WPSB/475/2019
2022 Latest Caselaw 3616 UK

                                                 1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                     AT NAINITAL
              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                 AND
               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


                          15TH NOVEMBER, 2022
            WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 475 OF 2019


    Between:

    Shri Shanti Prasad Bhatt                                                     ...Petitioner


    and


    Doon University & Others.                                     ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. M.C. Pant, learned Counsel

Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned Counsel

Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 7 : Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand

Counsel for the respondent no. 10 : Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned Counsel

Counsel for the respondent no. 11 : Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to

seek a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 11,

namely, Rajesh Kumar, Associate Professor, Doon University,

on the ground that his appointment as Associate Professor in

the respondent Doon University was illegal, arbitrary and

unconstitutional and against the provisions of the UGC

Guidelines, which are binding on the respondent Doon

University.

2. The writ petition was heard by the Division Bench

at some length on 21.8.2020, when the following order came

to be passed:

"Several contentions were addressed by learned

counsels on both sides. Reliance was placed on the report

of the three member committee formed for examining and

inquiring into the complaints made by Shri Shanti Prasad

Bhatt in relation to Dr. Rajesh Kumar, associate professor

at school of communication, Doon University, Dehradun,

namely, the respondent no. 11.

The report is dated 24.01.2020. Nine questions were

referred to the 3 member committee. The first question

was, as to whether, the respondent no. 11 Rajesh Kumar

was eligible for appointment on the advertised post of

associate professor.

We have considered the answer of the committee with

regard to the first question. The committee at page 2 and 3

of its report has stated as follows:

"Therefore, the Selection Committee must have assessed the 'excellence' of television production work of the candidate before recommending him for appointment. At this juncture, it will not be appropriate nor this committee has any reason to question the wisdom of the Selection Committee.

Further the committee observed that the professionals such as working in the find of Newspaper/Television/Radio/Film and Public Relations Officers have directly appointed as Associate Professor and Professor in Mass Communication/Journalism in several universities across the country. Then in case of Dr. Rajesh Kumar the allegation may be set-aside.

Therefore, the committee is of the view that Dr. Rajesh Kumar meets eligibility criterion-1"

We are unable to accept the reasoning of the three

member committee. When a specific issue is placed for

consideration before the committee, it was for the

committee to look into all the relevant material produced

by the respondent. On considering, the material available

the committee was expected to recommend as to whether

he was eligible for appointment on the advertised post of

associate professor or not. There was no third option. On

the contrary, the committee has refused to answer the

question by holding that the selection committee must

have assessed the excellence of the respondent and,

secondly, that there is no reason to question the wisdom of

the selection committee. The wisdom of the selection

committee is not in issue. The committee was directed to

consider the eligibility of the respondent. Having not done

so, would render the report of the committee as being

faulty.

It is further stated by the committee that the

professionals as working in the field of the newspaper/

television /radio/film as public relation officer have been

directly appointed as associate professors and professor in

mass commutation/journalism in several universities across

the country then in the case of respondent no. 11 Dr.

Rajesh Kumar, associate professor allegation must be set

aside.

Here too, we find that this was not the jurisdiction or

the authority of the tribunal to make such comments

whether persons from the other channels have been

appointed as associate professors or not. It is not a matter

that has been referred to the committee to answer.

Therefore, the statement made by the committee is beyond

what is referred to it.

Having held so, in our considered view, it may not be

proper to proceed further in the matter. The specific

questions referred to the committee have not been

answered properly. We therefore deem it just and

necessary that until and unless the expert body submits

appropriate and positive answers to the questions, the

rights of the petitioner as well as of the respondent will be

affected. It is not proper for the court to draw an

assumption one way or the other, based on the faulty

report by the committee. The rights of the parties would

necessarily have to be weighed based on facts that are

available. When this particular fact is found to be faulty, it

is only just and necessary that the said issues be sent for a

re-consideration before a new committee on the said

issues. That the committee shall specifically answer all the

nine questions referred to. When such a report is furnished,

only thereafter would it be appropriate for the Court to

proceed further in the matter.

In view of the conclusions arrived at, so far as

question no. 1 is concerned, we do not find it necessary to

go into the answers to the other questions.

Consequently the report of the three member

committee dated 24.01.2020 is quashed.

Under these circumstances, on the suggestions made

by Shri Rajendra Dobhal, appearing for the University, the

executive council of the Doon University is hereby directed

to constitute a fresh three member committee to examine,

enquire and record a finding with regard to the nine

questions that were earlier referred to the committee,

which are as follows:

"The following issues have been placed before the committee raised by Shri Shanti Prasad Bhatt while alleging that appointment of Dr. Rajesh Kumar on the advertised post was irregular:

1. Dr. Rajesh Kumar was not eligible for appointment on the advertised post of Associate Professor.

2. Two Screening Committees were formed by the then Vice Chancellor during the process of screening of applicants.

3. The Second Screening committee report based o which recommended applicants were called for interview for the advertised post and which also recommended Dr. Rajesh Kumar was not signed by both the experts of the screening committee on every page of report. It was signed on first page only.

4. Eligibility criteria were modified by the Second Screening Committee because one of the eligibility criteria in the advertisement for the said post -"Published work of doctoral standard or media production work of excellence"- was not mentioned in the screening committee report.

5. Dr. Rajesh Kumar's previous experience with Doordarshan was not in a position equivalent to that of the post of Assistant Professor in terms of qualifications and grade pay.

6. Dr. Rajesh Kumar was favoured while covering him under the Old Pension Scheme at Doon University.

7. Constitution of Selection Committee, which selected Dr. Rajesh Kumar, was not as per rules.

8. Dr. Rajesh Kumar was allowed to guide Ph. D. students of Communication while he has a Ph.D. in Economic.

9. The Ph.D Degree of Dr. Rajesh Kumar is questionable."

The committee so constituted should submit a report

before this Court within a period of eight weeks from today.

The earlier report of the committee dated 24.01.2020

must not given to the new committee.

The committee shall specifically answer the questions

referred to it.

The committee to be constituted shall consist of

members who are not part of Doon University.

We do hope and expect that the new committee does

not commit the same mistakes as was committed by the

previous committee.

Call after eight weeks."

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a three-

member committee was constituted which has furnished its

report. The finding returned by the said three-member

committee, consisting of (i) Prof. Gopal Singh (ii) Prof. Neeru

Johri and (iii) Prof. Amitabh Shrivastava, on the issue whether

Dr. Rajesh Kumar was eligible for appointment on the

advertised post of Associate Professor is as follows:

"1. Dr. Rajesh Kumar was not eligible for appointment on the advertised post of Associate Professor.

Findings: Dr. Rajesh Kumar was eligible for appointment since he fulfills the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Doon University Advt No. 01/2010 for the said post, as detailed below:

i) PhD Degree in Communication/Mass Communication/Journalism from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university.

OR Published work of doctoral standard or media production work of excellence.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar fulfills the criteria of "media production work of excellence". Working with Doordarshan, he planned and produced television programmes for Development/Social Communication projects (Sr. no. 18 of Application Form), for which he received two "Letters of Appreciation" from Director General, Doordarshan. The health communication campaign for which he produced television programmes was also awarded Commonwealth Broadcasting Association Award (Sr. no. 19 of the

Application Form & documents attached therewith). He got specialized training in T.V. programme production conducted by respected organizations like BBC World Service Trust (Sr. no. 22 of Application Form & Documents attached therewith). He was invited as External Expert for curriculum development and lectures for Mass Communication & Video Production in several institutions while he worked with Doordarshan. IGNOU letter dated-01/02/2005 cites his "professional expertise and excellence" (Sr. no. 27 of Application Form & documents attached therewith).

ii) Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade) at Master's level in the subject.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar fulfills the criterion as he has 55.6% marks in Master of Communication & Journalism.

iii) Eight years teaching experience and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the PhD degree and having made a mark in the area of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contributions to education innovation, design of new courses and curricula.

OR 10 years full time experience in any area of Communication (Newspaper accredited with ABC, National News Agencies, Radio, Television, Film Media, reputed Advertising Agencies, Public Relation Officers of the Government, Public Sector Undertakings and established Industrial and Commercial Houses).

Dr. Rajesh Kumar fulfills this criterion as he had about 16 years full time experience in a regular position in Doordarshan (Television) at the time of his application for the said post (Sr. no. 18 of the Application Form).

Desirable Qualifications: Work experience in relevant field with following specializations-Journalism (Electronic Media); Social & Development Communication; Advertising & Marketing Communication; Public Relations & corporate Communication: Media Management & Sales; Electronic Media Production/Visual Communication; Media Studies.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar meets desirable qualifications

also since he had work experience in Social & Development Communication and in Electronic Media Production when he applied for the advertised post (Sr. no. 18 of the Application Form).

Information provided by Dr. Rajesh Kumar in his Application form has been verified by his previous employer at Sr. no. 29 of his application and his Application Form has been sent to the Doon University with a covering letter no. DDK/RAN-31(2)/2010-G/1753, dated-20/04/2010."

4. The petitioner has filed objections to the said

report. The first objection is that the said committee is not

constituted by the Executive Council since, according to the

petitioner, no meeting of the Executive Council was held for

constitution of the committee. The respondent Doon

University has responded to the objections of the petitioner.

Along with the reply, the University has placed on record the

Office Order dated 14.9.2020, constituting the committee.

The respondent Doon University has also placed on record the

minutes of the Executive Council meeting, held by circulation,

in pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court on

21.8.2020. Thus, the objection raised by the petitioner with

regard to the constitution of the committee has no force.

5. The further objection raised by the petitioner is that

the first member of the committee Prof. Gopal Singh had

been associated with the School of Communication, Doon

University, as Academic Advisory Committee Member during

the years 2016 to 2018, which is the department in which

respondent no. 11 has been Head-in-charge since 2010. It is

further stated that Prof. Gopal Singh has also been a PhD

supervisor of Dr. Nitin Kumar, who is Assistant Professor in

the department of respondent no. 11. Thus, it is alleged that

respondent no. 11 is very closely associated with Prof. Gopal

Singh, personally and professionally. It is argued by Mr. Pant,

learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that since Prof.

Gopal Singh had been associated with the respondent Doon

University between 2016 to 2018, he could not have been

appointed as a member of the committee.

6. We do not find any merit in this submission. While

passing the order dated 21.8.2020, on when the committee

was constituted, Prof. Gopal Singh was not part of the

respondent Doon University. Allegations made with regard to

Prof. Gopal Singh, having close relations with Dr. Nitin

Kumar, Associate Professor in the department where

respondent no. 11 is serving, are neither here nor there.

Allegations have been made against Prof. Gopal Singh behind

his back. No endeavour has been made by the petitioner to

even implead him as a party respondent. Thus, allegations do

not hold water and, therefore, rejected.

7. Similar objections have been raised to the

nomination of Prof. Neeru Johri and Prof. Amitabh

Shrivastava, which have no force at all.

8. We may, now, turn to the report of the three-

member committee, which has found that Dr. Rajesh Kumar

was eligible for appointment since he fulfilled the eligibility

criteria mentioned in the Doon University Advertisement No.

01/2010 for the post of Associate Professor. Even according

to Mr. Pant, the essential qualifications prescribed for the post

of Associate Professor by the University Grants Commission

are those which were framed for the post of Reader, which

has been renomenclatured as Associate Professor. The

essential qualifications under the UGC Guidelines are

following:

"1.4.2 Reader Essential

1. P.H. degree in Communication/Mass Communication/Journalism from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university.

OR Published work of doctoral standard or media production work of excellence.

2. Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade) at Master's level in the subject.

3. Eight years experience of teachers and/or research including up to three years for research degree and having made a mark in the area of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to education innovation, design of new courses and curricula.

OR 10 years full time experience in any area of Mass Communication (News paper accredited with ABC, National News Agencies, radio or television, film media, reputed advertising agencies, Public Relation officers of the Government, Public Sector Undertakings and established Industrial and Commercial Houses.)"

9. A perusal of the report of the three-member

committee shows that it is precisely the aforesaid

qualifications, which have been examined by the three-

member committee in detail. The report shows that out of

four essential qualifications under clause (1), of which the

candidate was required to possess any one, respondent no.

11 was found to have "Media Production Work of Excellence".

The committee has taken note of the specific work done by

respondent no. 11 while working with Doordarshan. The fact

that he had received two Letters of Appreciation from Director

General, Doordarshan for production of television

programmes for Development/Social Communication Projects

is taken note of. For the health communication campaign,

respondent no. 11 was also awarded the Commonwealth

Broadcasting Association Award. He also received specialized

training in TV programme production conducted by reputed

organizations like BBC World Service Trust. His other

achievements have also been taken note of in the report,

which has been extracted hereinabove.

10. The selection committee arrives at its subjective

satisfaction with regard to the work of the candidate on the

basis of objective criteria. In the case of respondent no. 11,

the objective criteria is taken note of by the three-member

committee as well. It is neither for this Court nor for the

petitioner to question whether the achievements of

respondent no. 11 tantamount to Media Production Work of

Excellence. The work done by respondent no. 11 certainly

cannot be said to be extraneous for the purpose of

consideration, for judging whether it constitutes Work of

Excellence in Media Production. The three-member

committee, which is an independent committee, has also

found the Media Production Work of respondent no. 11 to be

of excellence. That being the position, there is no reason for

us not to accept the said finding of the three-member

committee.

11. The next essential criteria prescribed by the UGC is

"Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or an

equivalent grade) at Master's level in the subject". The three-

member committee has found that respondent no. 11 has

good academic record since he had secured 55.6 per cent

marks in Master of Communication & Journalism.

12. The third essential requirement was of experience

stipulated under clause (3). The committee has found that Dr.

Rajesh Kumar fulfilled the said criteria as he also has about

16 years' full time experience in regular position in

Doordarshan (Television) at the time of his application for the

said post. Not only Dr. Rajesh Kumar was found to have

satisfied the essential requirements but he also fulfilled the

desirable qualifications, as found by the committee.

13. In the aforesaid light, we find no merit in the

present writ petition and dismiss the same, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

___________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C. J.

______________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

Dt: 15.11.2022 Pr