Orissa High Court
Dr. Manoj Kumar Ghosal vs Orissa University Of on 28 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 11732 of 2019
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
---------------------------
Dr. Manoj Kumar Ghosal ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
Orissa University of
Agriculture and Technology
(OUAT), Bhubaneswar
and others ......... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner: - Mr. Jayant Rath
Senior Advocate
For Opp. Parties
nos.1 and 3: - Mr. Pabitra M. Pattajoshi
For opp. party no.2: - Mr. Sanjeev Udgata
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 31.10.2022 Date of Judgment: 28.11.2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioner Dr. Manoj Kumar Ghosal has knocked
at the portals of this Court by filing this writ petition with a
prayer to quash the impugned notification dated 19.08.2019
under Annexure-9 issued by the Odisha University of Agriculture
// 2 //
and Technology (OUAT), Bhubaneswar (hereafter 'opposite party
no.1 University') with a further prayer to appoint him in the post
of Dean of Students Welfare, OUAT as per his selection by the
Standing Selection Committee (opposite party no.4) pursuant to
the circular dated 26.04.2018 under Annexure-2.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party
no.1 University is a body corporate established under the Odisha
University of Agriculture of Technology Act, 1965 (hereafter
'OUAT Act') imparting agriculture related education and research
and is funded by the Government of Odisha. The opposite parties
nos.2 to 4 are the Officers of the University. After completing
M.Tech (Agricultural Engineering) from IIT, Kharagpur and Ph.D.
from IIT, Delhi, the petitioner joined the opposite party no.1
University on 30.04.1990 as Research Assistant (Agricultural
Engineering) and he was promoted to the post of Assistant
Professor on 22.01.1991 and thereafter to the post of Associate
Professor on 22.01.2004 and finally, he was working as Professor
in the University since 22.01.2010 and now he is the Professor in
the Department of Farm Machinery and Power, College of
Agricultural Engineering and Technology under the opposite
party no.1 University.
// 3 //
It is the further case of the petitioner that the post of
Dean of Students Welfare in the opposite party no.1 University
fell vacant sometime during April, 2018 and the said post being a
very important post in the administration and management of
discipline among the students, on 26.04.2018 a circular was
issued for filing up of the said post and the following eligibility
and qualification for appointment to the said post was specified
in the advertisement:
(i) The Dean, Students Welfare shall be selected
from amongst the Professors of the University or the
persons of equivalent rank having experience as such
for a minimum period of five years in the concerned
faculty; and
(ii) The Dean, Students Welfare shall be a person
trained in students' welfare activities who would be
able to shoulder the duties and responsibilities
prescribed in the Act and Statutes.
Similar eligibility and qualification criteria have also
been prescribed under the OUAT Act and Statute 8A of the OUAT
Statutes, 1966 for appointment to the post of Dean of Students
Welfare.
// 4 //
It is the further case of the petitioner that since
2010, he was working as Professor in the opposite party no.1
University and that he had completed about nine years as such
and that he was also involved in the following students' welfare
activities in the University:-
(i) Working as Superintendent of Boys' Hostel of
OUAT (Krupasindhu Hostel) from June 2016 till date.
(ii) Worked as Assistant Superintendent of Kharvela
Hostel (Hostel No.6) from 2008-2010 and
Superintendent from March, 2010 to January, 2011.
(iii) Working as NSS Programme Officer to look after
the NSS activities of College of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology, OUAT, Bhubaneswar
from 2005 till date.
(iv) Working as the Vice President of the Athletic
Society of the College of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology from 2004-2008.
(v) Worked as member anti-ragging squad of the
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology
from 2004 till date.
(vi) Organizing NSS Special Camp (two times).
// 5 //
(vii) Accompanying two study-tours with UG
students.
It is the further case of the petitioner that in addition
to his rich experience in the students' welfare activities, he had
also good research and academic contributions in the agricultural
and allied subjects. The petitioner having fulfilled all other
criteria prescribed in the Statute as well as the circular, applied
for the post of Dean of Students Welfare pursuant to the circular
under Annexure-2 by making proper application along with other
requisite documents.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the
opposite party no.1 University constituted a Screening
Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. P.K. Roul, Dean,
Extension Education, OUAT vide office order dated 22.06.2018 in
order to scrutinize the applications received pursuant to the
aforesaid circular under Annexure-2, inter alia, for filling up of
the post of Dean of Students Welfare. The applications of the
petitioner and others received for the said post were scrutinized
by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 23.08.2018
and upon such scrutinization, the Screening Committee observed
that the petitioner along with six other candidates are eligible to
be considered for the said post.
// 6 //
It is the further case of the petitioner that Statute 3
of the OUAT Statutes, inter alia, prescribed the manner of
appointment of Officers of the University which includes the
Dean of Students Welfare. As per the said Statute, there shall be
a Standing Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of the
Vice-Chancellor of the University, inter alia, to deal with
appointment of Officers of the University including the Dean of
Students Welfare. In terms of the said Statute, the opposite
party no.4 Standing Selection Committee issued notice dated
01.09.2018 to the petitioner to attend the meeting of the
Committee on 05.09.2018 along with the original certificates and
mark sheets as well as list of research publications etc. and as
per the schedule, the petitioner attended the meeting of the
Standing Selection Committee on 05.09.2018 and produced all
the required documents and also made power point presentation.
It is the further case of the petitioner that he came
to know from reliable sources that the Standing Selection
Committee after considering the qualification and criteria of all
the eligible candidates and upon interview, selected him to be
appointed as the Dean of Students Welfare in OUAT and
accordingly, the same was placed before the opposite party no.2
Chancellor for appointment. At that time, the opposite party no.2
// 7 //
wanted to know from the opposite party no.3 Vice-Chancellor
who is also the Chairman of the Standing Selection Committee
whether a certain type of experience was considered while
assessing the candidates for selection and appointment as Dean
of Students Welfare which are essentially required for the post,
to which the opposite party no.3 clarified that the Selection
Committee had taken into account the same and reiterated
selection of the petitioner and in spite of such reiteration, the
result of the selection process was not published.
