2020.

¶15

Dipti Verma (Asst. Professor CSE), D/o Shir Krishna Kumar Verma Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Ishwarlal Deshmukh (Asst. Professor CSE), S/o Shri Ratti Ram Deshmukh Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh (Resigned)

¶17

2

¶18

Mohan Rao Mamdikar (Asst. Professor CSE), S/o Shri B.R. Mamdikar Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

Pooja Patre (Asst. Professor CSE), D/o Shri Chand Kumar Patre Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Jasmin Minj (Asst. Professor CSE), D/o Shri Rambir Minj, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Presently At Vishwavidyalaya Engineering College, Ambikapur, constituent Of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶22

---- Respondents

¶23

Cause-title taken from Case Information System

¶24

For Appellant	: Mr.Ashwin Panickar, Advocate
For Res.No.1, 9, 10 & 13	: Mr.Neeraj Choubey, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Mr.Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Mr.Ajit Singh, Advocate
For Respondents No.6 &	8: Mr.Shreyanash Agrawal, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶27

C.A.V Judgment

¶28

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶29

8.4.2024

¶30

Heard Mr. Ashwin Panickar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 9, 10 and 13, Mr.Jitendra Nath Nande, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Mr.Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr.Shreyanash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 and 8.

¶31

3

¶32

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 2.2.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 919/2016, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.

¶33

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, are that the petitioner has been aggrieved by the order dated 08/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) by virtue of which respondents no. 4 to 12 had been selected on the post of Assistant Professor. An advertisement was issued by respondent no. 1 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Principal and other non-teaching staff vide Annexure P/4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Computer Science Engineering and Electronics Engineering. Copy of application forms are collectively annexed as Annexure P/2 and P/3. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview for the respective subjects vide interview call letters vide Annexure P/5 and P/6. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared but unfortunately, the petitioner could not make his place in the final merit list published. As an outcome, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P/7) under Right to Information Act, 2005 but the petitioner did not receive any reply until second hearing at CGSIC. Information sought by petitioner was malafidely denied by respondent no. 1 through his APIO whereby, petitioner moved first appeal under RTI Act, 2005 but again this appeal was disposed of by respondent no. 1 through its FAA/FAO. Further, petitioner moved to CGSIC for second appeal, thereafter CGSIC

¶34

4

¶35

issued an order to provide information to petitioner, copy of order issued by CGSIC is hereby annexed with the petition as Annexure P/10. In compliance with the order passed by CGSIC, respondent no. 1 had provided misleading and incomplete information. Vide letter dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P/11), respondent no. 1 accepted the fact that there were no written documents available for meeting minutes of selection committee. After request had been made by the petitioner for providing true copy of all documents, the respondent no. 1 thereby vide letter dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure P/13) had quoted that meeting minutes of selection committee is same as recommended by selection committee which is contrary to first letter of respondent no. 1. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner.

¶36

By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitioner filed by the writ petitioner. Hence, this appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order dated 8.7.2014 of respondent No.1 is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2013 amendments which are binding on respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and the same is in conflict with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sudama Devi v. Commissioner and others reported in (1983) 2 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that every case must be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances as to whether the petitioner is guilty of laches. He further submits that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of it being in the nature of

¶38

5

¶39

public interest litigation in service matters which is prohibited by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (2014) 15 SCC 308 . It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred as the relief in para 10.3 seeks setting aside of selection and appointment of private respondents and selection process to continue from the point it stood vitiated, thereby bringing the appellant in the zone of consideration which has been denied to him on account of arbitrary allocation of marks by respondent No.1 contrary to UGC Regulations. The learned Single Judge ignored the fact that in the same advertisement one R.N. Khare was not found suitable for the post of Professor but with the same qualifications he found suitable and recommended for the post of Principal. The learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494 wherein it was held that error is on part of respondent Board and cannot be attributed to the Appellants, but it is humbly submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred and ought to have relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein it was held that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. He also submits that the learned Single Judge ignored the admission of respondent No.1 that on 6.7.2014 between 9 A.M. to 2 P.M. total 41 candidates appeared for Electronics Engineering with allotted time averaging

¶40

6

¶41

about 7 minutes and were evaluated by the selection committee headed by the Vice Chancellor in the criteria of research performance and aptitude carrying 20 marks, domain of knowledge carrying 20 marks, teaching skills and aptitude carrying 10 marks and interview performance carrying 20 marks and the same scenario played out at 2 P.M. when 46 candidates were examined for the post of Assistant Professor Computer Science and Engineering. The entire proceedings depict the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Poddar reported in 1994 (6) SCC 292 that if large number of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraint. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside/quashed.

¶42

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents support the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition which warrants no interference.

¶43

We have perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶44

Learned Single Judge has held that a candidate applying for the post of Assistant Professor in any subject of the engineering must have passed his both the degree; i.e. graduation and the postgraduation in the same subject. Thus, the petitioner is not eligible for the post of the Assistant Professor as he does not possess the

¶45

7

¶46

requisite qualification in both the subjects he applied. Thus, the petitioner was called for the interview in both the subjects by way of only extra caution otherwise neither he is eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in the 'Computer Science Engineering', and nor in the subject of 'Electronics Engineering'. Thus, there is no locus for the petitioner to file the present petition. The Director of Technical Education, State of Chhattisgarh wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Sarguja University mentioning that a candidate for the teaching posts under the faculty of Engineering & Technology will be eligible for the said posts only when he passed graduation and post graduation with the same subject. Likewise, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission also adopted the same principle of common/ same subject both in the selection for teaching posts are required as a mandatory requirement for appointment as teacher in the faculty of Engineering & Technology. Accordingly, no candidate was found to be qualified for selection of teachers posts notified in July 2015. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court examined the issue as to whether the degree in Electrical Engineering would be equivalent to the degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering in W.P.(S) No.2992/2015 (Sudhir Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 14-09-2015. In the light of above decision, the petitioner cannot be claimed that the degree in the Subject of Electronic is equivalent with the degree in the subject of 'Computer Science Engineering' as both are entirely different subjects. The instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. There are 24 months of delay in filing

¶47

8

¶48

the instant petition. The appointment order of the respondents No. 4 to 12 was issued on 8th July 2014. Therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process and when he was not selected then he challenged the selection process. In the writ petition, the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post. It is well settled law, that, if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair.

¶49

Learned Single Judge further held that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the recruitment of respondents No. 4 to 12. The selection does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Petitioner, being unsuccessful candidate, cannot challenge the legality or fairness of the selection process. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work, research and teaching capabilities with its skill and aptitude of the petitioner and thereafter, recommendations was made. The Selection Committee duly constituted by the University as per provision of the University Act, 1973, consisting of highly qualified distinguished experts, had

¶50

9

¶51

evaluated the qualification, experience, skill and aptitude in teaching and research of the candidates, including the petitioner. The Selection Committee(s) prepared panel in the order of merit which was open before the Executive Council of the respondent University and since the appointing authority accepted the recommendation, thus, the respondent University issued the appointment order in the favour of the respondents No. 4 to 12 in accordance with law. Selection Committee(s) carefully examined and scrutinized the qualification, experience, skill and aptitude in teaching and research of the all those candidates appeared in the interview before recommending the panel for appointment as Assistant professor. The Selection Committee(s) in fact made unanimous recommendation after scrutinizing the merits and de-merits of each candidate and its recommendations were accepted by the Executive Council of the University. Further the petitioner did not furnish any material on record, pointing out discrimination & arbitrariness on the part of the selection Committee in selection process of the Assistant Professors in the subjects of Computer Science Engineering and the Electronics Engineering. The academic question cannot be decided by the Court and the court should refrain from entertaining such petitions.

¶52

10.It is not disputed that the advertisement dated 04.10.2013 was issued and the petitioner and private respondents appeared in the selection process and by order dated 08.07.2014, respondents No. 4 to 12 were selected on the post of Assistant Professor. It is also not disputed that the petitioner appeared in the selection process,

¶53

10

¶54

however he was not selected by the selection committee.

¶55

11.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents and the impugned order, documents attached with writ petition and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal.

¶56

12.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶57

Sd/- Sd/-

¶58

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶59

Bablu

Saurabh Singh v. Surguja University

Case brief

What is this about?

Saurabh Singh v. Surguja University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dadan Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Sonamati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. Vs Nanki Prasad

Samaru Manjhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chand Baig Vs Ganga Prasad Patre

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Vs Vishal @ Rahul Rajwade