The court upheld the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Professor, confirming compliance with UGC eligibility criteria and validating the selection process conducted by the university.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners herein, inter alia, seek quashing of an interview dated 22.07.2014 conducted by respondent No.1 for the post of Professor of Law and declare the respondent No.4 as ineligible for the said post and also seek a declaration that respondent No. 4 is ineligible for the post of Professor in the subject of Law.

2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioners were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and appointed as lecturers in Law by the Government of Rajasthan in the year 1995 respectively. Petitioners No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.6 have over 19 years of teaching experience in UG classes and more than 10 years in PG classes.

2.2. On 10.12.2004, Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer at Bhupal Nobles Law College, Udaipur. He was on probation for a year. On 25.06.2007, Respondent No.4 was selected as an Assistant Professor in Law by Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur. On 22.02.2012, Respondent No.4 was selected as an Associate Professor, although he did not meet the required qualifications as per the University Act and UGC regulations. Petitioners plead that they discovered this after an interview for the position of Professor in Law, which is under challenge herein.

2.3. On 19.02.2013, Respondent No.1 advertised the posts of Professors in Law, mentioning that all appointments would follow UGC/AICTE guidelines. The last date for applications was 08.04.2013. On 13.06.2014, interview letters for the post of Professor were sent to the petitioners, respondents No.4, 5 & 6. On 24.06.2014, a screening list was displayed, with some candidates, including Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5, having remarks about missing Academic Performance Indicator (‘API’) forms or certificates. Petitioner No.1 had an Academic Performance Indicator score of 872, and Respondent No.5 had724, while Respondent No.4's score was 442.

2.4. The interview scheduled for 25.06.2014 was postponed due to a lack of quorum. After the interview was postponed, the petitioners met the Vice-Chancellor, who advised submitting additional documents to correct the discrepancies. Petitioner No.1 submitted these documents on 26.06.2014. Despite this, on18.07.2014, the screening list remained unchanged.

2.5. On 22.07.2014, the interview was held, but only Respondent No.4 was interviewed, in the absence of the petitioners, Respondent No.5 and 6. The interview was conducted without addressing the petitioners' concerns or following proper procedures.

2.6. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Professor on the same day, despite not fulfilling the required qualifications, and joined immediately afterward. This was done in haste, circumventing the court’s oversight. Hence this petition.

3. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is as below:

3.1. The eligibility criteria for the post of Professor of Law were determined in accordance with UGC Regulations. The UGC, vide its letter dated 01.03.2016, clarified that the period of active service spent in pursuing a Ph.D. without availing any leave can be counted as teaching experience. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer at Bhupal Noble Law College on 21.08.2003 and had additional research experience from 01.03.2003, making him eligible for the post.

3.2. The selection process was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee, which included representatives from the Office of the Chancellor, the State Government, and the University. The interview for Respondent No.4 was conducted on 22.07.2014, but before the results were declared, the petitioner approached the Court and obtained an interim order directing to re-conduct of the interview. The interview was re-conducted on 28.08.2014 and confirmed Respondent No.4 as the most meritorious candidate, and the results were produced before the Court on 12.09.2014.

3.3. After considering the legal opinion and in the absence of any stay, the Board of Management (BOM) proceeded with the appointmen