Dr. Abhay Kumar vs Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5028 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.6889/2013

%                                                    31st October, 2013

DR. ABHAY KUMAR                                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. O.N. Sharma, Advocate.

                          Versus

VICE CHANCELLOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND
ANR.                                        ...Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Shushank Shekhar, Advocate for
                           respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.14934/2013 (exemption)

             Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. \

             C.M. stands disposed of.

+ W.P.(C) No.6889/2013 and C.M. No.14933/2013 (stay)

1.           Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the action of the

respondent no.1/University in not calling him for the interview for the post

of an Associate Professor. Petitioner claims that he has not been called

although he has the necessary eight years experience. This requirement of

W.P.(C) No.6889/2013                                              Page 1 of 4
 eight years experience is expressed in the following words as per the

advertisement:-

     "3.       A minimum of eight years experience of teaching and/or
     research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of
     Assistant Professor in a University/College or Accredited Research
     Institution, excluding the period of doctoral research with some
     distinction in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of a
     minimum of five publications as books and/or research/policy
     papers."
               A reading of the aforesaid requirement shows that eight years

experience can be either of teaching or part of the period can be

academic/research position equivalent to an Assistant Professor.

2.           Petitioner has shown his alleged compliance by filing the

document at page 86 which shows the experience of 2 years 10 months and

14 days of teaching in Apeejay Saraswati P.G. College for Girls at Charkhi

Dadri in Haryana. When asked to point out experience of balanced period to

total upto eight years, counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw benefit of the

certificate of the respondent no.1-University itself filed at page 87. When

we see this certificate (in vernacular language) it is found that the said

certificate only talks of research as a post doctoral fellow. It is not stated in

this certificate that the research as a post doctoral fellow is the research

position equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor in a University, and

which is the requirement of experience in terms of the advertisement.


W.P.(C) No.6889/2013                                               Page 2 of 4
 3.           I may also state that total of aforesaid two periods would work

out to 7 years and 10 months and therefore for the balance period of two

months petitioner has filed a certificate at page 88 dated 11.12.2012 of two

months experience in Indian Social Institute. Once again when we refer to

the certificate it only shows that the petitioner has worked for two months as

a Research Associate without in any manner this certificate specifying that

the research is at a position equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor.

Therefore, petitioner in my opinion has not satisfied this Court that he met

the requirement of eight years experience.

4.           I may state that I have only gone on the aspect of eight years

experience and not on the other requirements as stated in the advertisement,

and it is not known as to whether petitioner met those other qualifications or

not, and whether petitioner has been rejected on grounds other than

requirement of eight years experience. This I am stating because when the

counsel for the petitioner was put a query that how the petitioner was stating

that it was only because of lacking in eight years experience that petitioner

was not called for the interview, counsel for the petitioner could not point

out any document of the respondent no.1/University that petitioner is not

being called only on account of lacking in eight years experience. It is

therefore perfectly possible that petitioner may not be meeting other

W.P.(C) No.6889/2013                                             Page 3 of 4
 requirements as per the advertisement for the post of Associate Professor,

however, on this aspect I do not say so finally in one way or the other.

5.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




OCTOBER 31, 2013                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne