The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, whereby the latter had dismissed the application of the petitioner, upholding the decision of the MPSC.
The Court observed that what should matter in such a case is the date on which a research paper is accepted for publication as it is such acceptance only which indicates the worth of a research paper for its publication.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, in response to the advertisement inviting applications for selection and appointment as Professor in Cardiology, made an application. He also enclosed all the necessary documents including copies of paper publications and letters showing dates of acceptance of those research papers which were sent by the petitioner for their publication in the prescribed journal. During scrutiny of the application, the petitioner was found to be ineligible to take part in the selection and appointment process. The decision of the MPSC holding the petitioner “ineligible” for the post of Professor in Cardiology was sent to him by E-mail. This E-mail was, however, sent to the petitioner on wrong E-mail ID and thus was not received by the petitioner.
Sometime later, the petitioner came across the names of shortlisted candidates and he found his name missing. He questioned the action of the MPSC before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur. During the hearing, the petitioner learned about having been found ineligible to take part in the selection process. The Tribunal did not, however, take any notice of this lapse and dismissed the application of the petitioner, upholding the decision of the MPSC. Hence, this petition was filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the dismissal order passed by the MPSC is bad in law as it does not consider the most relevant aspects of the matter, in particular, the fact that the research paper of the petitioner was accepted for publication by the concerned international journal on 19.8.2021, much before the last date of filing of the application, which was 26.8.2021.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the decision taken by the MPSC is based upon the decision of the Experts Committee. When the matter was directed to be referred to the Experts Committee for fresh consideration, the Experts Committee found that the fourth research paper was published after the due date of the application i.e., 26.8.2021 and, therefore, the Experts Committee found afresh that the petitioner could not be said to be eligible for taking part in the selection process and that this fresh opinion of the Experts Committee has been relied upon by the MPSC.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the opinion of the Committee of Experts is perverse as it does not consider the relevant facts and also the guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India. The requirement of publication of a research paper in the prescribed journal is fulfilled not only by its actual publication in the journal but also by the fact that the research paper is “accepted for publication”, even though the research paper may not have been actually published.
Once it is established that the fourth research paper of the petitioner was accepted for publication on 19.8.2021, much before the due date of 26.8.2021, the Committee of Experts could not have found the petitioner to be not eligible on the ground that the publication of the research paper of the petitioner was after the said due date.
Further, the Court observed that what should matter in such a case is the date on which a research paper is accepted for publication as it is such acceptance only which indicates the worth of the research paper for its publication.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the scrutiny Committee misdirected itself by taking into consideration something which is really not relevant for deciding the issue in the petition. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and also the impugned decision taken by the MPSC were quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Dr. Sunil vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Hon’ble Justice Vrushali V.J Oshi
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1383 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. A. A. Naik
Advocate for the Respondent No.1: Mr. D. L. Dharmadhikari
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :