Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kaul vs The Chairman (Acting) University ... on 6 December, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 6th December, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 7441/2012
PRADEEP KAUL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Adv.
versus
THE CHAIRMAN (ACTING) UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar and
Mr. Mayank Manish, Advs. for UGC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the inaction of the respondents / CEC,
a Society under the University Grants Commission for not considering the
recommendation of Prof. Abdul Wahid, Vice-Chancellor, Central University
of Kashmir for considering the candidature of the petitioner for the post of
Director, Consortium for Education Communication (CEC), New Delhi and
Inter-University Centre of UGC (Autonomous Organization).
2. The UGC sent a communication dated 27.09.20102 to the Vice-
Chancellor / Director, Banasthali Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan, wherein it is stated
that the Consortium for Education Communication (CEC), New Delhi is one
of Inter-University Centre established under Section 12 (ccc) of the UGC
Act no. 3 of 1956. The Consortium is headed by a Director, who is the
executive Authority of CEC. The terms of the present Director expired on
14.11.2012 on the completion of 5 years tenure.
3. It is further stated that the UGC has to fill up the post of Director,
Consortium of Education Communication (CEC), New Delhi and
Inter-University Centre of UGC on a fixed salary of Rs.75,000/- along with
a special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month and other benefits as per the
terms and conditions for the post. The term of appointment will be 4-5
years or till he / she attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. It is
further stated that the term can be renewed for a further period of 5 years.
4. Counsel for the UGC appearing on the advance notice stated that for
the appointment of the Director, UGC had constituted a Search Committee.
The Vice-Chancellor of the aforesaid Vidyapeeth was requested to suggest
the name of suitable persons for appointment as Director of Consortium. As
the Director is the executive authority of the Consortium, the person
recommended must be of the sound administrative acumen besides having
academic distinction. He or she should be a person with vision and
foresight to provide necessary leadership to the Consortium. He / She
may also have extensive knowledge of and experience in the field of Mass
Communication and Journalism / Media Production / Multi-Media / E-
Content / Information Technology etc.
5. The Search Committee considered all the applications including the
application of the petitioner and found 5 persons suitable for the interaction.
After the interaction they recommended 2 names in order of merit and
thereafter one person out of the two has been finally selected, who has
joined on 29.11.2012.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submits that mere applying for
the post does not give right to the petitioner to be selected.
7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that candidature of the
petitioner has not been considered by the respondent. Whereas, as per the
statement of ld. Counsel for the respondent on instruction, the name of the
petitioner was fully considered, however not found suitable for the aforesaid
post.
8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the instant petition. Same is
dismissed in limini.
CM. NO. 19015/2012
In view of the above, instant application has become infructuous and
dismissed as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 06, 2012
jg