It is the further case of the petitioner that after
having appeared before the Standing Selection Committee on
05.09.2018, the petitioner waited for the result of the selection
process and since no result was published, he vide letters dated
17.12.2018 and 09.03.2019 drew the attention of the opposite
party no.2 requesting him to look into the matter for declaration
of the result. In the meantime, the petitioner through one of his
acquaintance made an application under the RTI Act seeking
various information relating to the selection process for the post
of Dean of Students Welfare pursuant to the circular under
Annexure-2, but the Public Information Officer of the University
vide letter dated 16.01.2019 only provided information relating
to the list of eligible applicants and candidates appeared in the
// 8 //
viva voce examination and the Public Information Officer in reply
to the information relating to recommendation of the Selection
Committee and the result of the selection process has stated that
the same had not been declared.
It is the further case of the petitioner that under the
OUAT Statute, it is the Standing Selection Committee who is to
deal with the appointment of its Officers including the Dean of
Students Welfare and after the said Selection Committee upon
proper scrutiny, verification and interview selects a person to be
appointed to the said post, the opposite party no.2 has no
jurisdiction either to sit over such recommendation or reject the
same. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Standing
Selection Committee pursuant to the circular and interview, has
recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed as
Dean of Students Welfare and notwithstanding such
recommendation by statutorily constituted Standing Selection
Committee following due process of law, the opposite party no.2
is sitting over the matter. According to the petitioner, the
appointing authority i.e. opposite party no.2 ought not to have
illegally and arbitrarily sat over the recommendation of the duly
constituted Selection Committee.
// 9 //
It is the further case of the petitioner that while the
matter stood thus and more than one and half years from the
date of circular dated 26.04.2018 was passed, the opposite party
no.1 vide notification dated 19.08.2019 under Annexure-9
cancelled the selection process and asked to conduct fresh
selection to the post of Dean of Students Welfare, OUAT and the
said notification has been issued by the Registrar, OUAT by the
order of opposite party no.3. In the said notification, it is further
stated that the decision to cancel the selection process has been
taken pursuant to the letter of the Special Secretary to the
Chancellor opposite party no.2 dated 09.07.2019.
It is the further case of the petitioner that since the
petitioner has already been selected to the advertised post, he
had a right to be considered for appointment and the opposite
party no.1 ought not to have ignored the select panel by
cancelling the selection process after one and half years from the
date of advertisement and the opposite parties by virtue of the
impugned notification dated 19.08.2019 has declined to make
the appointment on its whims particularly when there is a
vacancy which can be offered to the petitioner keeping in view
his selection and therefore, there was no justifiable reason on
the part of the opposite party no.1 to cancel the selection
// 10 //
process by declining to appoint the petitioner who had already
been selected and as such, the impugned notification dated
19.08.2019 under Annexure-9 should be quashed as grossly
unfair, arbitrary and not bonafide.
3. This Court issued notice to the opposite parties and
observed vide order dated 21.10.2019 in I.A. No.13728 of 2019
that as an interim measure, any selection/appointment to the
post of Dean of Students Welfare pursuant to the circular dated
24.09.2019 (annexed as Annexure-D/4 to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of opposite party no.2) shall abide by the result of
the writ petition.
4. The opposite parties nos.1 and 3 have filed their joint
counter affidavit indicating therein that the petitioner was
promoted to the rank of Professor under Career Advancement
Scheme since 22.01.2010 and that his involvement in students
related activities is not disputed. The Standing Selection
Committee after taking interview of all candidates, including the
petitioner sent its recommendation in sealed cover to the office
of the Chancellor and after verification of the result sheet,
certain points of objection were raised by the office of the
Chancellor and communicated vide letter dated 17.09.2018 and
the proceedings of the Standing Selection Committee were
// 11 //
returned back vide letter dated 03.01.2019 with instruction to
reconvene the selection committee and to reassess all the
candidates as per observation of the Chancellor. It is further
stated that since reconvening of the same selection committee to
reassess the same candidates afresh would not have been
appropriate, as per observation of the Vice Chancellor, clearance
was sought for from the office of the Chancellor for starting the
process afresh, with fresh notification and after obtaining
clearance, process went on for fresh notification after cancelling
the previous selection process vide impugned notification under
Annexure-9 and after cancellation, fresh applications were
invited from the eligible Professors vide circular dated
24.09.2019, with last date of application as 15.10.2019 at 5.00
p.m. It is further mentioned that the Chancellor has got no
jurisdiction to reject the recommendation of the Standing
Selection Committee. Section 6.1 of OUAT Act prescribes that
the Dean of Students Welfare is an officer of the opposite party
no.1 University. Section 6.2 of the said Act prescribes that the
Officers of the University specified in Clause (ii) to (xi) of sub-
section (1) shall be appointed by the Chancellor. The Governor
shall be the Chancellor of OUAT as specified in the section 7(1)
of OUAT Act and as per the provision of OUAT Act, Dean of
// 12 //
Students Welfare is appointed by the Chancellor. Statute 3(1)(i)
of OUAT Statute, 1966 states that in order to deal with
appointments of officers, teachers and other employees, there
shall be a Standing Selection Committee. As per Statute 3(1)(ii)
of the said Statute and notification No.35639 dated 25.11.2004,
the Standing Selection Committee for appointment of teachers
and officers as enumerated in clauses (iv) to (xi) of sub-section
(1) of section 6 of the OUAT Act are as follows:-
Standing Selection Committee:
(a) Vice-Chancellor ... Chairman
(b) Two co-opted members to be nominated
by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with
the State Government from among
experts in the subject concerned the post
for which recruitment is to be made;
(c) The Secretary to Government, Agriculture
Department or his nominee who should
not be less than that of an Additional
Secretary in the rank;
(d) An Academician nominated by the
Chancellor.
In view of the above provision of the OUAT Statute,
selection of Dean of Student Welfare was conducted by Standing
Selection Committee of OUAT and the selected candidate was to
be appointed by the Chancellor of OUAT.
// 13 //
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that out of
seven numbers of eligible candidates, six numbers of candidates
appeared before the Standing Selection Committee held on
05.09.2018 which would be implied from the attendance sheet of
the candidates under Annexure-6 and the name of the
recommended candidates by the Standing Selection Committee
for the post of Dean of Students Welfare was kept by the
Standing Selection Committee in a sealed cover and the same
was intimated to the office of the Chancellor vide letter dated
05.09.2018 of the Vice-Chancellor for appointment of the
recommended candidate to the post of Dean of Students
Welfare.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
Circular under Annexure-2 indicates that the University reserves
right to cancel the interview or the entire process of selection if
so required. Further, it is the appointing authority to decide
whether appointment would be given to the selected candidate
or not. As such, appearance of the petitioner before the selection
committee for the post of Dean of Students Welfare did not
confer him right to claim for appointment as such. In the
meantime, the selection of Dean of Students Welfare held on
05.09.2018 was cancelled by the Chancellor vide letter dated
// 14 //
09.08.2019 and notified by OUAT vide notification dated
19.08.2019 under Annexure-9 and the selection process has
started afresh.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
entire selection process for the post of Dean of Students Welfare
held on 05.09.2018 was cancelled by the Chancellor, OUAT and
the order of the Chancellor was communicated by the Special
Secretary to the Chancellor vide letter No.10161/SG(HE) dated
09.08.2019 under Annexure-F/1 and as per order of the
Chancellor, the selection process for the post of Dean, Students
Welfare held on 05.09.2018 was cancelled through impugned
notification under Annexure-9.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
appointing authority Chancellor has already cancelled the entire
selection process and a fresh selection process has been started
with an issue of circular no.15782 dated 24.09.2019, in inviting
applications from the eligible candidates. It is also stated that in
the Circular No.8120 dated 26.04.2018, it is mentioned that the
University reserves right to cancel the interview or the entire
process of selection and appointment of Dean, Students Welfare
is made by the Chancellor, not by the Registrar and the entire
process of selection was cancelled by the appointing authority,
// 15 //
the Chancellor and therefore, the petitioner's claim being devoid
of merit, liable to be rejected.
5. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of
opposite party no.2, Chancellor, OUAT wherein it is stated that
the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility condition and that the
opposite party no.2 was not bound by the recommendation of
the Standing Selection Committee and the petitioner did not
have indefeasible right to claim appointment to the post of Dean
of Students Welfare, OUAT merely because the Standing
Selection Committee recommended his name to such post.
It is further stated that the post of Dean of Students
Welfare is a tenure post for three years. Under the OUAT Act and
the Statute, the Dean of Students Welfare shall have the
following duties and power:-
OUAT Act, 1965
"13.
(1) The Dean of Student Welfare shall be
responsible to the Vice-Chancellor.
(2) The Dean of Student Welfare shall have the
following duties, namely:-
(i) to make arrangements for the housing of
students;
// 16 //
(ii) to direct a programme of student counseling;
(iii) to arrange for the employment of students in
accordance with plans approved by the Vice-
Chancellor;
(iv) to supervise the extra-curricular activities and
needs of students;
(v) to assist the graduates, who leave the
University in procuring employment;
(vi) to organize and maintain contact with the
Alumni of the University; and
(vii) to perform such other duties as may be
assigned to him by the Board or the Vice-Chancellor.
OUAT Statutes, 1966
9.(1) In addition to the duties conferred upon the
Dean of Student Welfare by or under the Act, he
shall have the following powers and duties namely:-
Administrative Powers:
(a) He shall:-
(i) Be responsible to the Vice-Chancellor in the
exercise of powers and discharge of duties contained
under the Act or these Statutes;
// 17 //
(ii) Take steps to promote employment of the
students within the various services of the University
wherever such employment is beneficial to students
and in the best interest of the University
programmes involved;
(iii) Formulate the rules for the control of housing
and hostel for students including the selection and
appointment of Wardens, supervision over the
masses and control of sanitary arrangements and
similar facilities;
(iv) Plan and direct, in co-ordination with other
University Officers, all non-curricular activities for
students including clubs, recreations centers, co-
operatives, etc., as may from time to time approved
by the University for the welfare of the students;
(v) Co-operate with the staff in charge of Physical
Education Programmes, National Cadet Corps
activities and related activities of students as
required by the University;
(vi) Allot residential accommodation to students;
// 18 //
(vii) Make arrangements for scholarships, stipends,
part-time employments and other such student
assistance;
(viii) Communicate with the guardians of students
concerning the welfare of the students;
(ix) Deal, in consultation with the Dean of the
Faculty concerned, with the student indiscipline,
excessive absenteeism and other students
irregularities from point of view of maintenance of
discipline and act as Ex-Officio Chairman of the
Committee on Student Discipline;
(x) Supervise health programme and medical
facilities for students;
(xi) Explore the possibilities of finding suitable
employment for Graduates and arrange their
interview with prospective employers;
(xii) Sanction all kinds of leave of the University
employees working under him.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
opposite party no.1 by order of the opposite party no.3 issued
circular dated 26.04.2018 in inviting applications for the post of
Dean, Students Welfare and the essential qualification and
// 19 //
experience prescribed for the post as on the last date of
application i.e. 19th May 2018, would be considered and the
University reserved the right to cancel the interview or entire
process of selection or might not conduct the interview if so
required. It is further stated that the opposite party no.3 by
letter dated 05.09.2018 sent amongst others, the
recommendation of the candidates by the Standing Selection
Committee for perusal and order of appointment by the opposite
party no.2. It is further stated that while perusing the
recommendation of the candidates made by the Standing
Selection Committee for the post of Dean of Students Welfare,
OUAT, the opposite party no.2 observed that while assessing the
candidates, the Standing Selection Committee had not taken into
consideration their respective training and experience necessary
for the post of Dean of Student Welfare, an essential condition in
the statute and the circular issued inviting application for the
said post and the said eligibility criteria relates to soft skill
management of students outside the class room which has a
reasonable, relevant and rational nexus with the duties and
responsibilities to be shouldered by the appointee as prescribed
in the OUAT Act and the Statute for the post of Dean of Student
Welfare and therefore, the opposite party no.2 returned the
// 20 //
recommendation of Selection Committee dated 05.09.2018 to
the opposite party no.3 to look into the said aspect while
selecting the candidate for the post of Dean of Students Welfare,
OUAT, a matter connected with the smooth administration of the
University.
