Telangana High Court
Dr. Sampathi Sunitha vs The National Institute Of ... on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 998 of 2020
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus declaring the selection and appointment of 3rd
respondent for the post of Assistant Professor in
Pharmaceutics in SC category pursuant to the Employment
Notification No.NIPER-H/01/2019-20, dated 25.08.2019 as
illegal and arbitrary and to declare that the 3rd respondent is
ineligible for appointment to the said post and consequently
to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner pursuant
to the interview conducted on 07.12.2019 under SC category
with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order
or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner belongs to SC category and
passed Bachelor Degree in Pharmacy (B.Pharm) with
distinction from University College of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, Kakatiya University. The petitioner has also passed
Master in Pharmaceutical Sciences from Kakatiya University
TMD,J
in the academic year 1999-2001 and secured 7th rank in the
University with 72.82% of marks. The petitioner also
possessed teaching and research experience of 17 years and
was eligible for promotion/appointment to the posts of
Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. It is submitted
that pursuant to the advertisement on website for walk-in-
interview to the post of lecturer in Pharmaceutics, the
petitioner appeared for interview on 13.09.2010. Vide letter
dated 21.09.2010, the petitioner was issued an appointment
letter as lecturer in Pharmaceutics and the remuneration was
fixed at Rs.32,000/- per month with transport allowance of
Rs.3,000/- with effect from 03.11.2010. Subsequently, in the
month of May, 2012, remuneration was enhanced from
Rs.35,200/- to Rs.45,200/- with effect from 01.04.2012.
Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has conducted interview for
the post of Assistant Professor in the respondent institute
and the interview was conducted by the Selection Committee
on 24.11.2012 and the petitioner was selected to the said
post at NIPER Hyderabad, vide letter dated 30.04.2012 on a
consolidated pay of Rs.50,000/- per month. It is submitted
that the petitioner reported to duty as Assistant Professor
TMD,J
Pharmaceutics on 05.12.2012 and on 26.05.2016, the
performance review was carried by the Committee and basing
on the recommendations of the Committee, her pay has been
enhanced from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.74,750/- vide letter dated
27.05.2016 and subsequently, her pay has been enhanced
from Rs.74,750/- to Rs.83,720/- vide letter dated 14.08.2017
with effect from 01.01.2017 and subsequently, again
enhanced from Rs.83,720/- to Rs.90,420/- per month w.e.f.
01.04.2018. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the petitioner has been discharging her duties
eversince as Assistant Professor Pharmaceutics without any
complaint from any quarter.
3. In the meantime, the respondent No.1
institution, a Director was appointed in the month of June,
2018 and thereafter, the petitioner was issued office
memorandum dated 11.10.2018 informing her that her
services at NIPER, Hyderabad, as Assistant Professor are
terminated with effect from 24.10.2018 and on the very next
day, another letter dated 12.10.2018 has been issued stating
that 'based on the performance in the Contract Renewal
TMD,J
Committee meeting held on 09.10.2018, the Director, NIPER,
Hyderabad, has been pleased to renew the contractual tenure
as Assistant Professor for a further period of one year w.e.f.
