Karnataka High Court

Shri. Venu S. A. S/O. Anjinamurthy vs University Of Agriculture ... on 16 August, 2023

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

                                                   -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995
                                                            WP No. 104330 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

                                                  BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA                 R
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 104330 OF 2023 (S-RES)


                      BETWEEN:

                      SHRI. VENU S. A.
                      S/O. ANJINAMURTHY,
                      A/A 34 YEARS, R/A NO.201,
                      GURUKRUPA RESIDENCY,
                      2ND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS,
                      MATHRU LAYOUT,
                      YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
                      BENGALURU-560064.
                                                                     ... PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. TARANATH POOJARY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                       SRI. MANJUNATH .Y. SHIRUR, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES,
VISHAL                     R/BY ITS REGISTRAR, KRISHNANGAR,
NINGAPPA                   DHARWAD-580005.
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by   2.   VICE-CHANCELLOR /CHAIRMAN OF SELECTION
VISHAL NINGAPPA            COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES,
PATTIHAL
Date: 2023.08.21           DHARWAD-580005.
11:16:44 +0530

                      3.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
                           VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

                      4.   DR. D. NAGRAJU M.,
                           AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. MANCHAIAH,
                           NEW EXTENSION, CHIKKAMALPURA POST,
                           HANUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571440.
                                                                  ... RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA .A. MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2;
                                     -2-
                                           NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995
                                            WP No. 104330 of 2023




SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R3;
SRI. PRASHANT MATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN NO.R/RECTT/ADVT.61/2023,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
APPOINTMENT TO THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF FOOD
ENGINEERING AT COLUMN NO.V IN THE NOTIFICATION & ETC.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

provisional list of selected candidate to the post of

Assistant Professor in Food Engineering in the

respondent/University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

('the University' for short) by Notification dated

12-07-2023.

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:-

The 1st respondent/University issued a notification to

fill up backlog posts in the cadres of Professor and

Assistant Professor. The petitioner and the private

respondent, herein finding themselves eligible, applied

pursuant to the said notification. The petitioner and the 4th

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

respondent were called for document verification by the

University along with other applicants. On 27-06-2023, it

appears, the 4th respondent was provisionally selected

against which the petitioner raised his protest with regard

to the Selection Committee deviating from the procedure

stipulated and the norms that are necessary to be followed

as depicted under the guidelines of the University Grants

Commission ('UGC'). On 12.07.2023 a select list is notified

to the cadre of Assistant Professor in Food Engineering

whereby the 4th respondent emerges as the selected

candidate. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has

approached this Court in the subject petition calling in

question the said select list. The University undertook

before this Court that no further action would be taken

upon the select list and, therefore, the appointment order

is not issued to the selected candidate - 4th respondent to

the post of Assistant Professor, Food Engineering.

3. Heard Sri Tharanath Poojary, learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ramachandra

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

A.Mali, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2,

Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.3-State and Sri Prashant

Mathapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

4. The learned senior counsel would contend with

vehemence that the select list is prepared purely on the

basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination,

contrary to the notification so issued, as the score card

method that was necessary to be adopted by the Selection

Committee is given a go-bye. This has resulted in the

most meritorious candidate - the petitioner losing the post

to the 4th respondent who is less meritorious. The learned

senior counsel would submit that the University will have

to be directed to redo the entire procedure insofar as it

concerns the subject post.

[[

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel

representing the University would submit that the action of

the University cannot be found fault with. What is found

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

in the Notification, is what is found in the Rules. This is a

recruitment drive for persons belonging to Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes only, and the Rules would

stipulate the method of selection of candidates which the

University has strictly complied with. The petitioner in the

qualifying examination does not hold more merit than the

4th respondent. It is, therefore, he has called the action in

question. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

[

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th

respondent would submit that the petitioner has

participated in the selection process and having

participated he cannot turn around and question the

process of selection. The learned counsel would further

submit that the 4th respondent is more meritorious as the

4th respondent has secured 89.6% in the qualifying

examination while the petitioner is at 85.40% and there is

another person in between who scores 87.40% and has

been placed in the reserve list. He would, therefore,

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

submit that the petitioner cannot even thought of getting

selected to the said post as he is less meritorious.

