IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.ANJARIA, BHARGAV D. KARIA, JJ.
Kaushal Arvindkumar Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
The Gujarat Technological University Through The Registrar – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 547 of 2022, In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8631 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022, R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 583 of 2022
Decided on : 31-03-2023
Ineligible for post - Set aside appointment - Petitioner prayed in her petition to hold and declare that respondent no.2-appellant of first captioned Letters Patent Appeal, was ineligible for post of Associate Professor (Management) - It was prayed to set aside appointment of respondent no.2 - Held, Writ of quo warranto is not an appeal over an academic decision - When more particularly, decision in instant case treating Ph.D. in Commerce to be in 'relevant field' for purpose of post of Associate Professor (Management), cannot be said to be founded on any irrational consideration - In view of reasons supplied as above, which operate so as not to sustain impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge, any other aspect including whether, post in question was a public office or not, and whether learned Single Judge was justified in principle in directing consideration of case of petitioner to be appointed on post in question, simultaneously while issuing writ of quo warranto, are not needed to be gone into - Judgment and order of learned Single Judge stands set aside - Appeals are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
N.V.ANJARIA, J.
The Challenge in these two Letters Patent Appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is addressed to the same judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 of learned Single Judge whereby the Special Civil Application filed by petitioner-respondent no.2 herein came to be allowed.
1.1 Learned Single Judge set aside the appointment of original respondent no.2 as Associate Professor (Management) with Gujarat Technological University. He was directed to forthwith vacate the post in question. The University was further directed to consider the petitioner for the post on the ground that she was the candidate who held the qualifications prescribed for the post.
2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 547 of 2022 is preferred by the original respondent no.2 whose appointment was set aside, whereas the other Letters Patent Appeal is by the Gujarat Technological University, calling in question judgment and order of learned Single Judge.
2.1 Since both the appeals arise from the very judgment and order of learned Single Judge and involve similar facts and identical issues, they were heard together to be treated by this common judgment and order.
3. Noticing the basic facts, the original petitioner prayed in her petition to hold and declare that respondent no.2-appellant of first captioned Letters Patent Appeal, was ineligible for the post of Associate Professor (Management). It was prayed to set aside the appointment of respondent no.2 made on 06.11.2019. The petitioner prayed to direct the respondent University to consider her case for appointment to the post as per her selection pursuant to the advertisement. For declaration that respondent no.2 was ineligible, a writ of quo warranto was prayed for. In respect of the second limb of the prayer to direct the University to consider the case of the petitioner, mandamus was sought for.
3.1 The respondent Gujarat Technological University published advertisement No. 20/19 along with other advertisement for different posts, for recruitment to the post of Associate Professor (Management) for School of Management and Computer Application. Two posts were advertised out of which one was for open category, whereas the other was for Scheduled Tribe category. The process of selection was comprised of interview after scrutiny of application and shortlisting of the candidates.
3.1.1 The petitioner stated that as she possessed Ph.D degree in Management and fulfilled the other required criteria, therefore applied for the post in open category. Total 29 applications were received for two posts. At the end of the scrutiny, the name of the petitioner was mistakenly included in the list of candidates not qualified for interview, which error however came to be corrected upon submission of the petitioner and she was called for interview which was held on 22.10.2019.
3.1.2 The result of the selection process was declared on 06.11.2019. Respondent no.2 was shown as selected candidate in general category. The petitioner's name figured in the wait-list.
3.2 The advertisement mentioned the eligibility criteria for the post of Associate Professor (Management), which was as under,
(b) At least total 6 research publication in SCI journals/UGC/AICTE approved list of journals. AND
(c) Minimum of 8 years of experience in teaching/research/industry. Out of which at least 2 years shall be post Ph.D experience.
(d) Possess the basic knowledge of Computer application as prescribed by the Government of Gujarat.”
3.2.1 The appointment to the post of Associate Professor is made by direct selection as well as by way of promotion. The qualifications for the post are governed by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations, which are published under Notification dated 01.03.2019. Regulation 5.2(c) provides for qualification of the post.
3.2.2 Section
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhabei Sahoo & Ors. [(2014)1 SCC 161]
Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor
Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767]
Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devilal University, Sirsa
Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University [AIR 1986 SC 1448] and in Basic Education Board
University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491]
Employment and Service matter - Appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University - Selection committee – Qualiification - Absence of post doctor....
Post of Assistant Manager and Assistant Accountant - Power of Judicial Review on issue of equivalence of Degree - Court directs Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the UGC Regulation, 2018, particularly regarding the eligibility criteria for the post of Associate Profes....
The court emphasized that the equivalence of qualifications is in the exclusive domain of the recruiting authority and cannot be determined through judicial review.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Associate Professor must comply with the qualifications prescribed by the relevant statutes and regulations, and the app....
The court upheld the Selection Committee's decision insisting that qualifications for academic posts must be evaluated by experts, and judicial interference is warranted only under extreme circumstan....
The court reinforced that appointments made by a selection committee should not be judicially reviewed unless there are clear statutory violations or evidence of bad faith.
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.