Judgment

Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

This LPA is preferred against the judgment dt.23.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition bearing no.CWP-19103-2012.

2. The said Writ Petition was filed by respondent No.1 (herein) against the appellant and other respondents to quash the selection and appointment of the appellant vide Annexure P-7 dt.30.03.2012 as Assistant Professor (History) in the Directorate of Distance Education, and to appoint respondent No.1 in the said position.

Background facts

3. Respondent No.2-University had issued an advertisement (P-1) on 15.09.2011 to fill up the post of Assistant Professor (History). The last date of submission of applications which was 03.10.2011.

4. The appellant as well as respondent No.1 applied for the said position before the last date of submission of applications.

5. Respondent No.2-University had issued an advertisement (P-1) on 15.09.2011 to fill up the post of Assistant Professor (History). The last date of submission of applications was 03.10.2011.

6. The appellant as well as respondent No.1 applied for the said position before the last date of submission of applications.

7. A Screening Committee was constituted by respondent No.2- University to scrutinise the applications and the research publications which were also required to be submitted as per the advertisement. It gave weightage to each candidate’s research publications attached by them with their application, as well as list of publications appended by each candidate including the appellant.

8. Both the appellant and the respondent no.1 were awarded 25 marks each by the screening committee.

9. Later each candidate appeared before a Selection Committee and was awarded marks on the basis of academic/research performance as assessed by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee also awarded marks for ‘domain knowledge’, teaching experience/skills and interview performance and it awarded to the appellant 68 marks while the respondent no.1 was awarded 66 marks by it.

10. On the basis of higher marks obtained by the appellant, he was recommended by the Selection Committee in order of merit for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in History in the Directorate of Distance education.

11. The appellant was appointed to the said position vide Annexure P-7 dt.30.03.2012.

CWP-19103-2012

12. His appointment was challenged by respondent No.1 in this Court by way of filing of Writ Petition bearing No.CWP-19103-2012.

13. In the said Writ Petition, respondent No.1 contended that as per criteria, 25 marks were to be awarded for research performance/publications of the candidates by the Screening Committee; vide Annexure P-3, respondent No.2-University had laid down how these 25 marks were to be awarded to the candidates; that 5 marks were to be awarded for each of the research publications published by the candidate in a research journal having ISSN number; as per information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the applicant in his application form for the said post had mentioned that only 2 research papers of his were published; one such publication mentioned was without an ISSN number; the Screening Committee had wrongly awarded 25 marks for 5 research papers to the appellant which was not proper, since in his application form, he had stated that only 2 of his research papers were published and for one of such research papers, there was no ISSN number, and at best, marks could have been awarded only for the one research paper which was published.

14. Respondent No.1 als