Uttarakhand High Court
Ghan Shyam Pal vs Hnb Garhwal University And ... on 13 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
13th SEPTEMBER, 2022
Writ Petition (S/B) No.204 of 2021
Ghan Shyam Pal ...... Petitioner
Vs.
HNB Garhwal University and Another ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Abhijay Negi, Ms Snigdha Tiwari and Avil Kaintura, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Ms. Irum Zeba, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
The respondent-University has filed its
supplementary affidavit. Respondent no.2 has also filed
her supplementary affidavit and the petitioner has
responded to the supplementary affidavit of respondent
no.1. The supplementary affidavit filed by respondent
no.2 is taken on record.
2. During the course of hearing, our attention
has been drawn to the Notification dated 18.07.2018
issued by the U.G.C. containing Regulations on
"Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education, 2018". These Regulations apply to
every University, established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act, every
Institution including a Constituent or an affiliated
College recognized by the U.G.C., in consultation with
the University concerned under Clause (i) of Section 2
of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and
every Institution deemed to be a University under
Section 3 of the said Act.
3. It is not in dispute that these Regulations
apply to the respondent no.1 - University. The said
Regulations, under Clause 5, prescribe the constitution
of Selection Committees and guidelines on selection
procedure.
4. Clause 5.1 (1) lays down the Selection
Committee Composition for the post of Assistant
Professor in the University, and the same reads as
follows:-
"5.1 Selection Committee Composition
I. Assistant Professor in the University:
(a) The Selection Committee for the post of Assistant
Professor in the University shall consist of the
following persons:
i) The Vice Chancellor or his/her nominee, who has at
least ten years of experience as Professor, shall be
the Chairperson of the Committee.
ii) An academician not below the rank of Professor to
be nominated by the Visitor/Chancellor, wherever
applicable.
iii) Three experts in the subject concerned nominated
by the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names
approved by the relevant statutory body of the
university concerned.
iv) Dean of the Faculty concerned, wherever
applicable.
v) Head/Chairperson of the Department/School
concerned.
vi)An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/
Women/Differently-abled categories to be nominated
by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the candidates from
any of these categories is an applicant and if any of
the above members of the selection committee does
not belong to that category."
2
5. The respondent - University has placed on
record summary-sheet of the marks awarded by the
Selection Committee to the candidates for the post of
Assistant Professor (OBC - 2 posts) in the Department
of English on 04.03.2021, which was the date of
interview.
6. This marks-sheet contains the name of the
petitioner at Sl. No. 14, and that of respondent no.2 at
Sl. No. 6. This marks-sheet shows that marks were
awarded by three Experts out of 50 each, and by the
Dean/H.O.D., combined together out of 50. The total
marks were, therefore awarded out of 200.
7. In response to our query, Dr. Gupta, who
appears for respondent no.1, states that though the
Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the
aforesaid Regulations, no marks were awarded by the
Vice-Chancellor, the nominee of the Visitor, and the
Academician representing the reserved categories.
8. In further response to our query, as to how
the weightage of marks awarded by the Dean, and the
Head of the Department, was reduced to half, Dr. Gupta
submits that the University, in its wisdom, decided to
give only 50% weightage to the marks awarded by
them in comparison to the marks awarded by the Three
Outside Experts.
9. The constitution of the Selection Committee
has been taken note of hereinabove, and the Vice-
Chancellor, the nominee of the Visitor, and the
Academician representing the reserved category, were
not mere observers, and they were equal participants of
3
the Selection Committee.
10. There is one other aspect on which we would
like the University to make complete disclosure. The
stand of the respondent - University is that the
Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee was constituted,
which was also approved by the Academic Council and
the Executive Council of the University. The marks
awarded by the said Screening-cum-Scrutiny
Committee to the candidates have been placed on
record, which shows that the petitioner was awarded 70
marks and respondent no.2 was awarded 72 marks.
However, there is nothing placed on record to show that
the Academic Council ever applied its mind to the
aspect whether the qualification, in Linguistics, could be
considered as allied, relevant or concerned to the
qualification in English.
11. In light of the aforesaid, we direct the
respondent - University to file an affidavit clarifying the
aforesaid aspects. The relevant documents showing the
actual composition of the Selection Committee should
be disclosed, and it should also be disclosed whether
the aforesaid three persons, who have not awarded any
marks, were present during the selection process.
12. There is also nothing placed on record to
show that even the Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee
applied its mind to the aforesaid aspects before
awarding marks to respondent no.2, who has
qualification in Linguistics. The respondent - University
should make a complete disclosure on these aspects as
well.
4
13. The affidavit on the above aspects be filed by
the respondent - University positively within a week. No
further time shall be granted since the matter is part -
heard.
14. List the matter on 22.09.2022.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 13th September, 2022
BS/SK
