Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Pat) 913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Dr. (Mrs.) Kalpana Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, through the Secretary, N.I.Ts., Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2716 of 2014
Decided on : 10.7.2015.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 - 5:Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 6:Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate

The constitution of the Selection Committee for considering the petitioner’s case for grant of advancement under C.A.S. must have comprised experts of her subjects and not any of 170 subjects falling under the stream “Humanities and Social Sciences”.

Headnote:
Selection Committee - Proficiency and Knowledge of Associate Professor in English - Clause - 23 (5) (a) of the First Statutes of National Institute of Technology - The constitution of the Selection Committee for considering the petitioner’s case for grant of advancement under C.A.S. must have comprised experts of her subjects and not any of 170 subjects falling under the stream “Humanities and Social Sciences”. The constitution of Selection Committee for the purpose of assessing the petitioner’s proficiency and knowledge was illegal. The decision of such Selection Committee rejecting the petitioner’s case for grant of advancement on the basis of the interview held on 06.08.2013 is quashed and the petitioner’s case is to be considered afresh by a properly constituted Selection Committee.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at N.I.T., Patna, sought direction for consideration of her case for advancement/promotion to the grade of Professor under C.A.S. by a duly constituted Selection Committee. She claimed that the Selection Committee, lacking an expert in English, improperly assessed her proficiency and knowledge, causing prejudice to her case for promotion.
Finding of the Court:

The constitution of the Selection Committee for considering the petitioner’s case for grant of advancement under C.A.S. must have comprised experts of her subjects and not any of 170 subjects falling under the stream “Humanities and Social Sciences”. The constitution of Selection Committee for the purpose of assessing the petitioner’s proficiency and knowledge was illegal. The decision of such Selection Committee rejecting the petitioner’s case for grant of advancement on the basis of the interview held on 06.08.2013 is quashed and the petitioner’s case is to be considered afresh by a properly constituted Selection Committee.
Issues: The cardinal issue involved was whether the Selection Committee, lacking an expert in English, was validly constituted for considering the petitioner’s case for advancement/promotion under C.A.S. The ancillary question was whether the petitioner, having participated in the selection process, could challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee after her non-selection.
Ratio Decidendi: The constitution of the Selection Committee for considering the petitioner’s case for grant of advancement under C.A.S. must have comprised experts of her subjects and not any of 170 subjects falling under the stream “Humanities and Social Sciences”. The constitution of Selection Committee for the purpose of assessing the petitioner’s proficiency and knowledge was illegal.
Final Decision: The decision of the Selection Committee rejecting the petitioner’s case for grant of advancement on the basis of the interview held on 06.08.2013 is quashed and the petitioner’s case is to be considered afresh by a properly constituted Selection Committee.

JUDGMENT :

Whether a Selection Committee constituted to assess the proficiency and knowledge of an Associate Professor, teaching English, with qualification and experience in English, in the National Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.T”.), Patna, for the purpose of his/her advancement/promotion under Career Advance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “C.A.S.”), with no expert in English, as its member, can be said to be a validly constituted Selection Committee, on the ground that his/her appointment in the N.I.T. as an Associate Professor being in the subject “Humanities and Social Sciences”, therefore, experts in any field of Humanities and Social Sciences can be treated to be experts in the “subject” within the meaning of Clause - 23 (5) (a) of the First Statutes of National Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as the “Statutes”); is the cardinal issue involved in the present writ application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is an ancillary question involved in the present case that the petitioner having participated in the process of selection and interview, whether can challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee itself, after her non-selection.

2. The petitioner, in the present writ application, has sought for a direction to the respondents for consideration of her case for advancement/promotion to the grade of Professor in the N.I.T., Patna under C.A.S. by a duly constituted Selection Committee as according to her, she was made to be interviewed by an improperly constituted Selection Committee without any expert in English, which caused great prejudice to her case for promotion, inasmuch as, the Selection Committee was not equipped to properly assess and evaluate her proficiency and knowledge in filed (English) of her research/teaching.

3. This is not in dispute that the petitioner did her B.A. (Hons.) and M.A. in English. She was awarded Ph.D. degree in English. In the year 1993, she was appointed as Lecturer in English by Patna University and was posted in the English Department of erstwhile Bihar

College of Engineering, Patna, the then constituent Unit of Patna University. She was promoted as Senior Lecturer in the year 1999. In the year 2004, the College was converted into National Instituted of Technology and acquired the status of deemed University, under the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department, Government of India. After the conversion of the College into N.I.T., Patna, she continued to serve there with her lien in the Patna University. Subsequently, pursuant to an advertisement, issued by N.I.T., Patna for appointment as Assistant Professor (now re-designated as Associate Professor), she was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, by a letter dated 08.12.2005, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure - F to the supplementary counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 - 5.

4. Before I proceed further, I must point out that the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences in N.I.T., Patna, imparts teaching in following subjects/field:-

(i) HS 101 English Literature.

(ii) HS 102 Communication skill development and Technical writing.

(iii) HS 103 Remedial English.

(iv) HS 104 Language Lab.

(v) HS 105 Science Society and Ethical Values.

(vi) HS 106 Sociology and Building Economics.

(vii) HSS Elective courses (4th & 7th semester).

(viii) HS 107 Industrial Economics and Financial Management.

(ix) HS 108 Innovation, Entrepreneurship & IPR.

(x) HS 109 Organizational Behaviour & Industrial Psychology.

(xi) HS 110 History of Science & Technology.

(xii) HS 111 Economics and its impact on industrial technology.

(xiii) Foreign Language.

(HS apparently stands for Humanities and Social Science)

It is the case of the petitioner that she, having qualification, knowledge and expertise in English, taught English subject only. This aspect has not been disputed by the respondents that the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document