Bombay High Court
Nitin Jaglal Untwal vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 5 September, 2023
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase
2023:BHC-AUG:19222-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12072 OF 2022
Dr. Nitin Jaglal Untwal,
Age 42 yrs., Occ. Presently Nil,
R/o House No.5-12-42, Padampura,
Aurangabad.
... Petitioner
... Versus ...
1 The Union of India,
Through the Ministry of Education,
Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, 127-C, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2 The University Grants Commission,
Through it's Secretary,
Bahadurshaha Jafar Marg,
Government of India, New Delhi.
3 The Secretary,
Higher & Technical Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
4 The Maharashtra National Law University,
Through it's Vice Chancellor,
Sambhaji Sainik School,
Nath Valley Road, Kanchanwadi,
Aurangabad.
5 The Maharashtra National Law University,
Through it's Registrar,
Sambhaji Sainik School,
Nath Valley Road, Kanchanwadi,
Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 07:54:26 :::
2 WP_12072_2022_Jd
6 Dy. Y.V. Ramanna Murthy,
Age Major, Occ. Service as
Associate Professor (Finance)
at Maharashtra National Law
University, Sambhaji Sainik School,
Nath Valley Road, Kanchanwadi,
Aurangabad.
... Respondents
...
Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner
Miss. Nikita N. Gore, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. S.W. Munde, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent No.3
Mr. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5
Mr. A.R. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.6
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10th AUGUST, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 05th SEPTEMBER, 2023
JUDGMENT : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
1 Present petitioner challenges the selection and appointment to
the post of Associate Professor of Management (Finance) at Maharashtra
National Law University, Aurangabad. By invoking Articles 14, 16 and 226 of
the Constitution of India he challenges the order of appointment of
3 WP_12072_2022_Jd
respondent No.6 on the said post by respondent Nos.4 and 5 University,
thereby he is demanding issuance of writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ.
2 The petitioner contends that he is qualified as Ph.D., M.B.A.
(Finance), M.A. (Economics). He had qualified for the University Grants
Commission (hereinafter referred to as "UGC") State Eligibility Test in
subjects of Commerce and Management in the year 2013 and 2016
respectively. He has served as Associate Professor (Finance) at G.S.P.M.
College, Pune. His total experience on the teaching side is about 9½ years,
out of which he has served in the capacity as Associate Professor (Finance)
for a period of four year. Lastly, he was working at M.I.T. Aurangabad. He
was in search of a permanent job in a Government institution and then he
came across the advertisement dated 10.08.2021 published by respondent
No.5 inviting the applications for 08 posts including the post of Associate
Professor of Management (Finance) in the pay scale as per 7 th CPC at
academic level 13A with rationalized entry pay of Rs.1,31,400/-. It was the
solitary post to be filled in the form of unreserved category. The petitioner
applied for the said post by proper channel. Thereafter, under
communication dated 08.03.2022 the respondent No.5 had issued the call
letter for interview to him and asked him to remain present for the said
4 WP_12072_2022_Jd
interview on 26.03.2022 at 11.00 a.m. at Hotel Benchmark (Wockhardt
Training Centre, Nakshtrawadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad). He caused his
appearance for the interview as per the letter and it was found that about 08
applications were received for the said post and after scrutiny only 03
persons were called for the interview. Those three persons were the
petitioner, respondent No.6 and one Dr. Ruchi Bhandari. The interview was
taken, however, for a considerable time the result was not declared. In the
second week of May, 2022, he gave complaint in respect of same to UGC and
then the Section Officer of UGC gave communication to National Law
University, Aurangabad. Thereupon it was informed by respondent No.5 that
it has constituted scrutiny committee/screening committee to scrutinize the
applications. 08 applications were received and then the selection committee
duly constituted as per UGC had conducted the interview and selected
respondent No.6 as a rank first candidate, second was Dr. Ruchi Bhandari and
the petitioner was third. The petitioner contends that from the E-mail which
he had received the language employed made him to believe that the process
of selection was not taken in accordance with the norms set out by the UGC
under the Notification dated 18.07.2018. According to the petitioner,
respondent No.5 had replied his third point i.e. in respect of "The Academic
Performance Indicator score sheet of all candidates with Scrutiny Committee
Report", which is sought to procure under the Right to Information Act. But
5 WP_12072_2022_Jd
the said reply said that in the said selection process, the API score was only
used for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates, who have applied for the
said post and that the API score was not part of the criteria for the
assessment of the candidates during interview by the selection committee as
mentioned above. The petitioner contends that the thrust of the petitioner
was on API as was highlighted in the UGC Regulations, 2018 and that it was
to carry 75% weightage while making assessment of the candidates, meaning
thereby only 25% weightage was to be given to the interview and the marks
to be allotted at the time of interview. According to petitioner, the University
i.e. respondent No.5 has given a total go bye to API of the petitioner and the
other candidates and based their selection only on the basis of the interviews.
The other two candidates at the merit position of Nos.1 and 2 were having
acquaintance with few members of the selection committee as both the
candidates were the colleagues of faculty in other universities at NALSAR
University of Law, Hyderabad and N.L.U. Jodhpur. The petitioner is relying
on the selection and screening criteria adopted by Chhatrapati Shahuji
Maharaj University, Kanpur and Siddharth University, Kapilvastu,
Siddharthnagar, which say that 80% marks to be given to API and 20% for
the interview. According to the petitioner, on the backdrop of the facts and
circumstances he has narrated that the respondents have violated the UGC
Regulations, 2018 by giving 100% weightage to the interview which has
6 WP_12072_2022_Jd
prejudicially affected him. He says that he is relying on the decision in Ashok
Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana and others [1985(4) SCC 417] in support
of his contentions. For the grounds narrated in the petition he has prayed for
the appropriate writs to be issued.
3 Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been given by
Dr. Supriya Dahiya, serving as Education Officer in the Government of India,
has stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have based their selection purely on
the basis of interview. She has stated that as per clause 4.1 (II) of UGC
Regulations, on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and
Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance and Standards in Higher Education, 2018, the UGC has
amended all its circulars/letters/public notice from time to time and it is
necessary and mandatory to follow them.
4 Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been
filed by Dhanaji Mukundrao Jadhav, Registrar, Maharashtra National Law
University, Aurangabad, upon the authorization to him. He submits that the
selection and appointment of respondent No.6 for the said post is as per the
UGC Regulations. In the advertisement that was published, the eligibility
criteria was laid down. It was made known that a duly constituted Screening
7 WP_12072_2022_Jd
and Evaluation Committee would verify the applications and shortlist the
candidates for interview. The petitioner appears to be under mistaken
impression that the University has not adopted the mandatory tables in the
UGC Regulations and not followed the same. In fact, the UGC authorities
have not found any fault in the selection process. The eligibility criteria also
says that there is a desirable qualification for the post in question i.e.
Teaching Experience in National Law University or Indian Institute of
Management. The petitioner has no such experience, but respondent No.6
has the said experience. He was a permanent faculty at NALSAR University
of Law, Hyderabad and also a visiting faculty at IIM Shilong and IIM
Kashipur. The petitioner appears to have served for 07 private unaided
degree colleges. The said experience is also therefore counted. The
petitioner himself had subjected to interview and, therefore, he cannot now
challenge the process. He cannot claim that the weightage for the API score
and interview should have been taken together. The selection committee
consists of eminent experts and academicians. The deponent has stated
about the achievements achieved by respondent No.6 and has given in short
as to how he was the suitable candidate. The entire selection process has
been videographed. The decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) will not be
applicable to the facts of the present case as the said case dealt with the
appointments of Clerks, Stenos and Ministerial staff. He, therefore, prayed
8 WP_12072_2022_Jd
for dismissal of the writ petition as it is coupled with mala fides.
5 Affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and he has
tried to give the answer in the points raised in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf
of respondent Nos.4 and 5. He has rather reiterated the points he wanted to
say in the petition and, therefore, we do not want to reproduce the same.
6 Affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by respondent No.6, whose
selection has been challenged. Respondent No.6 in affidavit-in-reply has
given the list of his achievements, publications, educational qualification,
experience in the field and then stated that the petitioner was aware about
the conditions/terms, which were stated in the advertisement. He had
subjected himself to the process and, therefore, he is estopped from
challenging the conditions. The provisions concerning API score/research are
meant only for the purpose of shortlisting of candidates and not for the
purpose of final selection. The allegations concerning non compliance of
relevant norms are merely speculative in nature. His selection is on the basis
of UGC norms and there is no violation in respect of the same. Respondent
No.6 has attached documents to support the affidavit.
7 Again the petitioner has given affidavit-in-rejoinder to the
affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.6 and reiterated his own points and
9 WP_12072_2022_Jd
also placed on record the communication by UGC dated 08.08.2022 stating
that the UGC Regulations are applicable to all the universities.
8 Additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4
and 5 to bring further few facts on record. It is then stated that there were
10 heads of allotment of marks in the interview and each head carries ten
marks and communication to that effect dated 01.06.2022 was clear enough.
