J. Shankar vs Prof. Pappula Laxminarayana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3065 Tel

                THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                      CONTEMPT CASE No.2068 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 to 12

of the Contempt of Court Act 70 of 1971 to punish the respondents 1 and 2 for

willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18018 of 2016 dated

11.10.2022.

2. The petitioner filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.18018 of 2016 seeking

a writ of Mandamus to declare that the award of fellowship in favour of respondent

No.3 for the year 2015-17 vide Fellowship No.NFO-2015-17-OBC-TEL-43210 was

illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and

consequently to declare that the petitioner was entitled to be awarded fellowship

from the respondent No.2 for the year 2015-17 in Telugu subject. On hearing both

the counsel, this Court passed an order dated 11.10.2022 allowing the writ petition

declaring the award of fellowship in favour of respondent No.3 as illegal and

directing the respondent No.2 -U.G.C. to consider the candidature of the petitioner,

if he was otherwise found eligible for grant of fellowship in the category applied by

him.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing

Counsel for respondent No.2-University Grants Commission (U.G.C.).

CC_2068_2022 Dr.GRR, J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after passing the

above order, the petitioner submitted a representation on 04.11.2022 to the

respondents 1 and 2, but the respondents had not taken any action on the order dated

11.10.2022. The deliberate in-action of the respondents was in violation of the

orders passed by this Court and they were liable to be punished under the provisions

of the Contempt of Court Act.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for U.G.C. on the other hand submitted

that the National Fellowship for Other Backward Classes (NFOBC) scheme was

returned to the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (MoSJE) w.e.f.

01.10.2022, i.e., before the Court's order. As such, UGC was not in a position to

take any action and forwarded the same to MoSJE to take action at their end. But the

MoSJE vide letter dated 16.02.2023 directed the UGC to give their specific

comments/recommendations for compliance by the Ministry. In compliance of the

court's order and as per the direction of MoSJE, UGC constituted a Committee for

considering the candidature of petitioner as per merit. A meeting of the Committee

was held on 04.03.2023 at 12 noon in UGC office at Delhi and submitted the

minutes of the meeting. She further submitted that the UGC had conveyed its

decision to the petitioner vide its email dated 04.03.2023.

6. As per the minutes of the meeting held by the UGC:

CC_2068_2022 Dr.GRR, J

"The Committee looked into the combined merit list for 2015-17 prepared by the UGC for NFOBC. There were total 16 slots for Telangana state for two years combined. 50% slots were for the male candidates and 50% of the slots were for female candidates. The result for all slots was declared, that is, there were no vacant slots. There is no provision for waiting list in the UGC Guidelines. The cut-off percentage for the male candidates under the Humanities stream was 83.6% and that of petitioner was 75.5%. There were 9 candidates in between the last selected candidate and petitioner under the Humanities stream. Even in the Telugu subject there were 6 candidates in between the last selected candidate and the petitioner. The committee after considering the matter in its entirety concluded that the petitioner was not eligible to be declared as qualified for NFOBC, 2015-17, for the reason that there were 9 candidates after the last selected candidate and the petitioner could not be selected as per merit."

7. This Court has given a direction to the UGC to consider the

candidature of the petitioner, if he was otherwise found eligible for grant of

fellowship in the category applied by him. As per the minutes of the meeting held

by the Committee constituted for the said purpose, the petitioner could not be

selected as per merit as there were some other candidates after the last selected

candidate and above the petitioner.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that once

the candidates completes the Ph.D., they would be out of the rolls. As such, their

candidature need not be considered. There was no need to call them back and relied CC_2068_2022 Dr.GRR, J

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narimetla Vamshi and others

Vs. V.V. Srinivasa Rao 1 wherein in a contempt case, the Hon'ble Apex Court on

21.04.2023 held that:

"...the principle of law which was laid down was that if against notified vacancies people do not join, those vacancies have to be filled in through the merit list already prepared while if the candidates join and leave, then the vacancies will be carried forward."

And subsequently in the same case on 17.05.2023 held that:

"... such of the persons who were aggrieved and approached the Court, the principle should be applied to them in view of passage of time."

and asked to apply the same principle to the petitioner.

9. The learned standing counsel for U.G.C. strongly opposed the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the judgment relied

by the learned counsel for the petitioner was pertaining to recruitment, but not with

regard to the fellowships. There would be no carry forward principle in fellowships.

The cut-off percentage for the male candidates under the Humanities stream was

83.6%, but the petitioner secured only 75.5% and he could not be selected as per

merit as the petitioner was in 10th place and there were 9 candidates above him after

the last selected candidate.

Conmt.Pet.(C) No.728/2023 in C.A.No4735/2022 CC_2068_2022 Dr.GRR, J

10. Considering the submission of the learned standing counsel for the

U.G.C. and as this Court only directed the U.G.C. to consider the candidature of the

petitioner only, if he was otherwise found eligible for grant of fellowship in the

category applied by him and as U.G.C. constituted a Committee and after

considering the matter in entirety found that the petitioner was not eligible for

NFOBC, 2015-17 and he could not be selected as per merit, it could not be said that

there was willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. As nothing

survives in this petition, the petition is closed.

11. In the result, the Contempt Case is closed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J October 11th, 2023 ss