The Patna High Court has invalidated the appointment of a librarian at the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women's Institute of Technology, ruling that the selection process lacked proper evaluation of candidates' merits.
The court observed that the plea for preference given to a female candidate had no significance when the qualifications of other candidates were not taken into account.
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha found that essential procedures, such as constituting a selection committee and an interview board, and evaluating candidates' inter-se merit, were not followed. Therefore, the argument that a female candidate was entitled to preference based on the advertisement was deemed unacceptable. The court clarified that preference implies giving priority to a female candidate only when all other factors are equal.
Brief Facts:
The case originated from a petition filed by an aggrieved candidate who sought the cancellation of the appointment of the fifth respondent as the librarian. The recruitment advertisement was published by the Registrar of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, under the authority of the Vice Chancellor. The Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women's Institute of Technology, affiliated with the university, had created several positions in accordance with guidelines issued by the All India Council of Technical Education and approved by the State Government.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, a librarian working at the institute since 2007, challenged the appointment of a female candidate on three grounds. Firstly, he argued that despite his experience and qualifications, a less qualified candidate was chosen for the position. Secondly, he alleged that the selection of the female candidate was based on favoritism due to her connection to the Vice Chancellor's Personal Assistant. Finally, he claimed that the selection process favored candidates interviewed on 20-02-2015, excluding those interviewed on 24-02-2015. The petitioner argued that the evaluation sheet only listed candidates from the earlier date, disregarding the later interviews.
Observations by the Court:
During the proceedings, the High Court scrutinized the attendance sheet and observed that while the petitioner had signed the sheet, no assessment of qualifications or experience had taken place on the interview day. Additionally, the court inquired about the composition of the selection committee and the interview board, but the respondents failed to provide any information.
The court concluded that the appointment process was flawed, agreeing with the petitioner's contention that extraneous considerations influenced the selection. As a result, the court quashed the regularization of the fifth respondent's appointment as librarian and granted liberty to the respondents to make a fresh appointment in accordance with the law, ensuring that all eligible candidates receive an opportunity.
Case Title: Rovins Kumar vs. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga and Ors.
Coram: Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6203 of 2016
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, Adv., Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan, Adv.
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Suryakant Kumar and Mr. Neeraj Raj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