The petitioner has placed the reliance on the order passed by Hon'ble
Governor/Chancellor of State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 18.03.2021.
9 Again additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner for
production of order passed by Hon'ble Governor on 18.05.2021 and stated
that rules have been framed for the selection of posts like Associate Professor,
Joint Professor and Professor and depending upon the academic performance
of the candidates, marks were to be allotted out of the maximum stipulated
under the head. Only 10% of the marks were provided for the interview.
And lastly, there is one more additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioner
reiterating decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), allotment of marks and
how the said case has a binding precedents over the selection processes.
10 With the above said background or facts of the case we have
heard learned Advocate Mr. S.D. Joshi for the petitioner, learned Advocate
10 WP_12072_2022_Jd
Miss. Nikita N. Gore for respondent No.1, learned Advocate Mr. S.W. Munde
for respondent No.2, learned AGP Mr. A.M. Phule for respondent No.3,
learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Kadam for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned
Advocate Mr. A.R. Joshi for respondent No.6.
11 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the
recruitment notification/advertisement issued by Maharashtra National Law
University, Aurangabad dated 10.08.2021, especially in respect of post of
Associate Professor of Management (Finance). The said advertisement
speaks about the eligibility criteria and also the desirable qualification.
Thereafter, he has taken us through the general instructions also and also
pointed out the UGC notification dated 18.07.2018. It prescribes minimum
qualification for the post of Senior Professor, Professors and Teachers and
other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges. Rule 1.2 prescribes that
"Every University or institution deemed to be University, as the case may be,
shall as soon as may be, but not later than within six months of the coming
into force of these Regulations, take effective steps for the amendment of the
statutes, ordinances or other statutory provisions governing it, so as to bring
the same in accordance with these Regulations." Maharashtra National Law
University was established in 2017 at Aurangabad and, therefore, ought to
have formulated its own rules, regulations prescribing the minimum
11 WP_12072_2022_Jd
qualifications for all the posts till then the UGC regulation is binding on
MNLU. MNLU regulations then prescribes for table 1 and 2 which deal with
assessment criteria and methodology for University/College teachers and
methodology for University and College teachers for calculating
academic/research score. Rule 6.1 of the said UGC regulation deals with
Assessment Criteria and Methodology. Sub-clause (a) says that - "Tables 1 to
3 of Appendix II are applicable to the selection of Assistant
Professors/Associate Professors/Professors/Senior Professor in Universities
and Colleges". Rule 6.2 prescribes that - "The constitution of the Selection
Committees and Selection Procedure as well as the Assessment Criteria and
Methodology for the said cadres, either through direct recruitment or
through Career Advancement Scheme, shall be in accordance with the UGC
Regulations". Therefore, taking into consideration these regulations it
appears that the Table No.1 i.e. stage No.I is not properly followed. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner reiterated, the pleading of the petitioner that 80%
weightage ought to have been given to API and 20% in Stage II i.e. interview
ought to have been given and then while making the final selection the stage
I should have been taken with stage II, otherwise if the selection was to be
only on the basis of the marks in the interview i.e. stage II, then it would be
against the mandate laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra). Ashok Kumar
Yadav (supra) has been followed thereafter in many cases and, therefore, it
12 WP_12072_2022_Jd
has to be taken as decision laying down ratio to be followed.
12 Learned Advocate for the petitioner is relying on Chhatrapati
Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur Regulations as well as Siddharth
University, Kapilvastu, Siddharthnagar. Copies of the said
regulations/notifications have been produced on record. He has also
produced the order dated 18.05.2021 passed by Hon'ble Governor, Uttar
Pradesh, on the basis of which these two Universities had adopted those
regulations. Further, we would like to say that the contents of various
affidavits on behalf of the petitioner have been reiterated by way of
submissions by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and, therefore, we are
not reproducing the same.
13 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the
Constitutional Bench decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) and he submits
that he would be relying on the observations from paragraph Nos.26 to 29,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of as to how high
allocation of marks to the viva voce tests would be prejudicial to some of the
candidates and would lead to arbitrariness. He further submits that the
petitioner is not challenging the selection process after participating in the
process, but he is pointing out misconstruction of statutory rules and
13 WP_12072_2022_Jd
discriminating consequences arising therefrom. He relied on Dr. (Major)
Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar and others [(2019) 20 SCC 17], wherein it
was held that -
"17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as
the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only
accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a
situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules
and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot
be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The
constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is
impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the
incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution,
unless he/she participates in the selection process."
He ultimately submitted that the petition be allowed in terms of
prayer clause 'A' to 'E'.