It is further stated that the opposite party no.3
thereafter resubmitted the said recommendation without any
fresh meeting of selection committee and without devising any
parameter of soft skill for making a realistic assessment of the
suitability of a candidate to become Dean of Students Welfare,
OUAT as per provisions prescribed in OUAT Act, 1964 and the
Statute made thereunder. The opposite party no.3 was
requested to convene the same selection committee to assess
the suitability of all the candidates and to resubmit the final
assessment for appropriate decision of the opposite party no.2.
The opposite party no.1 by letter dated 11.06.2019 intimated
that when the file was placed before the opposite party no.3, the
latter observed that compliance with all the observation made by
the opposite party no.2 could be viable, if a fresh selection of
Dean of Student Welfare is made and requested for cancellation
of previous selection process and thereafter, the selection
process for the post of Dean of Student Welfare held on
// 21 //
05.09.2018 pursuant to circular under Annexure-2 was cancelled
by the opposite party no.2 on the basis of observation made by
the opposite party no.3 and the same was communicated to the
opposite party no.3 by letter dated 09.08.2019 and pursuant to
the aforesaid cancellation, the OUAT issued fresh circular dated
24.09.2019 under Annexure-D/4 inviting application for the post
of Dean of Student Welfare. It is further stated that the person
whose name finds place in the select panel has no vested right to
get appointment in the said post in spite of vacancy existing and
in this case, the decision of the authority to cancel the selection
process and to hold a fresh selection was taken in a bonafide
way for appropriate reasons.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
petitioner was not prejudiced in any manner inasmuch as he had
already applied for the post of Dean of Student Welfare, OUAT
pursuant to aforesaid circular dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure-D/4)
issued by the OUAT and that the petitioner has no cause of
action to file the writ petition and therefore, the same should be
dismissed.
6. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit to the
counters filed by opposite parties nos.1 and 3 and counter filed
by opposite party no.2 wherein it is mentioned that the opposite
// 22 //
parties in their counter affidavits while justifying the impugned
cancellation of the notification dated 26.04.2018 for selection of
Dean, Students Welfare, OUAT wherein the petitioner was
selected, have alleged certain new facts and have suppressed
certain material facts. It is further stated that the opposite
parties while admitting about recommendation of the name of
the petitioner as the selected candidate by the duly constituted
Selection Committee pursuant to the Circular for appointment
dated 26.04.2018, have stated that such recommendation was
returned back with some observations by the opposite party no.2
to the opposite party no.3 being the Chairman of the Selection
Committee and was instructed to re-convene the Selection
Committee for assessing all the candidates as per the
observation. However, the opposite party No.3 thought it fit to
go for a fresh selection in order to comply the observations made
by the Chancellor and hence the selection process pursuant to
Circular dated 26.04.2018 was cancelled vide notification under
Annexure-9 with the concurrence of the Chancellor and new
Circular for fresh selection was issued.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
Standing Selection Committee after conclusion of the selection
process pursuant to the circular dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-2)
// 23 //
found the petitioner as the most suitable candidate for
appointment to the post of Dean, Students Welfare, OUAT and
accordingly, recommended the name of the petitioner vide letter
dated 05.09.2018 along with the result sheet to the opposite
party no.2 being the appointing authority for appointment. The
Chancellor pursuant to such recommendation by the Selection
Committee, has observed that the Selection Committee has not
taken into consideration the respective training and experience
necessary for the post of Dean, Student Welfare which is an
essential condition in the statute and the circular invited for the
post. It is further alleged that the said eligibility criteria relates
to soft skill management of students outside the classroom.
Observing the same, the Chancellor returned the
recommendation to the opposite party no.3 to look into the said
aspect.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
petitioner has learnt from the reliable sources that the Chancellor
vide its letter dated 17.09.2018 has observed that the Selection
Committee has not taken into consideration the experience as
Hostel Superintendent or Student Advisor etc. while assessing
the candidate. In the said letter dated 17.09.2018, the
Chancellor has observed that these experiences relates to soft
// 24 //
skill of managing students outside the classroom. The opposite
party no.3 being the Chairman of the Selection Committee vide
his letter dated 06.11.2018 categorically replied that the
Selection Committee while assessing the candidates has taken
into consideration the experience as Hostel Superintendant and
the Student Advisor as observed by the Chancellor. It is further
stated that the Vice-Chancellor has clarified that such
assessment has been made as per the biodata submitted and
presentation made by the candidates in the interview and has
further elaborated the experience of the recommended candidate
outside the classroom meeting to the observation of the
Chancellor. By so clarifying, the Vice-Chancellor (Chairman of
Selection Committee)/opposite party No.3 once again placed the
recommendation before the Chancellor for necessary
appointment. It is further stated that all the observations made
by the Chancellor in his letter dated 17.09.2018 has been duly
complied with and observed by the Vice-Chancellor.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that as
observed by the Chancellor, the experience as Hostel
Superintendent or Students Advisor etc. relates to soft skill
management of students outside the classroom and the Vice-
Chancellor clarified that the selection committee considered all
// 25 //
such experiences of the selected candidate (petitioner) as well as
such experience of other candidates and upon such
consideration, the recommendation was made.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
statute 3(1)(v) of the OUAT Statute stipulates the that the Dean
of Students Welfare shall be a person trained in students welfare
activities, who would be able to shoulder the duties and
responsibilities prescribed in the Act and Statutes. Such
stipulation in the Statute has also been stated in "Eligibility and
Qualification" condition of the circular for appointment apart from
the other requirement of minimum five years of experience as
Professor of the University. Except this, neither the Act or the
Statute nor the Circular for appointment in question stipulate any
other eligibility condition or qualification criteria for appointment
to the post in question. Further, nowhere the OUAT Act, 1965 or
the OUAT Statute or for that matter the circular for appointment
stipulate any parameter for assessing such soft skill
management of the candidates. Notwithstanding the same, the
observation of the opposite party no.2 regarding experience as
Hostel Superintendent or Student Advisor of the candidates
which relates to soft skill management of students outside
classroom has been considered by the Selection Committee and
// 26 //
upon such consideration, the petitioner has been selected and
duly recommended. The observations of Chancellor with respect
to the recommendation by the Selection Committee having been
duly complied with, the authorities ought not to have dumped
the whole selection process by merely stating that fresh selection
was necessary to comply with the observations of the Chancellor.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
reason of dumping the whole selection process by the opposite
parties pursuant to the circular dated 26.04.2018 amounts to
introducing a wholly new criteria of selection after the circular for
the appointment was issued and the Selection Committee made
its recommendation and that such course of action is
impermissible under law. The so-called parameter for soft skill
management as stated in the counter affidavit of the opposite
parties has nowhere been prescribed in the Act or the Statute or
for that matter in the circular for appointment. Considering the
same, the Chancellor has observed only regarding the
experience as Hostel Superintendent or Student Advisor etc. for
assessing the soft skill management and this observation has
been duly taken care of by the Selection Committee and as such
the opposite parties for no good reason and acting mechanically
and arbitrarily have thrown out the selection process pursuant to
// 27 //
circular dated 26.04.2018 and as such the same is illegal and
deserves to be set aside.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
Chancellor in his letter dated 03.01.2019, requested the Vice-
Chancellor to re-convene the same Selection Committee to
assess all the candidates as per his observations.
Notwithstanding the same, the Vice-Chancellor for no good
reasons and going beyond the mandate of the Chancellor
decided to go for fresh selection without considering the exercise
already made by the Selection Committee following a rigorous
process of selection and therefore, the impugned cancellation of
selection process is without any rational and legal basis but
merely at the whims and caprices of the authorities.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
appointing authority has ignored the recommendation of the
statutorily constituted Selection Committee for no good reasons.
The Selection Committee through its chairman has duly complied
with the observations made by the Chancellor, yet the
recommendation has been illegally ignored. Such action of
ignoring the select panel by the appointing authority on its
whims is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
// 28 //
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that
introducing a fresh criteria of appointment to a post after the
selection panel has been drawn is against the basic tenets of law.
After the petitioner was duly selected and his name being
recommended by the Selection Committee, the authorities on
the plea of assessing the candidates on a new criteria alien to
the Statute as well as the Circular for appointment, cancelled the
selection process and therefore, the impugned cancellation is
illegal.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
statutory provisions governing the impugned appointment would
show that all the criterias and qualification as prescribed therein
were duly complied with while selecting and recommending the
name of the petitioner for being appointed to the post in
question. Further, the Standing Selection Committee which
recommended the name of the petitioner for being selected
comprised of an academician nominated by the opposite party
no.2 and as such all the concerns of the Chancellor has been
considered by the Selection Committee.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
right of the opposite party no.1 University to cancel the interview
or the selection process or the right of the appointing authority
// 29 //
to decide must be exercised fairly and not merely at their whims.
The University as well as the appointing authority is obliged
under law to assign good reasons for ignoring the
recommendation of the statutorily constituted Selection
Committee.
It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the
petitioner having been found to have fulfilled all the eligibility
condition, was selected and recommended by the statutorily
constituted Selection Committee in which one of the members
was the nominee of the opposite party no.2 and that apart, at no
point of time, the opposite party no.2 in any of his
communication raised such allegation regarding non-fulfillment
of eligibility condition by the petitioner.
7. Mr. Jayant Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner submitted that the Standing Selection
Committee was constituted strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Statute of OUAT. After the decision was taken
by the Selection Committee, the name of the petitioner was
recommended to the office of the Chancellor for his appointment
as Dean of Students Welfare which was made by the Vice-
Chancellor, the Chairman of the Selection Committee, inter alia,
comprising of two expert members i.e. Chancellor's nominee and
// 30 //
Government's nominee. After receipt of such recommendation,
without due application of mind, the Principal Secretary of the
Chancellor wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor on 17.09.2018
that the Selection Committee has not taken into consideration
the experience as Hostel Superintendent or students' advisor etc.
while assessing the candidates for selection and appointment to
the post of Dean of Students Welfare which is an essential
condition in the Statute and the circular issued and the said
eligibility criteria relates to soft skill of managing students
outside the class room which has got a reasonable, relevant and
rational nexus with the duties and responsibilities to be
shouldered by the appointee and that the Chancellor desired that
these experiences of the candidates should be looked into while
selecting the candidates for such post. The Vice-Chancellor
immediately replied that all relevant facts regarding selection
have been taken into account and recommendation of the
petitioner's name was made. The experience of the petitioner
outside the classroom as per his biodata, meeting the
requirement was also indicated. Without whispering anything
about the contents of the communication made, the Additional
Secretary of the Chancellor's Office requested the Vice-
Chancellor to reconvene the meeting of the very same Standing
// 31 //
Selection Committee to reconsider its decision. It is urged by the
learned counsel that when all the aspects were taken care of by
the Selection Committee while selecting and recommending the
name of the petitioner for appointment as Dean of Students
Welfare, the Vice-Chancellor illegally and without assigning any
valid reason, communicated to the Chancellor's Office suggesting
to have a fresh selection by constituting a selection committee
afresh and referring to such communication, the Special
Secretary to the Chancellor communicated that the Chancellor
has been pleased to cancel the selection and recommendation
and passed the order to initiate fresh selection process
complying all observations of the Chancellor communicated
earlier to the University. Learned counsel argued that issuance of
the impugned notification is the outcome of complete non-
application of mind to the materials on record. According to him,
the selection of the duly constituted Selection Committee cannot
be cancelled as a matter of course, thereby reducing the
selection process as farce. There was no valid reason for the
same and the actions of the opposite parties are not legal but
whimsical and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable
in the eyes of law and should be quashed and the opposite party
no.2 should be directed to appoint the petitioner as the Dean of
// 32 //
Student Welfare of OUAT. In support of such contention, Mr.
Rath placed reliance in the cases of R.S. Mittal -Vrs.- Union of
India reported in 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases
230, A.P. Aggarwal -Vrs.- Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
another reported in (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 600
and Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and another -Vrs.- State of Jammu
and Kashmir and others reported in (1993) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 573.
8. Mr. Pabitra Mohan Pattajoshi, learned counsel
appearing for the opposite parties nos.1 and 3 reiterated the
stand taken in the counter affidavit and submitted that when
after verification of the result sheet, certain points of objection
were raised by the office of the Chancellor and the proceedings
of the Standing Selection Committee were returned back with
instruction to reconvene the selection committee and to reassess
all the candidates as per observation of the Chancellor, since
reconvening of the same selection committee to reassess the
same candidates afresh would not have been appropriate,
therefore, clearance was sought for from the office of the
Chancellor for starting the process afresh with fresh notification
and after obtaining clearance, process went on for fresh
notification after cancelling the previous selection process.
// 33 //
9. Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party no.2, Chancellor, OUAT contended that
neither the opposite party no.2 was bound by the
recommendation of the Standing Selection Committee nor the
petitioner has got any indefeasible right to claim appointment to
the post of Dean of Students Welfare on the basis of
recommendation of his name by the Committee to such post. He
argued that when the opposite party no.2 after perusing the
recommendation of the name of the petitioner made by the
Committee observed that while assessing the candidates, the
Committee had not taken into consideration their respective
training and experience necessary for the post of Dean of
Students Welfare and the eligibility criteria relates to soft skill
management of students outside the class room, therefore, the
opposite party no.2 was quite justified in returning the
recommendation of selection committee to the opposite party
no.3 to look into the said aspect while selecting the candidate for
such post which was a matter connected with the smooth
administration of the University. The training and experience
necessary for the post of Dean of Students Welfare is an
essential condition in the statute and the circular issued inviting
applications for the said post and it has got a reasonable,
// 34 //
relevant and rational nexus with the duties and responsibilities to
be shouldered by the appointee and therefore, it cannot be
ignored or sidelined. It is argued that the decision of the
authority to cancel the selection process and to hold a fresh
selection having been taken in a bonafide way for the best
interest of the institution, it cannot be said there is any illegality
or perversity in the same or that the petitioner was prejudiced in
any manner and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 placed reliance
in the cases of Director, SCTI for Medical Science &
Technology and another -Vrs.- M. Pushkaran reported in
(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 448, Sasmita Manjari Das
-Vrs.- State of Orissa and others reported in 2015 (II)
Indian Law Reports -Cut- 827, J. & K. Public Service
Commission, etc. -Vrs.- Dr. Narinder Mohan and others
etc. etc. reported in A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 1808,
Lakhwinder Singh -Vrs.- Union of India and others
reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 648, Dr. H.
Mukherjee -Vrs.- Union of India and others reported in
A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 495 and Sr. Divisional Retail
Sales Manager and others -Vrs.- Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani
reported in 2013 (II) Orissa Law Reviews (SC) 31.
// 35 //
10. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, following
are the main issues, which arise for consideration in the present
writ petition:-
(i) Whether this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
quash impugned notification dated 19.08.2019 under
Annexure-9 and direct the petitioner to be appointed
to the post of Dean of Students Welfare?
(ii) Whether the appointing authority is empowered
to interfere with the decision/recommendation of
Standing Selection Committee? If so, on what
ground(s)?
(iii) Whether the impugned notification under
Annexure-9 cancelling selection process for the post
of Dean, Students Welfare as per the circular dated
26.04.2018 (Annexure-2) is valid and legal?
(iv) Whether the initiation of fresh process of
selection and the consequential issuance of circular
dated 24.09.2019 under Annexure-D/4 issued by the
opposite party no.1 are valid and legal?
// 36 //
Discussion on issue no.(i) :
Scope and ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of
India:
11. Law is well settled that in exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has the
power to issue a writ of certiorari only when there is a failure of
justice and it cannot be issued merely because it may be legally
permissible to do so. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner
to show that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the
statutory authority. There must be an error apparent on the face
of the record as the High Court acts merely in a supervisory
capacity and not as the appellate authority. An error apparent on
the face of the records means an error which strikes one on
mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of
reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two
opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matters
to show its incorrectness. Such errors may include giving
reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or
inadequate. It may also include the application of a wrong legal
test to the facts found, taking irrelevant consideration into
account and failing to take relevant consideration into account,
and wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence as well as
// 37 //
arriving at a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Such a
writ can also be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or
authority whose order is to be reviewed has acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to exercise
the jurisdiction vested in him by law. (Ref:- Harbans Lal -Vrs.-
Jagmohan Saran : A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 302; Municipal Council,
Sujanpur -Vrs.- Surinder Kumar : (2006) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 173; Sarabjit Rick Singh -Vrs.- Union of India :
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417; Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot -Vrs.- Saurashtra
Kutch Stock Exchange Limited : (2008) 14 Supreme Court
Cases 171, Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. -Vrs.- Modern Co-
operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. : (2010) 13
Supreme Court Cases 336).
Similarly this Court is empowered under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ
in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary
directions where the government or a public authority has failed
to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred
upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the
government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on
irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant
// 38 //
considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate
the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for
implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all
such cases and in any other fit and proper case, this Court, in
the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders
and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and
lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government
or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent
injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself
pass an order or give directions which the government or the
public authority should have passed or given had it properly and
lawfully exercised its discretion. (Ref:- CAG -Vrs.- K.S.
Jagannathan : (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 679).
Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not
has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee
which has the expertise on the subject. The decision of the
Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited
grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the
constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the
recommendations, or proved mala fides affecting the
recommendations etc. Jurisdictional review is permissible only to
// 39 //
the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the
decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as
such. The evaluation made by an expert committee should not
be easily interfered with by the Courts which do not have the
necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary
for such purpose. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority
to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee
like the Court of appeal. The discretion to make recommendation
has to be given to the Selection Committee alone and the Courts
rarely sit in appeal to examine the selection of the candidates
nor is it the business of the Court to examine each candidate and
record its opinion. Moreover, it is settled that the function of the
Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory, it is
purely administrative.
