IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the primacy of expert committee evaluations in academic appointments, emphasizing limited judicial intervention in the absence of clear procedural violations.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed on the ground that petitioner was a candidate for selection to the Post of Associate Professor for which an advertisement was issued by the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU), Amarkantak (M.P.).

2. Petitioner’s contention is that petitioner possesses qualification of M.Sc., M.Phil and Ph.D. in the relevant subject of Mathematics, therefore, he being more meritorious should have been selected for the post of Associate Professor, but, contrary to this, private respondent No. 4 has been appointed by giving petitioner less marks in the API score card and contrary to the UGC guidelines.

3. Petitioner’s contention is that in the amended petition, methodology to calculate API has been given for the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and the Professor, Annexure-III Table-II(b) but respondents took computation of API of private respondent No. 4 for the post of Assistant Professor and by applying the same parameters favoured him in violation of the UGC guidelines. It is also submitted that petitioner had sought information under the RTI Act but the respondents did not file the complete set of the information despite order of this High Court dated 15-9-2022 which shows manipulation in the matter of private respondent No. 4.

4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2022) 5 SCC 179 where from reading paras-48 and 50, it is submitted that petitioner’s case squarely falls within the ambit of discussions carried out in paras-48 and 50. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of this High Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Sonwane vs. State of M.P. and others, ILR 2021 MP 2092 (DB) and reading from paragraphs 17 and 18, it is submitted that these two paragraphs squarely covers the case of the petitioner, therefore, indulgence be shown and since there is violation of the UGC guidelines in making selection of the private respondent No. 4, that order of appointment of private respondent No. 4 may be set aside. It is also submitted that while making calculation of API for the post of Assistant Professor, same sheet has been applied for the post of Associate Professor which is contrary to the directions contained in this behalf.

5. Shri Arpan J. Pawar, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, in his turn, submits that they have filed complete set of documents to demonstrate that private respondent No. 4 had secured 40 marks in API and his total score was 85 as is evident from Annexure-R/2 which demonstrates that for the academic background private respondent No. 4 was given 15 marks, for Research Performance based on API Score and Quality of Publications 40 marks, Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills 15 marks and in an Interview he was given 15 marks, totalling 85% against 11 marks secured by the petitioner under the head of Academic Background, 23.04 marks under the head of Research Performance based on API Score and Quality of Publications, 05 marks for Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills and 5 marks in the interview. It is further submitted that the candidate just below the private respondent No. 4 is Dr. Manoj Sharma who had secured 44.90 marks against the petitioner who had only secured 44.04 marks. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the huge difference between the marks secured, only private respondent No. 4 was recommended for appointment and candidature of all others was rejected.

6. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 and reading from para-20, 21 and 38, it is submitted that where the domain is of expert, then Court should be slow to interfere.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it will be necessary to recall that petitioner further made an argument that private respondent No. 4 had moved an application