SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Allahabad University – Appellant
Versus
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12411-12414 of 2024
WITH
Allahabad Degree College and Another – Appellants
Versus
Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12415 of 2024
Decided On : 18-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. Assail in these civil appeals is to the common judgment and order dated 18th January, 20241 [impugned order] passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2 [High Court, hereafter] whereby the High Court disposed of a writ petition, two special appeals and one review petition.3 [Writ-A No. 580 of 2023, Special Appeal Defective No. 187 of 2022, Special Appeal Defective No. 257 of 2022 and Civil Misc. Review Application No. 398 of 2023] All but one of the proceedings were at the instance of Gitanjali Pandey.4 [Respondent 1] The remaining one was at the instance of one Brahma Deo (Respondent 1 in Civil Appeal No. 12413/2024).
RESUME OF FACTS
2. Relevant facts, pertinent for disposal of the present appeal, are summed up as under:
(b) Advertisements:
(i) On 28th September 2021, Allahabad University published an advertisement for appointment on the posts of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. A total of 4 (four) posts were advertised for Sanskrit. Respondent 1 applied for appointment on the single advertised post in the unreserved category.
(ii) On 30th August 2022, a constituent college of Allahabad University, viz. Iswar Saran Degree College (ISDC), issued an advertisement which, inter alia, invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit.
(iii) On 28th November 2022, another constituent college of Allahabad University, viz. Allahabad Degree College (ADC), issued a similar advertisement.
(c) Pursuant to all the above advertisements, Respondent 1 duly applied for appointment on the posts.
(d) The requisite qualifications for appointment on the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor are prescribed by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018.5 [2018 Regulations, hereafter] Clause 4 thereof provides for the minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant and Associate Professor. It is not in dispute that Respondent 1 does possess the requisite educational qualifications for appointment as Assistant Professor in Sanskrit.
(e) The procedure for shortlisting candidates for interview is given in the note to Reg. 4.1, which provides for shortlisting on the basis of an academic score prepared in accordance with Table 3A (for universities) and 3B (for colleges). Hence, for shortlisting candidates for the purposes of interview, Allahabad University would score candidates as per the criteria laid down in Table 3A and the affiliated colleges in Table 3B.
(f) As per clause 7 of Tables 3A and 3B, 2 (two) marks are to be granted to a candidate for every year of his/her teaching experience or Post Doctoral experience. Since the contents of both the tables are similar, we propose to reproduce Table 3A later in this judgment.
(g) Despite Respondent 1 fulfilling the eligibility criteria, she was not shortlisted for the interview as her score did not reach the cutoff marks. This happened because she was not awarded any marks under clause 7 in Table 3A for “Teaching/Post Doctoral experience.” Her past teaching experiences on contractual basis and as a guest faculty were not counted as ‘teaching experience’ by Allaha
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University v. Jai Bharath College of Mngt. & Engg. Technology
Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder
Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur
Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust v. A.G. Syed Mohideen
Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P.
B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P.
State of Rajasthan v. Sanyam Lodha
Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu
M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar
Pt. Shamboo Nath Tikoo v. S. Gian Singh
Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal
Regulation 10(f)(iii) of the 2018 Regulations applies to Assistant Professors, requiring prior teaching experience to be counted for shortlisting candidates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that regulation 10(f)(iii) is not applicable for shortlisting candidates for the post of Assistant Professors, and teaching experience as a full-ti....
Point of Law : Central government had no authority to disagree with the recommendation of UGC.
The court affirmed the validity of the selection process for Assistant Professors and clarified that guest lecturer experience can't always be excluded for direct recruitment under regulatory guideli....
The court upheld that the appointments made before changes in recruitment policy must be considered valid under the laws in effect at that time, emphasizing the integrity of the selection process.
The court reaffirmed that qualifying and shortlisting criteria can be distinct, allowing administrative discretion in recruitment processes as long as they are transparently and reasonably applied.
Point of law: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rationa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.