29.10.2018 to 28.10.2019 on the existing terms and
conditions of the contract with a consolidated pay of
Rs.90,420/- per month. It is submitted that the
notification/advertisement No.NIPHER-H/01/2019-20, dated
25.08.2019 for regular recruitment of teaching and non-
teaching staff in the cadre of Professor, Associate Professor
and Assistant Professors notifying 18 posts in different
disciplines were issued vide Employment Notification. The
date of commencement for online application was 30.08.2019
and the last date was 14.10.2019. As per the Clause (2) of the
notification, for the post of Associate Professor, one must
possess Ph.D with first class or equivalent grade at the
preceding degree in the appropriate branch with a very good
academic record throughout and atleast 8 years of
teaching/research/industrial experience with published work
of high quality and an established reputation of having made
seminal contribution of knowledge in pharmaceutical and
allied areas. Further, for the post of Assistant Professor, one
TMD,J
should possesses Ph.D with first class or equivalent grade at
the preceding degree in the appropriate branch with a very
good academic record throughout and atleast 5 years of
teaching/research/industrial experience with published work
of high quality. It is submitted that the petitioner was eligible
for both the posts i.e., Associate Professor as well as
Assistant Professor in Pharmaceutics discipline and
accordingly, she applied for the said posts. It is submitted
that Scrutiny Committee scrutinized the applications and the
petitioner's name was short-listed under eligible candidates
in both the categories at Serial No.10 and Serial No.3
respectively. Whereas the respondent No.3's name was listed
under the ineligible candidates in the category of Assistant
Professor at Serial No.5. It is submitted that against the name
of the respondent No.3 it was stated as 'inadequate
experience'. It is submitted that on the very same day, the
respondent No.1 has called for objections if any, along with
the relevant supporting documents to be submitted on or
before 13.11.2019. It is stated that the respondent No.1 has
received 25 members queries for inclusion of their
candidature and upon detailed verification of the same, a
TMD,J
final list of eligible and ineligible candidates was uploaded on
the website. It is submitted that in the said list also, the
petitioner's name was at Serial No.11 in the category of
Associate Professor (UR) and at Serial No.3 in the category of
Assistant Professor (SC), whereas, the name of the
respondent No.3 was found at Serial No.5 in the list of
ineligible candidates in the category of Assistant Professor
(SC) with the comment of 'inadequate experience' and on the
very same day, general instructions and essential information
and clarifications were also notified by the respondent
specifically informing that all the applicants are advised to
ensure before applying that they possess essential
qualification and experience for the post. It is submitted that
pursuant to the said list, all the eligible candidates were
called for interview and the petitioner was issued with two
call letters dated 09.11.2019 directing her to attend for
interview on 07.12.2019 to the post of Associate Professor
and on 08.12.2019 for the post of Assistant Professor (SC)
and the petitioner attended the interview and the interviews
were completed for both teaching and non-teaching positions
and the petitioner was expecting to be selected and appointed
TMD,J
to either of the posts. The petitioner came to know that Board
of Governors approved the selections made by the selection
committee on 23.12.2019 and the appointment orders were
communicated through email to the selected candidates on
the very same day or on the next day and that six internal
candidates have received appointment letters through email.
Since the petitioner did not receive any appointment order,
she made a representation through email on 26.12.2019 to
consider her case for appointment to either of the posts. The
respondents, inspite of considering her case for appointment,
issued a list dated 23.12.2019 which was displayed on
28.12.2019 through which the petitioner observed that only
14 posts out of 18 notified vacancies were filled up and
instead of displaying the names of the selected candidates,
the application form numbers were notified. Observing that
the respondent No.3, who was arrayed in the list of ineligible
candidates, has been considered for appointment to the post
of Assistant Professor under SC category vide application
form No.1044, the petitioner immediately made oral
representation to the respondents stating that the petitioner
was the only eligible candidate working in the institute in
TMD,J
Pharmaceutics and she possessed necessary and adequate
experience in the respondent No.1 organization and that her
name was also short-listed in the list of eligible candidates on
two occasions. Since there was no response from them, the
present writ petition has been filed and the learned counsel
for the petitioner has reiterated the above submissions in her
submissions made in the writ affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the general instructions and clause (5) of the special
instructions are issued along with the notification to the
effect that the application once submitted cannot be
altered/resubmitted, under any circumstances and further
that no request with respect to making changes in any
data/particulars entered by the candidate in the online
application will be entertained, once the application is
submitted successfully. Similarly, another note was also
issued along with final list of eligible candidates stating that
'no updating of qualification and experience will be
entertained after the last date'. Thus, according to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.3 was
TMD,J
declared as ineligible during the scrutiny of the application
itself, could not be called for interview and appointed to the
said post, which was wholly unsustainable. It is further
submitted that one of the candidates selected i.e.,
Dr.Saurabh Srivastava was working in the team of Dr.Rajeev
Raghuvanshi, who was the Member of the interview
committee and therefore, interview committee was biased in
his favour. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 should
possess atleast five years of experience in the category of
Assistant Professor as per the notification, but he could not