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner as a

rejoinder to the aforesaid submissions would contend that

the Notification itself stipulated a particular manner of

selection and the post carries UGC pay scales and,

therefore, the selection has to be in consonance with what

the UGC, through its guidelines, has stipulated from time

to time notwithstanding the fact that the recruitment is in

terms of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled

vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) (Special

Recruitment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Special Rules' for short). It is his case that the petitioner

has six years of teaching experience, as Senior Research

Associate, which will fetch him six marks, if the score card

method is adopted. Further, he has a gold medal for PhD

for which he is entitled to 3 marks. Therefore, he would

steal a march over the 4th respondent by any means if the

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

score card method is adopted. He has a right to question

the selection of the 4th respondent as merely the selection

drive under the Rules cannot mean that there would be

violation of norms and guidelines stipulated by the UGC.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof

what would fall for consideration is whether the method

adopted for selection of candidates is in consonance with

law.

9. The notification issued by the University is for

recruitment to various posts and the recruitment is under

the Special Rules. Rule 6 of the Special Rules is what is

germane to be noticed and it reads as follows:-

"6. List of Selected Candidates: (1) The Selecting Authority shall, from among the candidates who have applied in pursuance to the publication inviting applications under rule 5 and who have attained the age of 29 years but not attained the age of 40 years, prepare a list of Candidates for each category of posts in the order

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

of merit on the basis of percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination and taking into consideration the reservation for women, ex-servicemen, physically handicapped and project displaced persons in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and the rural candidates in accordance with the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or posts (In the Civil Services of the State for Rural Candidates) Act, 2000. If however, sufficient number of candidates, who have attained the age of 29 years but not attained the age of 40 years are not available, the candidates, who have attained the age of 18 years but. not attained the age of 29 years shall also be included in the select list in accordance with the provisions specified above to the extent of such insufficient number.

Provided that if two or more candidates have secured equal percentage of total marks in the qualifying examination, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the one older in age being placed higher in the order of merit. The number of candidates to be included in such list of eligible candidates shall be equal to the total number of vacancies notified under these rules.

(2) The list prepared in accordance with sub-rule (1) shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall be valid till all the candidates suitable for appointment notified under these rules are appointed."

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

Rule 6 of the Special Rules deals with the manner of

preparation of select list. It would mandate that the

Selecting Authority, from the list of eligible candidates,

shall consider persons who are found eligible and who are

aged between 20 and 40 and if no candidate is available to

be considered in the said age group, then selection would

be of candidates between the age group of 18 to 29. The

recruitment is not in dispute, that it is in terms of the

Special Rules. The Special Rules would further indicate,

apart from the age, the Selecting Authority would prepare

a select list in the order of merit on the basis of

percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying

examination. Therefore, the contention of the University is

that it has prepared a select list in the order of merit as

obtaining in the qualifying marks. Whether this would

suffice, is the question.

10. In terms of the Rules, the University issues a

notification, calling for applications from eligible

candidates. The Notification is dated 3-03-2023 and the

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

post of Assistant Professor is one of the cadres that is

notified for selection in the discipline of Food Engineering

which is the subject matter of the present lis. Apart from

the qualifications and other traits of the Notification calling

for recruitment, certain instructions are issued in the

Notification itself. Two of the instructions which are

germane read as follows:

"5. The procedure for selection of candidates for the posts shall be in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (Unfilled vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment). Rules, 2001,notified by GOK vide No.DPAR 13 SBC 2001, dated 21.11.2001 and 1.6.2002.

6. The qualifications prescribed for the posts of Teachers are in accordance with the University Notification No.R/Rectt/CAS-2006/B-13/2013 dated 13.3.2013."