Discussion on issue no.(ii) :
Power of appointing authority to interfere with the
decision/recommendation of selection Committee:-
12. Whenever a duly constituted selection committee
utilizing the services of experts makes a recommendation of a
name for a post, it shall not be disturbed by the appointing
authority unless there is any procedural irregularity or violation
of any norm prescribed under the relevant rules or illegality in
// 40 //
making such selection. If the appointing authority has unfettered
powers to do as it likes, there is no need for framing the rules or
following a prescribed procedure in this type of matters. The
entire exercise done by the Selection Committee cannot be
treated as a futile exercise by giving them an impression that
their opinion would not be given due weight and regard. If there
are sufficient reasons for rejecting the recommendation made by
the selection committee like choosing a less meritorious
candidate or a candidate with any stigma or punishments and if
such recommendation is not made with due diligence and care,
certainly the appointing authority has every right to interfere in
such matters and issue directions either to correct such mistakes
or to recommend the names of suitable candidates.
Discussion on issue nos.(iii) & (iv) :
Whether the cancellation of selection process for the post
of Dean, Students Welfare and initiation of fresh process
of selection with consequential issuance of circular by the
opposite party no.1 are valid and legal?
13. OUAT is an educational institution which is dedicated
to agriculture related research, extension services and education
in agricultural science and technology. The post of the Dean of
Students Welfare is a respectable and responsible post of such
// 41 //
institution. Therefore, in making selection of a candidate for such
important post, every care has to be taken to maintain
transparency and to identify the best among the applicants. It
seems that after a rigorous process of exercise made by the
Selection Committee, out of the six eligible candidates, the
petitioner was found to be the most suitable candidate for
appointment to the post of Dean, Students Welfare and
accordingly, his name was recommended for the post. It should
not be forgotten that the Standing Selection Committee for
appointment of such post comprised of Vice-Chancellor (opposite
party no.3) as the Chairman of the Selection Committee, two co-
opted members nominated by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation
with the State Govt. who acted as experts who were none else
than two Vice-Chancellors of two different Agriculture
Universities, State Government's nominee who in this case was
Commissioner -cum- Secretary, Department of Agriculture and
Farmer's Empowerment and also Chancellor's nominee.
When there is recommendation by such a high level
body, due weight has to be given for such recommendation,
except under exceptional and compelling circumstances. In the
normal circumstances, the recommendation has to be approved
without interference. If there are any extraordinary
// 42 //
circumstances compelling the appointing authority to come to a
different opinion, it has to assign cogent reasons that made it
not to accept the recommendation made by the Standing
Selection Committee. Keeping such an important post vacant in
an institution of higher learning for years together leads to the
disruption in the administration and discipline of students and fall
of standards. Whenever there is recommendation, the appointing
authority is expected to expedite such matters by clearing such
files on priority basis.
At this stage, it would be worthwhile to discuss few
citations placed by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
(i) In the case of Dr. Narinder Mohan (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that once
statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be only in
accordance with the rules. In the case of Sasmita Manjari Das
(supra), it is held that if any condition is stipulated in the
advertisement, it is to be strictly followed by the authority and in
no case, it would be deviated.
In the case in hand, eligibility and qualification
criteria have been prescribed under the OUAT Act and the OUAT
Statutes for appointment to the post of Dean of Students
Welfare. In the circular under Annexure-2, it has been laid down
// 43 //
that the Dean of Students Welfare shall be selected from
amongst the Professors of the University or the persons of
equivalent rank having experience as such for a minimum period
of five years. He shall be a person trained in students' welfare
activities who would be able to shoulder the duties and
responsibilities prescribed in the OUAT Act and the OUAT
Statutes. Thus the conditions stipulated under the OUAT Act and
the OUAT Statutes so also in the circular under Annexure-2 were
to be strictly followed by the authority in the appointment to the
post of Dean of Students Welfare. The post has to be filled up as
per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional
mandate.
(ii) In the case of Lakhwinder Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the suggestions of Special
Selection Board in the matter of promotion are only
recommendatory in nature and it can be varied or interfered with
by the appointing authority. In the case of Dr. H. Mukherjee
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the function of the
Public Service Commission being advisory, the Government may
for valid reasons to be recorded on the file, disapprove of the
advice or recommendation tendered by the Commission, which
// 44 //
decision can, if at all, be tested on the limited ground of it being
thoroughly arbitrary, mala fide or capricious.
Thus, the selection and recommendation of the name
of the petitioner for the post of Dean of Students Welfare made
by the Opposite party no.4 under the chairmanship of opposite
party no.3 to the opposite party no.2 can be disapproved, inter
alia, on the ground of arbitrariness.
(iii) In the case of State of Orissa -Vrs.-
Rajkishore Nanda reported in (2010) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 777, it is held that a person whose name appears in the
select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment.
Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the
purpose of appointment and that by itself does not amount to
selection or create a vested right to be appointed. Similar view
has been taken in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh and Ors.
-Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in (2016) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 532.
In the case of R.S. Mittal (supra), it is held as
follows:-
"10. It is no doubt correct that a person on the
select panel has no vested right to be appointed
to the post for which he has been selected. He
has a right to be considered for appointment.
// 45 //
But at the same time, the appointing authority
cannot ignore the select panel or decline to
make the appointment on its whims. When a
person has been selected by the Selection Board
and there is a vacancy which can be offered to
him, keeping in view his merit position, then,
ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him
for appointment..."
In the case of A.P. Aggarwal (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:-
"11...It is not therefore open to the Government
to ignore the panel which was already approved
and accepted by it and resort to a fresh
selection process without giving any proper
reason for resorting to the same. It is not the
case of the Government at any stage that the
appellant is not fit to occupy the post. No
attempt was made before the Tribunal or before
this Court to place any valid reason for ignoring
the appellant and launching a fresh process of
selection.
12. It is well settled that every State action, in
order to survive, must not be susceptible to the
vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article
14 of the Constitution and basic to the rule of
law, the system which governs us (vide
Shrilekha Vidyarthi -Vrs.- State of U.P. :
A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 537)."
// 46 //
In the case of Asha Kaul (Mrs.) (supra), it is held
that it does not confer an absolute power upon the Government
to disapprove or cancel the select list sent by the public service
commission. Where, however, the Government is satisfied, after
due enquiry that the selection has been vitiated either on
account of violation of fundamental procedural requirement or is
vitiated by consideration of corruption, favouritism or nepotism,
it can refuse to approve the select list. It is true that mere
inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates
included therein an indefeasible right to appointment, but that is
only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation
of the Government to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be
reduced to a farce. Having sent a requisition/request to the
Commission to select a particular number of candidates for a
particular category, in pursuance of which the Commission issues
a notification, holds a written test, conducts interviews, prepares
a select list and then communicates to the Government, the
Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons
nullify the whole exercise and tell the candidates when they
complain that they have no legal right to appointment.
