Rovins Kumar vs The Lalit Narayan Mithila ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2555 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6203 of 2016
     ======================================================

Rovins Kumar, son of Bhushan Sharma, Resident of village and P.O. Noawan, Police Station - Sakurabad, District - Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, through its Registrar

2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

3. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

4. The Director, Women's Institute of Technology, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

5. Kalpana Kumari, w/o Bhim Mahto, Bangla No. 11, Paschim Road Purana Bus Stand, Police Station - Lalbagh, Darbhanga, Pin Code - 846004, employee of Vice-Chancellor Office, resident of University Campus Quarter No. Income Tax Chowraha, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sarvdeo Singh
                                       Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan
     For the University       :        Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi
     For Respondent No. 5     :        Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Sr. Adv.
                                       Mr. Suryakant Kumar
                                       Mr. Neeraj Raj

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER C.A.V.

Date : 30-05-2023

The present writ application has been filed for quashing

the appointment of respondent no. 5 on the post of Librarian,

issued vide letter, dated 11.05.2015, pursuant to Advertisement No.

01/2015, dated 23.01.2015, published by the Registrar, Lalit

Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga (in short, 'the Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

University'), under the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the

University.

2. The Women's Institute of Technology, Darbhanga,

(now, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women's Institute of Technology

(herein after referred to as 'the Institute') was established by the

University in the year 2004, under self-finance scheme on the

initiative taken by the Syndicate of the University and is governed

by the Managing Committee, constituted under the bye-laws of the

Institute. The Vice Chancellor of the University is the Ex-Officio

Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Institute and the

Registrar of the University is the Ex-Officio Member of the

Managing Committee of the Institute.

3. The Institute started three courses, namely, Computer

Science, Information Technology and Master in Computer

Application, with a capacity of 60 students in each stream. The

Managing Committee of the Institute created different Class III

and IV posts in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the

Institute in the year 2005. The posts were created as per the

guidelines issued by the All India Council of Technical Education

and was forwarded to the State Government for approval and,

accordingly, these posts were approved by the State Government.

The post of Librarian was also sanctioned and approved. Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

4. On 23.01.2015, an advertisement was published

inviting application for various posts, including the single post of

Librarian in the Institute. The advertisement prescribes that the

appointment shall be on contract basis on the basis of interview

only and the date of interview was also mentioned in the

advertisement as on 20.02.2015. The last date of submission of

application form was 06.02.2015.

5. The petitioner claimed to be Master of Library and

Information Science and fulfilling the eligibility criteria for

appointment, also applied for the post of Librarian, along with

other candidates. Altogether eight candidates were called for

interview on 20.02.2015, including the respondent no. 5, but the

name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of applicants

selected for the interview. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a

representation on 20.02.2015 to allow him to appear in the

interview. The representation of the petitioner was considered and

the petitioner, along with six other candidates, were called for

interview, held on 24.02.2015. All the seven candidates, including

the petitioner, appeared in the interview held on 24.02.2015 for the

post of Librarian, as would be evident from the attendance sheet,

annexed as Annexure I to the second supplementary counter

affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Finally, Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

respondent no. 5 was selected for the post of Librarian, vide

appointment letter, dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure C to the counter

affidavit filed on behalf of the University).

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while challenging

the appointment of respondent no. 5, argues that the petitioner is

having the qualification of Master in Library and Information

Science and has been working in the Institute since 2007 on Class-

III post on contract basis and was entrusted with the work of

Librarian since 12.05.2007, has been ignored for appointment as

Librarian; whereas the respondent no. 5, who is less qualified than

the petitioner and was working as a Peon (Class-IV post) in the

Institute since 2011, was appointed as Librarian on extraneous

consideration inasmuch as she is the daughter of P.A. to the Vice

Chancellor of the University and was accordingly favoured by the

University.

7. Learned Counsel further argues that upon perusal of

the appointment letter, dated 11.05.2015, it seems that the selection

has been made on the basis of the interview held on 20.02.2015

and the interview held on 24.02.2015, in which the petitioner and

six others had participated, was not taken into consideration,

which would be evident from the evaluation sheet, annexed as

Annexure I to the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Annexure-I only shows the names

of the candidates, including respondent no. 5, who appeared in the

interview held on 20.02.2015 and none of the candidates, who

appeared in the interview on 24.02.2015, finds place in the said

list. The evaluation sheet/marking sheet of the interview held on

24.02.2015 has not been brought on record by the University.

8. Learned Counsel submits that calling the petitioner,

along with six others, in the interview held on 24.02.2015, was

merely an eye-wash and no evaluation/marking/assessment of their

merit was done.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents-

University as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

no. 5, argued that respondent no. 5 also fulfills the eligibility

criteria for appointment on the post of Librarian, as prescribed in

the advertisement, as, at the time of making application for the

post of Librarian, she was having the Master in Library and

Information Science. As per the terms of the advertisement, the

female candidates was to be given preference.

