Dismissed

Narendra Kumar Saini v. University of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2013SAW/1322/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal dismissed. The appellant challenged the selection process for Assistant Professor posts alleging a violation of Ordinance 141-B for not holding a screening test. The court held the ordinance did not mandate tests and upheld the selection based on qualifying exam marks.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was discharged; the challenge to the selection process failed.

Narendra Kumar Saini Vs University of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

:: JUDGMENT ::

¶4

D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1322/ 2013 Narendra Kumar Saini Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶5

04.12.2013

¶6

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶7

Mr.R.K.Saini for the appellant.

¶8

¶9

BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶10

Heard Mr.R.K.Saini, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ

¶11

petitioner.

¶12

In challenge is the judgment and order dated 31.10.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.19379/ 2013 , whereby the appellant/ writ petitioner's challenge to the ongoing selection process for appointment, amongst others, to the post of Professor/ Assistant Professor under the respondent-University, has failed.

¶13

The respondent-University had initiated a process for appointment, amongst others, to the aforementioned posts by an advertisement dated 1.11.2012 ( Annexure-1 to the writ petition) . The appellant/ writ petitioner had offered his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (History).

¶14

Apart from contending that he is a Post Graduate in the subject, and that, had also passed NET, and thus, he is academically qualified for

¶15

¶16

the post, he has averred that against 17 posts of Assistant Professor (History), in all, 1644 applications, from the contending candidates, have been received. According to the appellant/ writ petitioner, in clear violation of the mandate of Ordinance 141-B of the respondentUniversity, it did not arrange any screening test/ entrance test for shortlisting the candidates for participating in the final stages of the process. This, the appellant/ writ petitioner has asserted, has vitiated the entire process.

¶17

The learned Single Judge, by the judgment and order impugned, while referring to the relevant clause of the aforestated ordinance, rejected these contentions by holding that the screening test/ entrance test was not a mandatory requirement thereunder. It was recorded that the shortlisting had been done on the basis of marks secured in the qualifying course.

¶18

Mr.Saini has emphatically argued, more particularly with reference to clause (4) of Ordinance 141-B of the respondent-University, that it (respondent-University) was obligated to hold a screening test to shortlist the candidates for appointment to the posts involved, and thus, its omission to do so, has rendered the process invalid.

¶19

We have traversed the pleaded facts, examined the documents appended to the petition and have also analyzed the arguments advanced.

¶20

Clause (4) of Ordinance 141-B reads as hereunder:-

¶21

“ Recruitment and Selection Procedure. (1) . . . . . . .

(2) . . . . . . .

(3) . . . . . .

(4) The University may design a mechanism for short listing the candidates including holding a screening test/ adopting objective criteria as the case may be for any post(s) for a subject(s), if required.”

¶26

A plain reading of clause (4) of the aforementioned ordinance would demonstrate, in clear terms, that it is not imperative for the respondent-University to hold a screening test for shortlisting the candidates. The Ordinance has left it at liberty to design a mechanism for the purpose inter alia either by holding a screening test or by adopting an objective criteria, if required.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner has not denied that shortlisting of the candidates had been done on the basis of marks secured by them in the qualifying examinations. It is not his case either that no criterion whatsoever has been adopted by the respondentUniversity to shortlist the candidates.

¶28

Having regard to the framework of clause (4) of the Ordinance 141-B and the language consciously applied, we are of the view that thereby, the respondent-University was not mandated inflexibly to shortlist the candidates, only by holding a screening test. This plea therefore, is not tenable. Further, it is not denied that shortlisting had been done on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examinations.

¶29

In view of the limited challenge laid in the instant proceeding, we find no merit to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶30

¶31

The appeal fails and is dismissed. The stay application also stands

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.

¶34

Skant/ -

¶35

Al l t he cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed.

¶36

Shashi Kant Gaur , PA

Narendra Kumar Saini v. University of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Saini v. University of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Purshottam Nagar Vs Raj Hindi Granth Academy

Dr.Purushottam Nagar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

R P S C Ajmer Vs Suman Choudhary

Raj State Industrial Dev and Invest Vs Vineet Kumar Gupta and Another

Villagers of Village Vs State Mines Departmentors

Kundan Prasad Vs B O R and Ors.