Disposed

Dr. I. Narendra Kumar v. Prof. J. Pratap Reddy

Telangana HC15 Nov 2011CC/1076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding regarding selection for an Academic Consultant post, the Supreme Court directed the university to appoint the petitioner based on his overall merit ranking for a newly sanctioned vacancy, closing the case without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to fill the additional sanctioned vacancy of Academic Consultant within three weeks by appointing the petitioner based on his rank in the inter se merit list of interviewed candid

Dr. I. Narendra Kumar Vs Prof. J. Pratap Reddy — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

C.C.No.1076 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Though this contempt case has been instituted to initiate action against the respondent Registrar and the Principal of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, for violating the orders passed by this Court on 16-03-2011, during the course of debate, it has emerged that the University has constituted a Departmental Development Committee, comprising of Prof. V. Kodandarami Reddy, Prof. V. Balakrishnama Naidu, Head of the Department, Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. T. Sankaraiah, for purposes of prescribing the eligibility qualification for Academic Consultant in the Department. This Committee has prescribed the eligibility criteria as under:

¶5

“M.A. Econometrics with a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate.

¶6

If sufficient number of candidates with M.A. Econometrics is not available, the candidates with M.A. Economics may be considered.”

¶7

It, therefore, emerges that if sufficient number of candidates with M.A. Econometrics qualification are not available, then the process of selections would also be

¶8

opened up for the candidates possessing M.A. Economics qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶9

Sri Elisha, has drawn my attention to the selections carried out by the Three-Member Committee, comprising of the Principal of the College, the Dean, Faculty of Arts of the University and the Head of the Department. They have interviewed seven candidates. Five of them appear to have possessed M.A. Econometrics qualification, while the petitioner herein and Ms. K. Suneetha, appear to have possessed M.A. Economics qualification. Under various Heads, marks have been awarded to the respective candidates. There are only three candidates, who possessed Ph.D. degree. They are; Dr. A. Sivasankar,

¶10

Dr. T. Naga Prasuna and the petitioner herein. Finally, in the merit ranking, Dr. A. Sivasankar secured overall marks of 43, while the petitioner herein secured overall marks of 42, but however, another candidate Sri P. Surya Kumar, secured 24 marks. The Selection Committee recommended the names of Dr. A. Sivasankar and Mr. P. Surya Kumar, as they both possess M.A. Econometrics qualification. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶11

Sri Elisha, is incorrect and irregular. Once the petitioner and Mr. K. Suneetha, were also allowed to participate in the selection process, it presupposes that the Committee has found that five candidates, as against two vacancies

¶12

of Academic Consultant, is not a sufficient number. When once two candidates with M.A. Economics qualification are also drawn into the selection arena, the final selections will have to be confined to the inter se merit ranking. At this stage, again the question of choosing the basic qualifications would not arise.

¶13

Per contra, Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, would contend that examining the selections carried out, in such a detailed manner, perhaps, falls outside the scope of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned Standing Counsel, apart from that, would submit that the main thrust of the University is to secure Academic Consultants to the Department of Econometrics, therefore, to achieve this broad purpose, the best two candidates with M.A. Econometrics qualification have been chosen. Therefore, it should not be construed either as an arbitrary selection or in violation of the directions issued by this Court earlier.

¶14

This is one case, where much can be said on both sides. While the learned Standing Counsel is right in his submission that this scrutiny of the selection procedure, in the manner under taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may not be an appropriate manner for deciding or adjudicating the present proceedings, but nonetheless, it has now been brought to my notice that one other Academic Consultant in the Department of Econometrics

¶15

of the University has since been sanctioned. Therefore, it should have occurred to the respondents to have appointed the petitioner, who stood at serial No.2 in the overall merit list of the interviewed candidates, against that post. That would have met with the ends of justice also. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to take the overall merit ranking of the petitioner at the interviews that were conducted on 26-072010, for filling up the additional vacancy of Academic Consultant, sanctioned to the Department of Econometrics, within a period of three weeks from today. With this, the contempt case is closed. No costs.

¶16

--------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J

¶17

mrk 15^th November 2011

Dr. I. Narendra Kumar v. Prof. J. Pratap Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. I. Narendra Kumar v. Prof. J. Pratap Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Bema Rao Vs D.Tarachandra Tagore

Andhra Pradesh Velama Association, Rep by its President Vs Dr. Sameer Sarma, The Commissioner

K. Vara Lakshmi Vs Samba Siva Rao, S/O Not Known

P.Venkateswarulu, Vs Ap Scheduled Castes Co-Op. Finance Corpt. Ltd.

Chennaboina Tirumalaiah Vs Mr. Motilal

M/s. Mbs Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Sri jaganmohan Rao