The instructions at Clause-5 would depict that it is a

recruitment under the Special Rules. This is a factor that is

not in dispute. Clause-6 of the instructions is that the

qualifications prescribed for the posts of teachers should

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

be in accordance with the University Notification dated 13-

03-2013. What is the University Notification is required to

be noticed. The University has issued a notification on 13-

03-2013 to implement Regulations governing Recruitment

for Promotion of Teachers as stipulated by the UGC/ICAR

in the University. The subject of the notification reads as

follows:

"Sub:Implementing the Regulations governing Recruitment and Promotion of Teachers as stipulated by the UGC/ ICAR in UAS, Dharwad."

University adopts the guidelines of the UGC in terms of

this Notification. The order insofar as it adopts guidelines

reads as follows:

NOTIFICATION

"Sub: Implementing the Regulations governing Recruitment and Promotion of Teachers as stipulated by the UGCAICAR in UAS, Dharwad.

PREAMBLE:

The UGC has notified the Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education-

2010 vide ref.(1) above. Further, the Dept. of Agricutlural Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, New Delhi, vide ref (2) above has endorsed the aforesaid UGC regulations to the State Governments to consider adopting and implementing in respect of State Agricultural Universities. The Government of Karnataka vide its Order cited at ref.(3) above has extended the benefit of 2006 Revised UGC/ICAR pay-scales, among others, to the Teachers, Librarians and equivalent cadres in the University. The aforesaid UGC regulations also provide for the regulations governing Recruitment and Promotion of Teachers. Therefore, the Regulations governing Recruitment and Promotion of Teachers under CAS-2006 along with the Score cards for promotions to various grades, the Template for submission of work- done reports for promotions under CAS-2006 and also the Proforma for Annual Evaluation Report of Teachers have been framed and the same are approved by the competent Authority. Hence the Order.

ORDER:

In pursuance to the aforementioned letters of the UGC/ICAR and the resolution of the Board of Management, the following are adopted in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the Karnataka Gazette.

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

1. Regulations governing Recruitments and Promotions of teachers under CAS- 2006 (Annexure-I);

2. Template for submission of work-done reports for promotions to various grades/cadres/AGP under CAS-2006 (Annexure-II);

3. Score card for promotion of teachers under CAS-2006 (Annexure-III); and

4. Proforma for Annual Evaluation Reports of teachers in the University (Annexure-IV).

Clause-1 (supra) appends an annexure. The Annexure is

Regulations Governing Recruitment and Promotion of

Teachers under CAS-2006. Annexure-I directs that the

Regulations governing recruitment and promotion of

teachers and equivalent cadres would be the one as

prescribed by the UGC. The Regulations would apply to all

posts of teachers. The UGC in terms of its Notification has

depicted implementation of minimum qualification for

appointment of teachers in the Universities. It is not in

dispute that the University has adopted these guidelines.

The coverage in terms of the said notification depicts as

follows:

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

" 1.0 Coverage

These Regulations are issued for minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of University and College teachers and cadres of Librarians, Directors of Physical Education and Sports for maintenance of standards in higher education and revision of pay-scales.

1.1 For the purposes of direct recruitment to teaching posts in disciplines relating to university and collegiate education, interalia in the fields of health, medicine, special education, agriculture, veterinary and allied fields, technical education, teacher education, norms or standards laid down by authorities established by the relevant Act of Parliament under article 246 of the Constitution for the purpose of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, shall prevail

i. Provided that where no such norms and standards have been laid down by any regulatory authority. UGC Regulations herein shall be applicable till such time as any norms or standards are prescribed by the appropriate regulatory authority.

ii. Provided further that for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent positions pertaining to disciplines in which the National Eligibility Test (NET), conducted by the

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

University Grants Commission or Council of Scientific and Industrial Research as the case may be, or State level Eligibility Test (SLET) or the State Eligibility Test (SET).conducted by bodies accredited by the UGC for the said purpose, qualifying in NET/SLET/SET shall be an additional requirement."

"3.12 Qualifications:

No person shall be appointed to the post of University and College teacher, Librarian or Director of Physical Education and Sports, in any university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act if such person does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate post as provided in the Schedule 1 of these Regulations."