14 Learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Kadam representing the University i.e.
respondent Nos.4 and 5 vehemently submitted that the eligibility of a
candidate is different from suitability. He has also taken us through the
advertisement/recruitment notification and submitted that in clause B(2)
which was in respect of 'Associate Professor of Management (Finance)',
eligibility was expressed. Sub clause (vi) prescribes that the 'Desirable
Qualification' was Teaching Experience in National Law University (NLUs) or
14 WP_12072_2022_Jd
Indian Institute of Management (IIMs). Sub clause (i) to (v) of the said
eligibility criteria prescribe that a total research score of seventy five as per
the criteria given in UGC Regulations, July 2018 as per Appendix II, Table 2
would be given and the petitioner had fulfilled the said criteria and,
therefore, the call letter was given to the petitioner. At that time the
'desirable qualification' as one of the rules was not considered, but it was
made known to the candidate that the University is looking for a suitable
candidate having such 'desirable qualification'. Learned Advocate Mr. S.K.
Kadam has also taken us through the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.4 and 5 and submitted that the selection committee was appointed and
then the interviews have been taken. The entire process was transparent and
as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. After submitting himself to the process
the petitioner has unnecessarily challenging the entire process as well as the
selection of respondent No.6. It appears that the entire exercise is with mala
fide intention. Even the UGC has not found any fault with the process.
15 Learned Advocate representing UGC submitted that UGC is not
finding the advertisement in violation of its rule and has also seen that the
transparency is maintained.
16 Learned Advocate for respondent No.6 submits that respondent
15 WP_12072_2022_Jd
No.6 has been duly selected. The petition appears to be speculative in
nature. The interview procedure has been challenged which he cannot, how
much marks were to be allotted out of the prescribed marks was with the
selectors. Further, it appears from the petition that petitioner has expressed
mala fides against many persons, but they have not been made as a party, so
also, in fact, the petitioner was at Sr.No.3. He has not made Sr.No.2 i.e. Miss.
Ruchi Bhandari as party. Under the said circumstance, the prayers in the writ
petition cannot be granted.
17 All the Advocates representing the respondents have submitted
that the facts in the decision of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) are not
applicable to the facts of this case. The observations in Ashok Kumar Yadav
(supra) were dependent on the rules and regulations which were found to be
not followed, but, here, UGC Regulations have been followed and, therefore,
even the decision in Dr. Meeta Sahai (supra) will not be helpful to the
petitioner.
18 At the outset, we would like to say that there is no dispute as
regards a fact that Maharashtra National Law University is governed by UGC
Regulations as regards appointment to the post of Associate Professor of
Management (Finance). There is no dispute that after clearing the first stage
16 WP_12072_2022_Jd
by the petitioner he was called for the interview, in other words, he had
secured the desirable marks in API score. Now, he has raised a point that the
API score should have been added to the second stage i.e. the interview also
and the selection should not have been only on the basis of the interview. We
have gone through the decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra). Before
turning to paragraph No.26 onwards relied by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner, in para No.22 the facts were narrated. In that case it was observed
that the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 were applicable
to State of Haryana and in Rule 9 certain marks were prescribed, in which
the categories of the candidates were made segregated. One of the categories
was ex-service officer and the other one was general. Upon the scrutiny the
Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that the marks allocated to viva voce tests for
both the categories were different and, therefore, the percentage was
different. That means, for ex-service officer, who was supposed to appear for
five compulsory subjects, a written examination carrying 400 marks in
aggregate and a viva voce test carrying 200 marks. Whereas, the general
category candidate was required to appear for 08 subjects for written
examination in the aggregate 700 marks and viva voce tests carrying 200
marks. This segregation and allocation of different marks was not approved.
And in that background the observations from paragraph Nos.26 to 29 have
been made. Here, in this case, there is no question of two different
17 WP_12072_2022_Jd
categories. All were in one category and as aforesaid after clearing first stage
the petitioner had come to the second stage. Even till he appeared for the
interview, it appears that he had no objection for the procedure, because he is
not coming with a case that he had taken any written objection with the
concerned authorities. He has not produced any such background indicating
that before his interview he had raised any written objection. The decision in
Madan Lal and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others [(1995) 3
SCC 486] has been reiterated in Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of
Uttaranchal and others [(2008) 4 SCC 171], wherein it has been observed
that -
"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the
salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful
candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found
eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible
to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute
between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral
interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission
who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting
respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves
selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find
themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined
performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have
filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the
18 WP_12072_2022_Jd
result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round
and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or
the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (AIR 1986 SC
1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned
Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the
examination without protest and when he found that he would not
succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said
examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to
such a petitioner."
