Point of Law : Obtaining information through RTI i.e. source would be irrelevant where the information obtained was not challenged as regards its veracity and cannot be excluded from consideration.

JUDGMENT :

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

1. This Judgment has been divided into the following Sections to facilitate analysis:

(I) PREAMBLE:

The present appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 100859/2016 vide order dated 26.08.2021 whereby the appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Professor (P.G.) in English vide Annexure-K dated 26.02.2014 came to be quashed and a consequential direction came to be issued to the University to redo the selection process amongst the eligible candidates and to pass orders of appointment.

2. The parties are referred to by their ranks in the writ proceedings for the purpose of convenience.

3. The 1st respondent-University by its advertisement at Annexure-A invited applications for appointment of Assistant Professors in English apart from other posts, in response to which the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and various other eligible candidates applied. The respondent No. 2 came to be selected.

4. The said selection came to be assailed on the ground that the respondent No. 2 did not have the requisite qualification insofar as the Ph.D. conferred on her was without course work and that she had not completed her NET/SLET/SET which according to the petitioner were mandatory requisites in terms of the recruitment notification at Annexure-A. It was contended that the recruitment notification having prescribed that the applicants were to strictly adhere to the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010, (hereinafter referred to as the UGC regulations, 2010) the respondent No. 2 did not possess the eligibility.

5. The respondent No. 2 on the other hand had contended that she had Ph.D qualification and had obtained a certificate of exemption for undergoing course work from the University, that course work was not a requirement prescribed by the UGC, 2010 Regulations. It was also contended that the petitioner was not entitled for relief as the petition was filed after a delay of about 02 years.

6. The University on the other hand while justifying the selection had contended that the Selection Commission/Board of Appointment had followed the procedure under Section 53(a) and 53(7) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and had made recommendations for appointment and that interference in a selection process where decision was taken by experts ought not to be made except where mala-fides are made out which is not so in the present case.

7. The above is only a brief overview of the contentions which are considered in detail while analyzing the contentions infra.

8. The learned Single Judge has set aside the appointment of respondent No. 2 and the relevant observations and findings are as follows:

(i) The notification dated 11.01.2014 at Annexure-A prescribes the minimum qualification in terms of the UGC Regulations of 2010.

(ii) As per the eligibility the candidate must possess a minimum of 55% marks in the Masters Degree and must have cleared NET/SLET/SET conducted by UGC or CSIR.

(iii) Exemption is given to candidates who have been accorded Ph.D in accordance with the Regulations of 2009.

(iv) It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 has not cleared the NET/SLET/SET and did not possess the minimum eligibility.

(v) As per the notification candidates who have completed