Clause 3.12 thereof depicts that no person shall be

appointed to a post in the University unless he is qualified

in terms of the guidelines. Therefore, applicability of the

UGC guidelines to the University is not in dispute. The

qualification stipulated in the Notification is in terms of the

Notification supra which is adopting of UGC guidelines. The

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

issue is whether the score card method is adopted by the

University. The answer would an unequivocal 'Yes' as it is

admitted fact that the University has adopted the score

card method for selecting teaching staff, and the Board of

Regents have adopted the said method way back on

13-12-2007. Therefore, there is applicability of the score

card method; applicability of UGC guidelines cannot be

alien to the selection process in the University. It is true

that the Notification itself stipulated that qualification will

be as prescribed in terms of the Notification dated 13-03-

2013. Whether the candidates were aware of the score

card method is also discernible from the notification itself.

The application for appointment is also appended to the

petition. The application at clauses 16 and 19 read as

follows:

"16. Particulars of examinations passed and degrees obtained starting from PUC.


Examinationor    % age   Subjects University/ Duration Page No. of
   Degree          of             Institution/ From-to documentary
                 marks               Board               evidence
                obtained                                 attached
                                     - 17 -
                                             NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995
                                               WP No. 104330 of 2023

17. Details of NET /SET/ SLET clearance:


Particulars      Examination    Subject        Year of      Page No. of
                 Conducted                     passing      documentary
                 by                                         evidence
                                                            attached




      18. Additional Qualifications:

Examination       % age     Subjects/    Institution/ Duration Page No. of
    or              of    Specialization University From-to documentary
  Degree          marks                                         evidence
                 obtained                                       attached

19. Medals/Awards/Recognition (during Bachelor's degree and above)

Particulars Year of Awarded Awarded by Page No. of award for (Name of documentary Univ./Institute) evidence attached

The note appended to the said clauses reads as follows:

"Note: *In case of securing more than one award for the same degree / achievement, only the highest one will be considered. Relevant entries should be made in the above table.

** Awards from Professional Societies / Institutions formed by a group of individuals will not be considered, but National Societies formed by subject specialists within the country and outside will be considered."

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

What would unmistakably indicate in the aforesaid clauses

which are part of the application itself is that the

recruitment will have to be in terms of the Notification.

The Notification depicts following of UGC guidelines. The

UGC guidelines depict the method of score card to be

followed both for recruitment and promotion.

11. The submission of the learned senior counsel

for the petitioner would thus stand to reason that the

University has itself depicted all these in the application

and instructions clearly indicated that the Notification

dated 13-03-2013 would be governing the qualification.

No doubt the 4th respondent who is now selected in the

select list is more meritorious than the petitioner. This is in

the qualifying examination. Both them of them have

experience in teaching as for the post of Assistant

Professor under the guidelines minimum experience is

required. The requirement is as depicted under the UGC

guidelines and there are several traits in the score card

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

method which are necessary to be followed to assess merit

of a candidate.

12. Stopping at qualifying marks in selecting any

candidate would run counter to the spirit of the notification

adopting the guidelines of the UGC and would

consequently run counter to the UGC guidelines itself.

Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the

4th respondent that the Rules would only depict that the

candidates have to be assessed on the basis of merit in

the qualifying examination would tumble down, as the

guidelines of the UGC cannot be given a go-bye in the light

of the fact that the appointments are being done in the

University. If it were to be the appointments in the State

Government, it would have been a circumstance

altogether different, for non-teaching posts. These are

teaching posts and are governed by the guidelines of the

UGC. Therefore, there is a fundamental flaw in drawing up

of the select list - impugned in the petition.

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

13. Insofar as the contention of the 4th respondent

that the petitioner had participated in the selection process

and, therefore, he is estopped from challenging is again a

submission that is unacceptable as a candidate by

applying to a post accepts the procedure but not the

illegality of the Selecting Authority in deviating from the

norms. The issue need not detain this Court for long or

delve deep in the matter as the Apex Court in the case of

Dr. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI v. State of Bihar1

considering the entire case law in point has held as

follows:

"15. Furthermore, before beginning analysis of the legal issues involved, it is necessary to first address the preliminary issue. The maintainability of the very challenge by the appellant has been questioned on the ground that she having partaken in the selection process cannot later challenge it due to mere failure in selection. The Counsel for the respondents relied upon a catena of decisions of this Court to substantiate his objection.

