IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the academic experience criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as per UGC Guidelines and the Notification for appointment, should be strictly adhered to, and the experience of an individual as an Assistant Professor cannot be considered for the same post at the entry level.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of appointment dated 10-02-2017 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent to the post - Assistant Professor in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (‘the University’ for short) in the discipline of Food and Industrial Microbiology.

2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent/University issues a Notification calling for applications to fill up various posts by direct recruitment at the entry level cadre i.e., Assistant Professor cadre with applicable pay scale as obtaining under the University Grants Commission Rules. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent finding themselves eligible to be appointed to the said post apply. Both of them were called for interview finding both of them to be eligible for consideration for appointment to the said post in the aforesaid discipline. The petitioner then secures total marks of 67.137 while that of the 3rd respondent’s total marks was 71.95. The 3rd respondent is thus, selected to be appointed as Assistant Professor in the University. The petitioner then submits a representation by way of objections to the 2nd respondent that the appointment of the 3rd respondent is illegal and contrary to the Rules. The representation goes unheeded and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court calling in question the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Professor in the University.

3. This Court on 01-03-2018, issued notice and the matter comes up only on 20th September, 2023 for its consideration. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has continued in employment in the said post.

4. Heard Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Madanamohan M. Khannur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Ramachandra A. Mali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri V.M. Sheelavant, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge a solitary contention that the marks allotted/awarded to the 3rd respondent qua academic experience goes completely contrary to the UGC Guidelines and the Notification for appointment itself. The learned counsel would take this Court through the Notification seeking to demonstrate that the academic experience would be an experience in teaching and research and maximum marks that can be allotted is seven, one mark for each year. It is his case that experience in teaching and research is also defined under the Notification and the experience of the 3rd respondent could not have been taken into consideration at all. If the marks awarded for experience in teaching, research and extension is excluded, the petitioner would emerge as a successful candidate.

6. The learned counsel Sri Ramachandra A. Mali, appearing for the University would submit that the UGC Regulations themselves permit counting of past service for direct recruitment and promotion and, therefore, the past service rendered by any candidate in an equivalent grade should be taken for the purpose of assessment of experience. He would further take this Court through the communications of Indian Council for Agricultural Research under which the University would come and function, to demonstrate that no fault can be found with the University taking the past experience as obtaining under the UGC guidelines.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would then join issue to contend that the learned counsel for the University is wanting to confuse the issue. The Regulations that permit past service to be taken for direct recruitment even is under the Career Advancement Scheme. The recruitment now notified is not under the Career Advancement Scheme. Therefore, the very appointment and awarding of marks is contrary to law is the emphatic submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have pe