Allahabad High Court
Dr. Shivesh Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
2025:AHC:23633
Reserved - 07/02/2025
Delivered - 19/02/2025
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19569 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dr. Shivesh Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Shukla,Himanshu Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Shukla
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Lavlesh Shukla, learned counsel for respondents - 4 and 5.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court raising same grievance as he has raised in earlier writ petition being Writ A No. 13047 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2022 in regard to call him for interview for selection on post of Associate Professor. For reference, said order is quoted in its entirety :-
"1. Heard Sri Hridai Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a restraint on the respondent University from declaring the result of the selection conducted by it on the post of Associate Professor.
3. Relevant to the present dispute, it has been narrated, the University had invited applications for appointment on the post of Associate Professor vide advertisement dated 30.07.2021. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post Associate Professor (Sanskrit) under EWS category. The petitioner further admits to have received an admit card dated 18.07.2022 to participate in the interview to be held for the said selection on 29.07.2022 at 1:00 p.m.
4. According to the petitioner, though he was present on the date and time at the place specified for the purpose to conduct interview, he was not granted the interview. Being aggrieved, the petitioner claims to have represented to the Vice Chancellor.
5. The matter was taken up as fresh before lunch. On the request of learned counsel appearing for the University, the hearing was adjourned for post lunch session.
6. Upon the matter being thus taken up, learned counsel appearing for the University has relied on written instructions received by him. He submits, the petitioner was not granted interview because he did not comply with the mandatory terms and conditions contained in the admit card dated 18.07.2022. Thus, the petitioner did not produce the certificate of pay scale availed by the petitioner.
7. Upon query made, learned counsel appearing for the University states, no written communication was given to the petitioner to deprive him of the opportunity of interview.
8. In that regard, the petitioner submits, he presented himself alongwith all documents.
9. In such facts, where the University has failed to communicate to the petitioner the fact or reason to disqualify or to reject his application through verifiable mode, it is difficult to sustain the action of the University in depriving the opportunity of interview to the petitioner.
10. Once called for interview, the petitioner had the right to be granted that audience. If the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms of selection, his candidature which in any case, was provisional till that date could have been cancelled by the University by making appropriate declaration giving reasons for the same. No procedure has been followed by the University in that regard.
11. In the entirety of the facts, the action taken by the University is more whimsical. It is opaque to the extent it is not possible for the Court to have confidence in the stand of the University. At the same time, the result has yet not been declared. 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."
3. Thereafter aforesaid order was challenged by Vice Chancellor of respondent-University by way of filing a Special Appeal No. 640 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2022 with certain clarification. For reference, relevant part of said order is quoted is quoted below :-
"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."
4. A Contempt Petition arising out of aforesaid order is still pending being Contempt Application (C) No. 587 of 2024 that earlier referred order was not qualified.
5. Petitioner by way of present petition has now challenged a subsequent advertisement No. 1/2023 dated 23.02.2023 published by respondent-University, so far as post of Associate Professor (Sanskrit) in E.W.S. Quota is concerned essentially on ground on which he has approached earlier before this Court and it would prejudice his right to participate in selection process.
6. It is not disputed that petitioner has participated in said selection process initiated in pursuance of impugned advertisement, however, according to him, process is still not concluded. This writ petition is filed in month of December, 2024 i.e. after more than 1 year 10 months of the advertisement.
7. First objection of learned counsel for respondents was that petitioner has already participated in selection process pursuant to impugned advertisement, therefore, he cannot challenge the same i.e. after game was over and petitioner is not permitted to challenge its Rules.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that error committed in earlier advertisement is being repeated by respondent-University. According to learned counsel for petitioner, essential qualification as fixed by U.G.C. through a notification dated 18.07.2018 for appointment of Associate Professor was that there must be a minimum experience of 8 years of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University having UGC grade and according to UGC, salary for Associate Professor would be about 1.3 lakh per month i.e. more than 15.6 lakh per annum i.e. much more than criteria to issue a certificate under E.W.S. quota, therefore, no teacher as Associate Professor would be eligible to participate under EWS quota, therefore, it may be likely that seat for EWS quota may remain unfilled.
9. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents have submitted that issue is to be considered by the UGC since advertisement was issued only in terms of its guidelines.
10. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.
11. It appears that issue raised in this writ petition was similar to the issue raised by the petitioner in earlier writ petition, however, it appears that said issue was either not pressed effectively when the first writ petition was decided by the Single Bench as well as by the Division Bench in the Special Appeal and that no one has appeared on behalf of UGC probably on the ground that prior service of notice was not made by the petitioner or its advocate was not properly informed.
12. Therefore, Court also takes note that petitioner has approached this Court after participating in the advertisement. Impugned advertisement was issued on 23.02.2023 whereas this writ petition was filed in December, 2024 i.e. after 1 ½ years therefore, challenged at the behest of the petitioner to the advertisement is not sustainable being after participating in the selection process. The Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 280.
13. This Court has also considered factual aspect of the case as well as that probably on basis of an advertisement as exist today probably the seat for EWS quota might not get filled, therefore, without interfering with process at this stage arising out of impugned advertisement and since much water has flown, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that before issuing next advertisement, issue raised in regard to E.W.S. and qualification must be re-looked by the U.G.C. so that no ambiguity remains.
14. A copy of this Order be sent to Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi to take note of factual aspects of this case and certain ambiguity shown so far as E.W.S. quota is concerned.
Order Date :- February 19, 2025
Sinha_N.
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
