Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/542/2022 on 23 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 542 OF 2022
23rd SEPTEMBER, 2022
Between:
Sumita Panwar ...... Petitioner
and
Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna
Garhwal University & another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Anil Anthwal, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta with Mr.
Rafat Munir Ali, Ms. Irum Zeba and
Ms. Pallavi Bahuguna, learned
counsels
The Court made the following:
ORDER: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The respondents have filed their counter-
affidavit along with an application to seek vacation of the
interim order passed by this Court vide IA No. 02 of
2022. The respondents have disclosed that the
petitioner secured 78 marks, whereas the cut-off marks
2
in the General category was 81 marks. Therefore, in
any event, the petitioner would not make the cut.
2. The respondents have also disclosed in their
counter-affidavit in paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3 as follows:
"2. That the answering University is duly
following all the Rules, Norms / Regulations laid down
by the Government of India as well as U.G.C. with
regard to the prescribed percentage of reservation as
well as the roaster of reservation. Following the same,
vide notification dated 09.11.2021 for the Department
of Geography, the post of Assistant Professor,
Geography were advertised. Along with the post
advertisement, the general instructions and information
was also published in which the petitioner was required
to apply 'Online' in the prescribed format with
complete, correct information and attachments. As per
the prescribed procedure, in the application
notification itself, all the applicants were required to
apply on the reserved post or unreserved post or they
were free to apply for both reserved as well as
unreserved posts. The purpose of the same is to give
a choice to the applicant as to in what category the
applicant wants to be considered and appointed. True
and correct copy of the recruitment notice dated
09.11.2021 is marked and annexed as Annexure No. 2.
That after the receiving of the application, the
scrutiny of the applications is done on the basis of the
total academic / research score of the applicant as per
U.G.C. Regulations, 2018 Table - 3-A Appendix - II.
The shortlisting and scrutiny procedure is done as per
the decision taken by all Deans of Schools and Members
of Scrutiny Committee as decided in its Meeting dated
3
04.10.2019 which was confirmed by the Academic
Council Agenda No. 30 Meeting dated 30th October,
2019 and Executive Council approval dated 31st
October, 2019.
The abovesaid scrutiny procedure is being
followed in all the recruitment of teaching staff in the
University done in accordance with U.G.C. Regulations,
2018. True and correct copy of the decision taken by
all Dean of Schools and Members of Scrutiny
Committee dated 04.10.2019 and Academic Council
Agenda No. 30 Meeting dated 30th October, 2019 and
Executive Council approval dated 31st October, 2019
along with U.G.C. Regulations, 2018 are marked and
annexed as Annexure No. 3.
3. That the Scrutiny Committee has decided for
all the applications 'to shortlist top fifty applicants or
fifteen times the number of advertised posts for each
category (unreserved, S.C., S.T., O.B.C., PwD., E.W.S.
etc.) whichever is higher from amongst the eligible
candidates to be called for interview.' The top fifty
applicants are decided on the basis of academic /
research score obtained by the applicant on the basis of
various criteria provided in the U.G.C. Regulations,
2018. The shortlisting of screened candidates is done
category-wise for reserved candidates however, for
unreserved category, all category candidates whoever
have applied (as per the specific requirement as
mentioned in the recruitment notice dated
09.11.2021) in unreserved category are being
considered for shortlisting if they have scored above
cut-off marks of unreserved category."
(emphasis supplied)
4
3. The aforesaid averments of the respondent
University show that, according to the respondents, the
candidates belonging to the reserved categories were
considered against General category posts - even if they
were more meritorious than all or some of the General
category candidates, only if they applied to be so
considered against the General category posts, and not
otherwise.
4. Mr. Gupta submits that the understanding of
the respondent University, on a reading of the
instructions, was that posts, which are reserved, and
which are unreserved, though falling in the same
department / subject, constitutes different "posts", and
the conditions stipulate "applicants applying for more
than one posts / department must apply separately, and
pay fee separately". Therefore, candidates were
required to make multiple applications if they desired
that their applications be considered for the reserved
category posts, as well as General category posts in the
same subject / department.
5. The aforesaid mechanism adopted by the
respondents appears to be in the teeth of the judgment
of the Supreme Court, inter alia, in R.K. Sabharwal and
5
others Vs State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC
745, taken note of in our previous order as well.
6. Mr. Gupta states that in the light of the order,
passed on the last date, the entire process has been
halted by the respondent University for the time being.
7. We have advised Mr. Gupta that he should
look into the situation and advice his client, so as to
ensure that the selection process is not vitiated due to
the aforesaid lacuna. The respondents can make
amends even at this stage by re-drawing the merit list
for the General category first, followed by the merit list
for the reserved categories. In the General category
merit list, the candidates should be arranged purely on
their merit irrespective of whichever category they
belong to, only thereafter, the reserved category merit
lists should be drawn up, and those reserved category
candidates, who have already been accommodated in
the General category merit list, should not be considered
while drawing the said reserved category merit lists.
8. Mr. Gupta seeks a short adjournment to report
instructions in this regard.
9. List the matter on 28.09.2022.
6
10. Urgent copy of this order be supplied to the
learned counsel for the parties, during the course of the
day, as per Rules.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2022
Negi