A vested right in the matter of appointment will not
accrue if there are valid reasons. It is true that a person
// 47 //
selected, on account of being empanelled alone, does not acquire
any indefeasible right of appointment, however, there is a
legitimate expectation on the State not to act unfairly or
arbitrarily. If without any valid reasons, a completed selection
process is cancelled and an entire new selection process is taken
up, it would reflect lack of bonafide and probably of malafide
against the selected candidates.
In the case of Director, SCTI for Medical Science
& Technology (supra), it is held as follows:-
"11....Only because the name of a person
appears in the select list, the same by itself may
not be a ground for offering him an
appointment. A person in the select list does not
have any legal right in this behalf. The selectees
do not have any legal right of appointment
subject, inter alia, to bona fide action on the
part of the State.
** ** ** ** ** **
16. It is, therefore, evident that the selectee
as such has no legal right and the superior court
in exercise of its power of judicial review would
not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in
absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide
or arbitrariness on the part of the employer.
Each case, therefore, must be considered on its
own merit.
// 48 //
In the case of Ashok Shankarlal Gwalani (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"17. Generally, if an irregularity is detected in
the matter of selection or preparation of a panel,
it is desirable to have a fresh selection instead of
re-arranging the panel which is found to be
vitiated. The authority empowered to appoint, is
the competent authority to decide as to whether
the panel should be discarded and there should
be a fresh selection.."
It is true that the petitioner did not acquire any
indefeasible right of appointment merely because of
recommendation of his name to the post of Dean of Students
welfare, but in absence of violation of fundamental procedural
requirement or that he is not fit to occupy the post, refusal to
approve the select list recommended by the Selection Committee
constituted of such a high level body reflects lack of bonafide
rather the decision dehors sufficient reasons shows non-
application of mind and smacks of arbitrariness and therefore, it
becomes vulnerable. The legitimate expectation of the petitioner
on the opposite parties not to act unfairly has been frustrated.
14. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and
objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient
public service. The object of any process of selection for an
// 49 //
important post is to secure the best and the most suitable
person for the job. Criteria for selection cannot be changed
during the course of selection arbitrarily. There is no dispute that
as appointing authority, the Chancellor (opposite party no.2) has
every jurisdiction to examine as to whether a Selection
Committee had been properly constituted and as to whether a
selection had been properly made or not. The opposite party
no.3 being the Chairman of the Selection Committee replied to
the desire of the opposite party no.2 to look into the experience
of the candidates as Hostel Superintendent or Students Advisor,
that the Selection Committee while assessing the candidates,
has taken into consideration the experience as Hostel
Superintendant and the Students Advisor and that such
assessment has been made as per the biodata submitted and
presentation made by the candidates in the interview and has
further elaborated the experience of the recommended candidate
(petitioner) outside the classroom. When the opposite party No.3
once again placed the recommendation before the opposite party
no.2 for review and reconsideration and making necessary
appointment and all the observations made by the Chancellor in
his letter dated 17.09.2018 has been duly complied with and
observed by the Vice-Chancellor who clarified that the selection
// 50 //
committee considered all such experiences of the selected
candidate (petitioner) as well as such experience of other
candidates and upon such consideration, the recommendation
was made, in such an event, the order of the opposite party no.2
in not approving the recommendation of the Selection
Committee and asking the opposite party no.3 as to whether a
fresh meeting of Selection Committee was held or not to
consider the fresh recommendation and whether the OUAT has
devised any parameters of soft skills for assessing suitability of a
teacher to become the Dean of Students Welfare and whether all
the applicants were assessed against those parameters and
ultimately directing the opposite party no.3 to start fresh process
of selection is leading to a conclusion that it is an arbitrary action
much detrimental to the interest of the institute leading to delay
in reaching finality in the matter. When the opposite party no.3
replied to the desire of the opposite party no.2 as above, there
could be no earthly reason to deviate from the recommendation
made in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Rath, learned Senior
Advocate, is right, in his submission, that nowhere the OUAT Act,
1965 or the OUAT Statutes or for that matter the circular for
appointment stipulate any parameter for assessing such soft skill
management of the candidates. It seems that the Selection
// 51 //
committee, inter alia, has taken into account the vast experience
of the petitioner in working as Superintendent of Boys' Hostel of
OUAT, (Krupasindhu Hostel), Assistant Superintendent and
Superintendent of Kharvela Hostel (Hostel No.6) for different
period, working as NSS Programme Officer to look after the NSS
activities of OUAT, working as the Vice President of the Athletic
Society of the College of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology, working as member anti-ragging squad of the
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, organizing
NSS Special Camp (two times) and accompanying two study-
tours with UG students. Therefore, there were sufficient
materials before the Selection Committee that among all the
eligible candidates, the petitioner is best trained in student
welfare activities, who would be able to shoulder the duties and
responsibilities prescribed in the OUAT Act, 1965 or the OUAT
Statutes and accordingly the recommendation of his name was
quite justified. Thus the action of the opposite parties in ignoring
the recommendation of the name of the petitioner and cancelling
the selection process is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and
patently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
consequential issuance of fresh circular inviting applications for
// 52 //
the post of Dean, Students Welfare, OUAT is also not sustainable
in the eye of law.
15. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the humble view that the
impugned notification dated 19.08.2019 under Annexure-9
cancelling selection process for the post of Dean, Students
Welfare as per the circular dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-2) so
also initiation of fresh process of selection and the consequential
issuance of circular dated 24.09.2019 by the Registrar, OUAT
(opposite party no.1) under Annexure-D/4 are without any valid
reason and the same is arbitrary and unconstitutional and
hereby quashed. I direct the opposite parties to take immediate
steps in appointing the petitioner as Dean of Students Welfare,
OUAT as he was duly selected by the Standing Selection
Committee (opposite party no.4) and as nothing has been
brought out against him on record.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
..........................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 28th November 2022/Pravakar/RKMishra