10. The contention of the petitioner that only the

interview, held on 20.02.2015, is taken into consideration, is not

correct and learned counsel for the University contends that the

format of appointment letter contains the date of interview and Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

since the respondent no. 5 was selected as per the interview held

on 20.02.2015, as such, the date of 20.02.2015, is mentioned

therein and if the petitioner had been appointed, the appointment

letter would have mentioned the date of 24.02.2015 as the date

when the petitioner had participated in the interview. The

petitioner participated in the selection process and if not selected,

then he cannot challenge the selection process itself.

11. In support of the argument, learned Counsel has

placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the cases

of Madan Lal and Others v. the State of Jammu and Kashmir

and Others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, Vijendra Kumar

Verma v. Public Service Commission, reported in (2011) 1 SCC

150, and G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, reported in (1976)

3 SCC 585.

12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties

concerned and have gone through the materials available on

record, including the original record of appointment produced by

the University, pursuant to the order, dated 09.01.2023.

13. It is evident from the record that 33 candidates had

applied for the post of Librarian, pursuant to the advertisement,

dated 23.01.2015, out of which, eight candidates were called for

interview on 20.02.2015, including the respondent no. 5 and seven Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

candidates were called for interview on 24.02.2015. The

attendance sheet of all the appearing candidates have been brought

on record by way of second supplementary counter affidavit filed

by the University (Annexure-I) and from perusal of page 173 of

the brief, it appears that a sort of scrutiny was done with regard to

eight candidates relating to their educational qualification and

experience and accordingly, some remarks/marks were given in

the scrutiny sheet. The attendance sheet of the candidates,

including the petitioner, who were called for interview on

24.02.2015, merely contains their signatures on that sheet and

neither scrutiny with regard to their education qualification and

experience has been done on 24.02.2015 nor there is any column

of remarks/marks, as in the case of seven candidates, including the

respondent no. 5. The attendance sheet of 24.02.2015 only shows

that the petitioner was present on the date of the interview.

14. According to the petitioner, the evaluation of the

candidates, who appeared in the interview on 24.02.2015, was not

done and the respondent no. 5 was selected and appointed not on

the basis of inter se merit of the candidates, who participated in the

interview.

15. This Court, at the time of argument, put a pointed

query to learned Counsel for the University as well as learned Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 5 that who were the

members of the Selection Committee and how many members

were there in the Interview Board, but no reply came forward from

the side of the respondents and the respondents did not produce

any document by way of affidavit before this Court having the

name of the members of the Interview Board/Selection

Committee, who conducted the interview on 20.02.2015 and

24.02.2015, respectively. The evaluation/marking done by the

Interview Board/Selection Committee has also not been brought

before this Court. There is no relevant document on the record of

this case to show the constitution of Selection Committee/

Interview Board and/or the assessment/marking done by the

Interview Board during the process of interview of the respective

candidates. The merit list does not contain the inter se merit of the

candidates and their performance in the interview is also not

available on the record.

16. Considering the aforesaid factual position, I am of

the opinion that the selection/appointment on the post of Librarian

was not done in fair manner and the contention of the petitioner is

correct that the appointment of respondent no. 5 has been made for

extraneous consideration.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

17. The basic procedure for appointment, i.e.

constitution of the Selection Committee, constitution of the

Interview Board, assessment/marking done by the Interview Board

of the candidates for the purpose of deciding the inter se merit has

also not been done. As such, the contention of the respondents that

as per the advertisement, the female candidate was to be given

preference is not acceptable, inasmuch as the 'preference' connotes

that other thing being equal, the women candidate shall be given

preference. When assessment/marking/evaluation of the candidates

have not been done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee

of the respective inter se merit of the candidates, the plea of

preference has no meaning.

18. Admittedly, on the basis of her appointment, on

11.05.2015, the respondent no. 5 has been regularized with effect

from 01.01.2019, vide notification issued under memo no.

WIT/D/915-919/19, dated 20.02.2019.

19. Pursuant to the order, dated 25.09.2019, the

respondent no. 5 has not been working as Librarian in the Institute.

20. The decision relied upon by the respondents are also

not applicable in the facts of the present case.

21. Taking into consideration the above mentioned

discussion, I come to the conclusion that the contention of the Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2016 dt.30-05-2023

petitioner is correct that there was serious discrepancy in the

process of appointment. Accordingly, the appointment of

respondent no. 5, vide appointment letter, dated 11.05.2015, is not

sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The

regularization of the respondent no. 5 on the post of Librarian is

also quashed, with liberty to the respondents to make fresh

appointment on the post of Librarian in accordance with law and

after giving opportunity to all eligible candidates.

22. In the result, this writ application is allowed.

23. Since this writ application has been disposed finally,

I. A. No. 01 of 2022, filed for vacating the stay order, dated

25.09.2019, is dismissed.

24. Let the original record be returned to learned

Counsel for the University.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-

AFR/NAFR                             AFR
CAV DATE                          28-03-2023
Uploading Date                    30-05-2023
Transmission Date                    N/A