possess the adequate experience in terms of the notification
and therefore, he was declared as ineligible at threshold itself,
but however, not only was he called for interview but was
selected and appointed under SC category, which shows the
bias in favour of respondent No.3 and discrimination against
the petitioner herein. Therefore, the appointment of
respondent No.3 is sought to be set aside and sought a
direction to the petitioner to be considered for appointment.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
have filed their respective counter affidavits and the unofficial
TMD,J
respondent also has filed his counter affidavit. The
respondents No.1 and 2 denied the allegations made by the
petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No.3 was
considered ineligible for Ph.D on 16.03.2015 as per approval
of vice chancellor vide notification No.Res/Ph.D/Pharm
Science/3415, dated 19.03.2015. It is submitted that the
respondent No.3 served from 07.07.2014 to 28.11.2016 in
ISF College of Pharmacy, but remained on study leave
without pay from 20.03.2015 for working as post doctoral
research associate at IRMA LERMA Rangel College of
Pharmacy, Texas A&M Health Science Centre, Kingsville,
Texes, USA and as per rejoinder of respondent No.3, he
resigned from ISF College of pharmacy on 28.11.2016. It is
submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner about
the respondent No.3 are without any basis. A copy of the
notification is also filed along with the counter affidavit.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3, also filed counter affidavit and stated that he had
submitted his application duly enclosing required certificates
for consideration of his case for the post of Assistant
TMD,J
Professor and that he was found successful in the interview
and was also issued appointment order and has also joined
the service on 10.01.2020 and was continuously working as
such. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee, while
scrutinizing the applications of all the candidates had
committed an human error in respect of respondent No.3
herein and mentioned that he did not have adequate
experience and immediately, he submitted his objection and
thereafter, the respondent No.1 has considered his request
and looked into the application and found that he had
adequate experience and therefore, he was considered for the
post and has been appointed accordingly. Therefore, he
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the respondents in
the notification have clearly mentioned that once the
application is submitted, it cannot be altered/resubmitted,
under any circumstances and further that no request with
respect to making changes in any data/particulars entered by
the candidate in the online application will be entertained,
TMD,J
once the application is submitted successfully. Further, it is
also instructed that in the case of any inadvertent mistake in
the process of selection which may be detected at any stage,
even after issuance of appointment letter, the institute
reserves the right to modify/withdraw/cancel any
communication made to the applicants. The respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are taking the umbrage under general
instructions No.10, to submit that when the mistake in
counting the experience of the respondent No.3 was detected,
the respondents have revised the list and have called the
eligible candidates for interview. However, this Court, from
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 finds that
the experience certificates filed by him at Page Nos.26 & 27
mentions that he worked in an institution of ISF college of
pharmacy as Assistant Professor from 07.07.2014 to
28.11.2016 and that he was relieved from the post of
Assistant Professor w.e.f. 28.11.2016 due to his resignation.
Further from the certificate allegedly given by IRMA, LERMA
Rangel College of Pharmacy, the respondent No.3 has worked
as a post doctoral research associate at IRMA, LERMA Rangel
College of Pharmacy, Texas, A&M Health Science Center,
TMD,J
Kingsville, TX, USA, since July, 2015 to December, 2016. The
said certificate was allegedly signed on 12.07.2016. Thus, it
can be seen that both the certificates are over lapping over
the period of July, 2015 and December, 2016. Therefore,
either of the certificates is not correct. The respondents No.1
and 2 obviously have not looked into these discrepancies, but
have considered the representation of the respondent No.3
about his experience and have allowed him not only to attend
the interview, but have also appointed him as Assistant
Professor. Therefore, it is clear that the action of the
respondents No.1 and 2 in not only entertaining the
representation of the petitioner about his experience, but also
in evaluating the certificates of the respondent No.3 is
without any jurisdiction and basis. The action of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the case of the
petitioner, having placed her name in the list of eligible
candidates, and in not calling her for interview and instead
considering the case of the respondent No.3, who was in the
list of ineligible candidates and not intimating the reasons for
change in the eligible candidates, is clearly in violation of
principles of natural justice.
TMD,J
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others 1, has
clearly held that the selection process has to be conducted
strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure
which needs to the scrupulously maintained and there
cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the
advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved in
relevant rules or in advertisement. The said judgment would
clearly be applicable to the case on hand and it is obvious
that the representation of the respondent No.3, after
submission of the application, has been entertained by the
respondents much against their own instructions in the
notification. Further it has also been demonstrated that the
respondent No.3 could not have had experience as claimed by
him both at Punjab and also in USA simultaneously, during
July, 2015 to December, 2016. Therefore, the respondents
are directed to reconsider the issue and take appropriate
remedial action immediately. The petitioner shall be eligible
for consideration of her case for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor with all consequential benefits.
1 (2011) 12 SCC 85
TMD,J
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.06.2024
bak
