Patna High Court: In a case wherein an application was filed for quashing the appointment of Respondent 5 on the post of Librarian, pursuant to an advertisement, published by the Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga (‘University’) under the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University, a Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar Sinha, J.* opined that the selection/appointment on the post of Librarian was not done in fair manner and the contention of the petitioner was correct that the appointment of Respondent 5 had been made for extraneous consideration. The Court further opined that when assessment/marking/evaluation of the candidates had not been done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee of the respective inter se merit of the candidates, the plea of preference had no meaning. Thus, the Court held that the appointment of Respondent 5 was not sustainable in the eyes of the law and was thus quashed.
Background
The Women’s Institute of Technology, Darbhanga, now, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women’s Institute of Technology (‘Institute’) was established by the University in 2004 and the Managing Committee of the Institute created different Class III and IV posts in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the Institute in 2005. The posts were created as per the guidelines issued by the All-India Council of Technical Education and was forwarded to the State Government for approval and, accordingly, these posts were approved by the State Government. The post of Librarian was also sanctioned and approved. On 23-1-2015, an advertisement was published inviting application for various posts, including the single post of Librarian in the Institute. The advertisement prescribed that the appointment would be on a contract basis, based on interview only and the date of interview was also mentioned in the advertisement as 20-2-2015. The last date of submission of application form was 6-2-2015.
The petitioner claimed to be Master of Library and Information Science and fulfilling the eligibility criteria for appointment, applied for the post of Librarian, along with other candidates. Altogether eight candidates were called for interview on 20-2-2015, including Respondent 5, but the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of applicants selected for the interview. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation on 20-2-2015 to allow him to appear in the interview. The representation of the petitioner was considered and the petitioner, along with six other candidates, was called for interview, held on 24-2-2015. Finally, Respondent 5 was selected for the post of Librarian.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
It was submitted that the petitioner was having the qualification of Master in Library and Information Science and had been working in the Institute since 2007 on Class- III post on contract basis and was entrusted with the work of Librarian since 2007, had been ignored for appointment as Librarian; whereas Respondent 5, who was less qualified than the petitioner and was working as a Peon (Class-IV post) in the Institute since 2011, was appointed as Librarian on extraneous consideration inasmuch as she was the daughter of P.A. to the Vice Chancellor of the University and was accordingly favoured by the University. It was further submitted that calling the petitioner, along with six others, in the interview was merely an eyewash and no evaluation/marking/assessment of their merit was done.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
It was submitted that Respondent 5 also fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Librarian, as prescribed in the advertisement, and, at the time of making application for the post of Librarian, she had the Master in Library and Information Science. As per the terms of the advertisement, the female candidates were to be given preference.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that 33 candidates had applied for the post of Librarian, pursuant to the advertisement, out of which, eight candidates were called for interview on 20-2-2015, including Respondent 5 and seven candidates were called for interview on 24-2-2015. The Court further noted that scrutiny was done for eight candidates relating to their educational qualification and experience and accordingly, some remarks/marks were given in the scrutiny sheet. The attendance sheet of the candidates, including the petitioner, who were called for interview on 24-2-2015, merely contained their signatures on that sheet and neither scrutiny with regard to their education qualification and experience had been done on 24-2-2015 nor there was any column of remarks/marks, as in the case of seven candidates, including Respondent 5. The attendance sheet of 24-2-2015 only showed that the petitioner was present on the date of the interview.
The Court also noted that there was no relevant document on the record of this case to show the constitution of Selection Committee/ Interview Board and/or the assessment/marking done by the Interview Board during the process of interview of the respective candidates. The merit list did not contain the inter se merit of the candidates and their performance in the interview was also not available on the record. Thus, the Court opined that the selection/appointment on the post of Librarian was not done in fair manner and the contention of the petitioner was correct that the appointment of Respondent 5 had been made for extraneous consideration.
The Court noted that the procedure for appointment, i.e., constitution of the Selection Committee, constitution of the Interview Board, assessment/marking done by the Interview Board of the candidates for the purpose of deciding the inter se merit had also not been done. Thus, the Court opined that the contention of the respondents that as per the advertisement, the female candidate was to be given preference was not acceptable, in asmuch as the ‘preference’ connotes that other thing being equal, the women candidate would be given preference. The Court further opined that when assessment/marking/evaluation of the candidates had not been done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee of the respective inter se merit of the candidates, the plea of preference had no meaning.
The Court opined that the contention of the petitioner was correct that there was serious discrepancy in the process of appointment. Thus, the Court held that the appointment of Respondent 5 was not sustainable in the eyes of the law and was thus quashed. The Court further held that the regularization of Respondent 5 on the post of Librarian was also quashed, with liberty to the respondents to make fresh appointment on the post of Librarian in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to all eligible candidates.
[Rovins Kumar v. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, through its Registrar, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 1476, decided on 30-5-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner/s: Sarvdeo Singh, Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocates;
For the Respondent/s: Ajay Behari Sinha, Senior Advocate; Iqbal Asif Niazi, Suryakant Kumar, Neeraj Raj, Advocates
