Allahabad High Court
Vice Chancellor Mahatma Gandhi ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Manoj Misra, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 640 of 2022
Appellant :- Vice Chancellor Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Lavlesh Kumar Shukla,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avanish Tiwari
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
We have heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Anugrah Pratap Singh, holding brief of Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, for the appellants; Sri H.N. Sharma for the respondent no.2; and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.
This intra court appeal is against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.13047 of 2022 by which the writ petition of the second respondent was disposed off with certain directions.
A perusal of the record would reflect that a letter was issued to the second respondent provisionally calling upon him to appear for interview on 29.07.2022 at 10 am in the Guest House of the University. This call letter, which is there on record at page 70 of the paper book, reflects that the application of the second respondent was found in order by the Scrutiny Committee and therefore a provisional invite for the interview was made. The call letter however required the candidate to bring necessary educational certificates, marks-sheets and experience certificates in original.
The second respondent (i.e. writ petitioner) claimed that he appeared on the date of the interview but was not interviewed and was not even told the reason as to why he was not interviewed. With these averments, the second respondent filed Writ-A No.13047 of 2022 for a direction upon the Registrar of the University to arrange an interview for the petitioner of the post concerned and not to declare the result of interview of other candidates till the writ petitioner (second respondent herein) is interviewed.
The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides took the view that if there was a good reason for the Interviewing Board/Authority not to interview the writ petitioner then the writ petitioner should have been apprised of the reason therefore, keeping in mind that the interview letter was a provisional call for the interview and the University would suffer no loss because it would have a right to reject the candidature on ground of eligibility, disposed off the petition with directions extracted below:-
"Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observation:
(i) The University shall now issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and other candidates who may have been similarly discriminated, indicating fresh date for interview.
(ii) Upon the petitioner appearing on the date fixed, he may be interviewed by the same selection panel as may have been constituted on 29.07.2022. Thereupon appropriate result may be finalised and declared.
12. Needless to add, if the petitioner or any other candidate does not fulfill the conditions for selection, result of such candidate may not be declared, subject to the University communicating to that candidate the exact reason of his rejection.
13. Such exercise may be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today."
Sri R.K. Ojha has questioned the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petitioner (second respondent herein) did not possess the requisite experience certificate and therefore he was not interviewed on the date fixed; otherwise also, the interview letter was provisional as it required the candidates to bring original educational certificates/ testimonials and experience certificates and had reserved right for the Board not to interview the writ petitioner if he was found ineligible.
In addition to above, it was submitted that the court should not have issued a general direction requiring the University to interview all other similarly situated candidates. It has been submitted that there is no justification for such a general direction as other candidates might have been satisfied with regard to their ineligibility therefore, in absence of any complaint on their behalf, their interview would create nothing but confusion.
Upon consideration of the submissions, we enquired from Sri R.K. Ojha whether the writ petitioner (second respondent herein) was informed in writing about his ineligibility to appear in the interview on the date fixed for the interview.
Sri Ojha fairly stated that no information in writing was given to that effect. Rather, information was given orally.
In such circumstances, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge subserves the ends of justice and obviates under hand dealing as it ensures that a candidate gets a fair chance. Further, since the learned Single Judge has clarified in paragraph 12 of the operative portion of the order dated 02.09.2022 that result of such interview would not be declared if the candidate is not found eligible or does not fulfill the conditions for selection, the order takes care of the apprehensions of the University. In such circumstances, we do not find a good reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as it only ensures that a candidate is given a fair opportunity to appear in the interview once a provisional call letter has been issued.
At this stage, Sri R.K. Ojha submitted that there is no justification for the University to issue notice to all the other candidates for appearance in interview, inasmuch as, those candidates may have been satisfied with regard to their ineligibility and therefore have chosen not to challenge such denial. He also submitted that there may be candidates who may not have even appeared for interview on the date fixed and therefore, this would unnecessarily provide a window for them to appear even though they by their non appearance had their rights forfeited.
We agree with the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, to that extent we clarify that the directions issued vide order impugned dated 02.09.2022 in Writ-A No.13047 of 2022 shall be limited to the writ petitioner (second respondent herein).
The appeal stands disposed off as above.
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
AKShukla/-
