Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.V.MARUTHI, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
K.V.L.Kameswari - Appellant
Versus
Andhra University - Respondent
Decided On : 12-17-93
ANDHRA UNIVERSITY ACT, 1925 - SECTION 34-A - SELECTION COMMITTEE - CONSTITUTION - NOMINEE OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION - ABSENCE - EFFECT - SELECTION PROCESS - ARBITRARINESS - INTERVIEW - MARKS - ALLOCATION - NECESSITY - FAIRNESS - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a research scientist, applied for the posts of Reader and Lecturer in Hindi in response to an advertisement issued by the 1st respondent. She was interviewed for the same in July 1989. The Selection Committee constituted for the purpose interviewed nearly 40 candidates for the posts of Readers and Lecturers in Hindi. The appellant challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee under Section 34 A(1) of the Andhra University Act, 1925. She also claimed that she should have been selected as a candidate belonging to the Schedule Caste category and a post ought to have been reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. She further alleged that the selection made by the selection Committee was arbitrary as the Selection Committee while interviewing her for the post of Reader examined her only for a few minutes and when she appeared for the interview for the post of Lecturer in Hindi and as well as for Correspondence courses, the Committee did not put her any questions and therefore the interview was nothing but a farce. She also alleged that for none of the posts marks were awarded by the members of the Committee either individually or in lumpsum and in such circumstances it gives raise to arbitrariness.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the absence of the nominee of the University Grants Commission in the Selection proceedings makes the constitution of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose is invalid, consequently making the entire selections void. The Court further held that the selection process adopted by the Selection Committee was arbitrary. The Court also held that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service.
Issues: 1. Whether the absence of the nominee of the University Grants Commission in the Selection proceedings makes the constitution of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose is invalid, consequently making the entire selections void? 2. Whether the selection process adopted by the Selection Committee was arbitrary?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of Section 34-A of the Act, which have been extracted, make it absolutely clear that the Selection Committee shall be constituted and shall consist, among others, of a nominee of the University Grants Commission as well. In the presence case, the University addressed a letter to the University grants Commission on 16-6-1989 requesting it to nominate a member for the selection Committee. The interview was actually conducted on 5-7-1989. The university Grants Commission sent its reply thereto, which was received on 11-7-1989. It is clear therefore, that the Selection Committee was not duly constituted in compliance with Section 34-A of the Act which provides, in mandatory terms, that such Committee shall be constituted so as to consist of a nominee of the University Grants Commission. 2. The Court held that the minutes of the Selection Committee does not disclose any other particulars. The minutes indicate that no marks were allotted to any one of the candidates. There were also no other particulars of the candidates with reference to their research experience, doctorate degrees, class obtained in Post-Graduation degree and at the graduation level and the number of publications to their credit, which are necessary for assessing the relative merit of the candidates. The. basis for selecting the candidates was not disclosed by the minutes of the meeting.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Appeal as against respondents 1,2 and 3. As regards other respondents, appeal was dismissed. The selection of 3rd respondent as Lecturer in Hindi was set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 17522 of 1989 filed by the appellant.
( 2 ) THE learned single Judge disposed of two Writ Petitions viz. , W. P. No. 17522 of 1989 and W. P. No. 8614 of 1990 by a common judgment. The present writ Appeal, was,however, filed against the judgment in W. P. No. l7522of 1989 and no appeal was preferred in W. P. No. 8614 of 1990, Therefore, so far as w. P. No. 8614 of 1990 is concerned, the judgment has become final.
( 3 ) THE appellant Dr. K. V. L. Kameswari filed the above two Writ Petitions under the following circumstances: In W. P. No. 17522 of 1989, the appellant sought for a declaration that the entire procedure adopted in making the selections in pursuance of the advertisement No. TS. 2/88 dated 25-10-1988 made by the 1st respondent is illegal, void and unconstitutional and to quash the selections made to the posts of Readers and Lecturers in the Department of hindi.
( 4 ) IN W. P. No. 8614 of 1990 the appellant-petitioner sought for the following reliefs: (1) to cancel the M. A. degree awarded in 1979 by Andhra University to respondent No. 4; (2) to cancel the Ph. D. , degree awarded by the Patna University in 1979 to r. 4; (3) to cancel the appointment of R. 4 as Reader in Hindi made in Executive committee proceedings dated 9-5-1990; (4) to cancel the appointment of R. 5 as Lecturer in Hindi made in 1973; and (5) that she should be appointed as Reader in Hindi with retrospective effect.
( 5 ) THE appellant was holding the post of Research Scientist-A which is equivalent to the post of Lecturer, She had several publications to her credit and she had teaching experience of six years. She is a brahmin married to a scheduled Casts gentlemen. She took her M. A. degree in Hindi in the year 1976 from Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. She also obtained Ph. D. , degree in hindi from Andhra University in the year 1980. She also did Post Doctoral research during the year 1981-84. She was appointed as a Research Scientist-A in the Department of Hindi in Andhra University in the year 1984 and she has been working as such till 8-12-89. She was also appointed as a Research Scientist by the University Grants Commission which is equivalent to the post of a lecturer in the Department of Hindi in Andhra University. She has various experiences both in teaching, research, translation, publication of books, attending Seminars and Conferences, including World Conference radio talks and participation in Hindi Work Shop. The 1st respondent advertised in the year 1988 inviting applications for appointment to the post of professors, readers, Lecturers in various Departments of Arts. , Science etc. in advertisement T. S. 2/88 dated 25-10-88. The appellant applied for the posts of reader and Lecturer in Hindi. The qualifications prescribed for appointment to the posts of Reader and Lecturer are as follows:"reader: good academic record with a Doctoral Degree or equivalent published work, evidence of being actively engaged in (i) Research or (ii) Innovation in teaching methods or (iii) Production of teaching materials. About five years experience of teaching and /or research provided that atleast three of these years were Lecturer or in an equivalent position. Lecturer/pandits/research Associate/community Organiser/case analysts/technicians: (Other than Education, Special Education, Musif, physical Education, Health Education and Sports ). a. A Doctorate s Degree or Research work of an equally high standard; and b. Good academic record, with atleast second class (C in the seven point sale) Masters Degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University. Having regard to the need for developing inter disciplinary programmes, the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects. Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that research work of a candidate as evid
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
