news details |
|
|
| Post of Asstt Prof Sanskrit in JU: HC quashes re-advt | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 18: The J&K High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by a candidate, who despite recommendations in her favour by the Selection Committee, had been denied appointment by the Jammu University (JU) for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Sanskrit, and instead of appointing her the JU had re-advertised the said post.
After hearing Advocate appearing for the petitioner-
Priyanka Arya, of New Delhi, and Advocate Sanchit Verma for JU, the First Puisne Judge Justice Rajesh Bindal quashed the re-advertisement notice, dated November, 30, 2017, and directed the JU that there is no requirement to fill up the same post for which recommendations had already been made in favour of the petitioner.
The court further issued directions to the JU to act on the recommendations made by the Selection Committee in accordance with law. "To avoid any further litigation, it is clarified that in case the petitioner is appointed, she shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of her joining the post," the court ruled.
Advocate submitted that the petitioner had participated in the process of selection and there was no allegation against her or any of the members of the Selection Committee. The candidate namely Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra against whom certain allegations about biasness of a Member of the Selection Committee were raised, was merely in the waiting list as there was only one post. The petitioner had secured 76.40 marks whereas the candidate in the waiting list had secured merely 72.00 marks.
Advocate further submitted that because of biasness of one of the experts towards one of the candidates, the entire selection process cannot be cancelled especially when that candidate has not been selected. He further submitted that the Selection Committee was headed by the Vice-Chancellor. Because the petitioner was recommended being No.1 in the merit list unanimously, shows that nothing had transpired at the time of interview of the candidates. It came later in the notice of the authorities that Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra was pursuing his PhD under the guidance of Prof. Manu Lata Sharma, who was an expert in the interview committee.
The court observed that from the record of the Selection Committee, it is evident that the petitioner Priyanka Arya was awarded more marks in interview than Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra, in whose case biasness is sought to be alleged. There is nothing on record to suggest that any person was favouring the petitioner as the only allegation which came in the notice of the university after recommendations were made by the Selection Committee, was some link of that candidate with one of the members of the Selection Committee.
It is further evident from the recommendations made by the Selection Committee that there were two more candidates above Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra who had secured 72.60 and 72.40 marks as against 72.00 marks secured by him. Recommendation was made for selection and appointment of the petitioner, whereas Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra was directed to be kept in the waiting list. May be the other two candidates who had secured more marks than him may have better claim but this issue does not arise in the present case. As the candidate who was at S.No.1 in the merit list was recommended to be selected and appointed and there was no allegation of biasness in her case.
Justice Rajesh Bindal further observed that there is no dispute with the proposition of law that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment but equally good is the proposition that there has to be good reason to deny appointment to a candidate selected and recommended for appointment. In the case in hand, the reason assigned for denying appointment to the petitioner, who was No.1 in the merit list, cannot be justified merely because there are some allegations against one of the candidate, who was not selected. It is not even the case of the University that there was any biasness in the case of the petitioner for award of marks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
