The court held that the appointment of an Assistant Professor without possessing a Ph.D. qualification violated UGC Regulations and lacked transparency, warranting a fresh selection process.

ORDER :

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2, learned senior counsel for R3 and the learned counsel appearing for R4 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the 3^rd respondent in selecting the 4^th respondent to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) in the aided stream (for short 'aided') and the approval accorded by the 2^nd respondent to the said selection as being contrary to UGC Regulations and also the selection process lacking transparency.

3. The petitioner contended that the 3^rd respondent had caused an advertisement on 12.08.2019 in the news papers inviting applications from eligible women candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Ten (10) subjects including Zoology, which appointment it was claimed is subject to approval by the Directorate of College Education being an aided post. As per the aforesaid advertisement caused, applications were to be submitted on or before 26.08.2019 to the Secretary of 3^rd respondent College; and in the said advertisement it has been mentioned that the qualification for applying to the aforesaid post is as per UGC norms.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement caused by the 3^rd respondent, she being already in employment with the 3^rd respondent in the post of Assistant Professor (self financing stream) and being eligible had submitted her application on 22.08.2019; that in response to the aforesaid application submitted by her, had received an E-mail dated 17.10.2019 from the third respondent calling her to attend the interview; and that she had attended the interview held on 29.10.2019.

5. The petitioner further contended that after attending the interview on 29.10.2019, while she did not hear anything from the respondents with regard to the selection of any applicant for aforesaid post, however, noticed that the 4^th respondent started signing the attendance register of the 3^rd respondent.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent did not possess Ph.D qualification as required under the UGC Regulations ; that she through her father sought for information under RTI Act with regard to the selection process, by which the 4^th respondent was selected and also the minutes of the 3^rd respondent selection committee; that on the 3^rd respondent furnishing the skeleton information sought for by her father, she had learnt that the 3^rd respondent had appointed the 4^th respondent against the aforesaid vacancy notified contrary to the UGC Regulations , mandating the requirement of having Ph.D qualification for being appointed to the post of Assistant Professor; that the 4^th respondent did not have the requisite qualification (i.e,) Ph.D on the date when she had applied to the aforesaid post; that the 4^th respondent was only a student pursuing her Ph.D programme; and thus, the appointment of the 4^th respondent is contrary to UGC Regulations , which the 3^rd respondent is required to follow while selecting the candidates.

7. It is also the further case of the p