16.It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of judgments including Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576: (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256]. observing as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 16)

(2019) 20 SCC 17

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

"16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar. 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321: (2008) 4 PLJR 93] that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the appellant's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The [appellant] invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."[See also: Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486: 1995 SCC (L&S) 712, Marripati Nagaraja v State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68, Dhananjay Malik v State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171: (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515 (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)

57)

The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance.

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 there from, 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.

- 22 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

(emphasis supplied)

The said principle is again reiterated by the Apex Court in

the case of NITESH KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS2 wherein the Apex

Court has held as follows:

"15. Having taken note of the decisions cited, we have no doubt in our mind that the well-accepted position in law is that the person who has acceded to a position and participated in the process cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. It is a norm that if a person/candidate having taken note of a requirement in the notification and even if it is objectionable does not challenge the same but despite having knowledge of the same participates in the said process and takes a chance, on failing in the process such person/candidate cannot turn around and assail the same. Though that is the position in law, the said position of law will not be applicable to the present case as the facts in the case on hand is not the same. In the cited case of Ashok Kumar, it was a situation where the subsequent notification for written examination was issued after nullifying the result of the earlier written examination. The petitioner therein who had appeared for the examination earlier, having knowingly participated in the process by once again

(2020) 4 SCC 70

- 23 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

appearing for the examination which was notified had thereafter challenged, which was a clear case of approbate and reprobate. On the other hand in the instant case, firstly, the revised time schedule issued by the Collector, Rewa cannot be termed as the recruitment notification indicating all the criteria for selection; but can only be termed as a time schedule prescribed pursuant to the recruitment process as provided under the fresh guidelines dated 2-6-2012. Therefore, a candidate already in selection list who has appeared in the computer efficiency test on the date depicted in the revised time schedule cannot be considered to have appeared after having knowledge that the same will also be a part of the assessment for selection and cannot be put on the same pedestal. This is more so in a circumstance wherein the schedule for "18th December" as prescribed reads "...holding of computer efficiency test of selected candidates and those at the top of merit list". A perusal of the same would indicate that the entire selection would be based on the criteria prescribed and the marks as assigned under the fresh guidelines dated 2-6-2012 and appearance for the computer efficiency test would be treated as a requirement which would enable the authorities to assess a person who has otherwise qualified and has been found fit to be in the selected list or is at the top of the merit list."

- 24 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

Therefore, the submission that the petitioner is estopped

from challenging the selection process is noted only to be

rejected.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/ University who has vehemently defended the

action of the University also contends that judicial review

in the process of selection is extremely limited and,

therefore, the petition has to be rejected as the selection

of a candidate is the prerogative of the University unless it

is contrary to law.

15. It is no doubt a settled principle of law that this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution would be loathe to interfere in a selection

process. The scrutiny of credentials of candidates, is in

the realm of Selection Authority of the University. This

Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts and decide

who is better - whether the selected candidate or the one

who impugned the selection. But, if the selection is

contrary to law and is violative of Article 14 of the

- 25 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

Constitution of India, the Court would step in and undo

any selection process by a State or any other Authority

that would be the State under 12 of the Constitution, to

set the wrong right.

[

16. The case at hand forms a classic illustration of

requirement of judicial review by interfering with the

selection process as the selection process is contrary to

law. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. RAJ

KUMAR3 wherein it is held as follows:

                 "31.     Public    service      like   any    other,
            presupposes    that    the   State   employer     has   an

element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms. based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non- discriminatory manner. However, suitability

(2021) 8 SCC 347

- 26 -

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8995 WP No. 104330 of 2023

is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision- making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides."

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and the

facts obtaining noticed hereinabove, the inescapable

conclusion would be that the selection of the 4th

respondent, is contrary to law. Since no appointment

order is issued to the selected candidate i.e., the 4th

respondent, the University shall now redo the selection

process from the stage at which the illegality is pointed

out i.e., in drawing up of the select list by including the

score card method, as obtaining under the guidelines of

the UGC and adopted by the University for direct

recruitment and promotion.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: