Allahabad High Court

Dr Suman Jain vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 7 March, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


AFR
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32994
 
Judgment reserved  on 3.3.2025
 
Delivered on  7.3.2025
 
Court No. - 10 
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14995 of 2024 
 
Petitioner :- Dr Suman Jain 
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Hem Pratap Singh,Prem
 
Narayan Rai,Rahul Agarwal
 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent-University.

2. Petitioner before this Court is working at the respondent University namely Banaras Hindu University since 1996 and has faced a Selection Committee for the post of Senior Professor (Academic Level 15) in the Department of Ancient Indian History Culture (AIHC) and Archaeology under Career Advancement Scheme for the first time.

3. The petitioner was earlier appointed on the post of Lecturer in Palaeography in Department of AIHC and Archaeology under a 'Special Assistant Programme'. Later on, she was promoted on the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the Department of AIHC & Archaeology and in similar manner she was promoted as a Reader, Associate Professor, and Professor (Stage-V) in the Department of AIHC and Archaeology and now in terms of a Notification dated 18.7.2018 of the University Grants Commission, she has to face a selection committee, constituted for the post of Senior Professor (Academic Level 15) in terms of Clause 5.1 (iv) of said notification.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that when she faced the Selection Committee, she came to know that three experts being its members were not the experts of her subject i.e. Paleography, therefore, according to her, the Selection Committee was not constituted in terms of above referred regulation, therefore, she has approached this Court. The Constitution of Selection Committee for the post of promotion of post of Senior Professor in the University is reproduced hereinafter:

"IV. Senior Professor

(a) The selection Committee for the post of Senior Professor in the University shall consist of the following persons:

I. Vice Chancellor who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee.

II. An academician not below the rank of Senior Professor/Professor with minimum ten years experience who is the nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, wherever applicable.

III. Three experts not below the rank of Senior Professor/Professor with a minimum of ten years experience in the subject/field concerned nominated by the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of names approved by the relevant statutory body of the University.

IV. Dean(not below the rank of Senior Professor/Professor with minimum ten years experience) of the faculty, wherever applicable.

V. Head/Chairperson (not below the rank of Senior Professor/Professor with minimum ten years experience) or Senior most Professor (not below the rank of Senior Professor/Professor, with a minimum of ten years' experience) of the Department/School.

VI. An academician (not below the rank of a Senior Professor/Professor with minimum ten years experience) representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority /Women / Differently-abled categories, if any of candidates representing these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category.

(b) Four members, including two outside subject experts, shall constitute the quorum."

5. For reference prayers sought in this Writ Petition are reproduced hereinafter:-

"(i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to produce the recommendations of the selection committee which met on 29.07.2024 for promotion as Senior Professor (Academic Level 15) in the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture & Archeology, Banaras Hindu University and to quash the same.

(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature restraining the respondent from undertaking any proceedings in pursuance to the recommendation of selection committee which met on 29.07.2024, for promotion as Senior Professor (Academic Level 15), Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture & Archeology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

(iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to re-convene a meeting of the selection committee for consideration of the petitioner for promotion as Sr. Professor Academic Level 15 after including therein external experts in the subject/field of Paleography within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble court.

(iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition."

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner refers paragraph no.22 of the Writ Petition, wherein details of three Experts are mentioned, that they were not expert in the subject of Palaeography. He further submitted that there are two co-ordinate Bench judgments i.e. Writ-A No. 12176 of 2024 Dr. Monika Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors, Neutral Citation No:2024:AHC:190635 and Writ-A No.4884 of 2024, Dr.Dipanwita Singha Roy Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors, Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:21621 that such issue was considered about the expertise of experts and respective Special Appeals are pending before Division Bench of this Court and they are distinguishable on facts.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent University has placed reliance on aforesaid two judgments and submitted that the issue has already been settled and there is no reason for this Court to take any contrary view. It was held in Dr. Monika Bansal (Supra) that objection to the Constitution of a Selection Committee on ground that Experts were not from discipline of Periodontology was rejected as experts were Dentists Experts from prestigious Institutions.

8. In order to appreciate contentions of learned Senior Counsel and in order to scrutinize as to whether details disclosed in regard to earlier promotions of the petitioner were correct or it was half baked truth, therefore, I have checked the official website of Banaras Hindu University as well as documents annexed along with present Writ Petition and following facts were revealed being mentioned therein in a simple language, which does not require knowledge of Palaeography.

9. Correct position of facts are that petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Palaeography in Department of AIHC and Archaeology under a Special Assistant Programme. Later on, she was promoted on the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the Department of AIHC & Archaeology and in similar manner she was promoted as a Reader, Associate Professor, and Professor (Stage-V) in the Department of AIHC and Archaeology and not in a specific subject i.e. Palaeography, therefore, the contention that for the purpose of selection committee there must be three Experts of Palaeography has no legal basis, since consideration for promotion was for the post of Senior Professor (Academic Level 15) at AIHC and Archaeology and not for any specific topic such as Palaeography.

10. I have also perused the curriculum of B.A. (Hons.) in AIHC and Archaeology and in its 6th Semester there is one core subject i.e. 'Ancient Indian Palaeography and Epigraphy', therefore, in the entire course, Palaeography is one of the core subject out of 20 core subjects.

11. In the post graduation, out of six specialised courses only one is of 'Palaeography and Epigraphy'.

12. The petitioner has not come up with a case that she is only tasking classes in subject Palaeography.

13. As referred in the Writ Petition all the three experts are specialized in the field of Archaeology, which includes many topics or subjects including 'Palaeography'.

14. Court is not making any doubt so far as petitioner's expertise on subject Palaeography is concerned, but such expertise does not require that in the Selection Committee, three experts ought to be in subject of Palaeography only. In Clause 5 (IV)(iii) of notification dated 18.07.2018 for Experts it is provided that minimum of 10 years experience in the subject/field, which has a wide connotation and could not be restricted as contended by the petitioner. The outcome of Selection Process is also not on record.

15. In the Website of Banaras Hindu University, there are details of petitioner, that she is working in the in Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology. No mention is made in respect of subject of Palaeography, therefore, argument in this respect has no ground. The three Experts were qualified to be part of Selection Committee and any objection to it is rejected.

16. The Court also takes note of Dr. Monika Bansal (Supra), Dr. Dipanwita Singha Roy (Supra) and Dr. Trilok Nath Singh Vs. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra & Oths. (1990) 4 SCC 510 and it would not be helpful to petitioner's case rather they are against her.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no ground to grant relief as sought in the present Writ Petition, accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.3.2025