19 He is relying on notifications of two Universities from Uttar
Pradesh and the copies of the same have been produced on record, as well as
the order passed by Hon'ble Governor, Uttar Pradesh dated 18.05.2021. In
this connection, we can find the difference between the Kanpur University
notification and Siddharth University notification. In Siddharth University,
the total marks to be allotted appears to have been stated out of 100 i.e. 80
for basic academic score and API score + 20 for the interview = 100, for the
post of Associate Professor. But in Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University,
Kanpur the last column of total has not been given. Though both of them are
from Uttar Pradesh, they are allocating different marks for the post of
Associate Professor. Kanpur University is referring that the said notification is
in accordance with the Governor Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh order
19 WP_12072_2022_Jd
No.3019/32-G.S./2020 dated 18.05.2021; E-4229/G.S. dated 02.07.2021
and UGC Regulations 2018 and, therefore, by oral directions the said order of
the Hon'ble Governor was directed to be produced and it appears to have
been issued in Hindi and post 'lgk¸;d vkpk;Z' has prescribed 100 marks out of
that 10 is to be allotted to 'lk{kkRdkj' i.e. interview and post of 'lg vkpk;Z ,oa
vkpk;Z' 20 marks are to be allotted to lk{kkRdkj/interview. We are concerned
with 'lg vkpk;Z' i.e. Associate Professor. Here, in this case, the petitioner has
not produced on record any such similar order passed by Hon'ble Governor of
Maharashtra, which would then be made applicable to Maharashtra National
Law University, Aurangabad.
20 We find much substance in the submission on behalf of the
University that eligibility is different from suitability. A suitable candidate
should possess the requisite eligibility, but an eligible candidate may not be
found suitable if further qualification is given or further term is added as to
what is the desirable qualification or additional qualification. The University
can definitely prescribe for higher benchmark and also the experience to get
the best faculty for imparting education to the students and, therefore, in the
advertisement itself it was prescribed that the desirable qualification would
be teaching experience in NLUs or IIMs. Respondent No.6 has wide
experience with NLUs as well as IIMs. It has been stated by respondent Nos.4
20 WP_12072_2022_Jd
and 5 that with the said experience of respondent No.6 he was found to be
suitable also. The petitioner cannot question as to how much marks were
given to him as well as to respondent No.6, when he has subjected to the
interview. Under the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
this Court cannot sit over Appellate authority to the Selection Committee of
Maharashtra National Law University.
21 The entire process was in fact based on the interview after the
scrutiny was done by giving API score; in other words, there was no written
examination. In Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and others [(1981) 4 SCC
159] it has been observed that -
"The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written
examination or it may be based exclusively on oral interview or it may
be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what
kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given
case. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J, "In the very nature
of things it would not be within the province or even the competence
of the Court and the Court would not venture into such exclusive
thickets to discover ways out when the matters are more
appropriately left" to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for the
Court to lay down whether interview test should be held at all or how
many marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course the
marks must be minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not
necessarily always. There may be posts and appointments where the
only proper method of selection may be by viva voce test. Even in the
21 WP_12072_2022_Jd
case of admission to higher degree course, it may sometimes be
necessary to allow a fairly high percentage of marks for the viva voce
test. That is why rigid rules cannot be laid down in these matters by
Courts. The expert bodies are generally the best judges. The
Government aided by experts in the field may appropriately decide to
have a written examination followed by a viva voce test."
Therefore, when the committee for selection that was enacted in
the entire process was an experts' committee, then, now, the petitioner
cannot have objection for the selection even on the basis of interview/viva
voce.
22 Taking into consideration all these aspects, we hold that the
petitioner has failed to show that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have
misinterpreted any clause or have violated the UGC Regulations. In fact, the
UGC, who is the controlling authority itself, has not found that there is any
violation of its rules dated 18.07.2018. It has also found that the
transparency has been maintained by respondent Nos.4 and 5 while selecting
respondent No.6 and, therefore, the petitioner can take advantage of the
decision in Dr. Meeta Sahai (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court taken a note of
the decision of plethora of judgments including Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State
of Bihar and others [(2010) 12 SCC 576], wherein it was reiterated that it is
well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from
22 WP_12072_2022_Jd
challenging the selection process after having failed in it, however, the said
principle was differentiated in so far as the candidate by agreeing to
participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and
not the illegality in it. Here, the petitioner has failed to point out the said
illegality and, therefore, the said selection does not violate Articles 14, 16 of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, does not require any interference or
exercise of the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. No writ can be issued, as prayed, for the reasons stated
above. As a result of which, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
agd
