SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJBALA AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS – Respondent
CWP 8605/2012



CWP-8605-2012 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP-8605-2012 (O&M).

Date of decision: July 24, 2013.

Dr.Rajbala and another

..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT

Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG., Haryana.

Mr.S.C.Sibal, Sr., Advocate, with

Mr.V.S.Rana, Advocate, for the University.

Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Claiming themselves to be more meritorious for the

purpose of selection as Assistant Professors, the petitioners have

questioned the selection of respondent Nos.4 to 6 as Assistant

Professors.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as well as counsel for the respondents.

It is found that the criteria prescribed has been

applied uniformly to all the candidates and on the basis of objective

satisfaction the comparative merit of the respondents has been

considered. Chart indicating the marks given to all the candidates on

1

Raj Kumar Arora

2013.08.19 10:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-8605-2012 (O&M)

the basis of their academic record, domain knowledge and teaching

skills, is reproduced as under: -

Criteria opted for

recruitment/Name of the

candidates

Ms.Meenaks

hi Suhag

Ms.Pooja

Ms.Dipti

Dr.Raj Bala.

Dr.Sukhdev

Academic record and Research Performance (Max. Marks=50)

Academic record (Max. Marks=25)

a)Minimum

Academic

Qualifications

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

b) 1 mark each obtaining

more than 55 % but less than

60% marks at 10+2,

Graduation and Master

Level's (Max. Marks=3)

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

N.A

c) 3 marks each for obtaining

first division in Matric, 10+2,

Bachelor's degree and Master

degree (Max marks=12

12

12

12

12

6

d) Additional marks for

obtaining 75% or above at

Master levels (Max.marks=5)

N.A

5

5

5 N.A

e)M.Phil (Max. marks=3) or

Ph.D.(Max. Marks=8)

N.A

N.A

N.A

8

8

2.Research

performance/publications

(Max. Marks=25)

N.A

N.A

N.A

11

25

(B)Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (Max.

Marks=30)

1.Domain knowledge with

respect to conceptual clarity

overall subject knowledge

and latest development in the

subject (Max.Marks=25)

23

22

24

10

12

2.Teaching Experience/Skills

(1 marks for each year

maximum 5 years) (Max.

Marks=5)

2 N.A

N.A

5

3

(C)

Interview

(Max.Marks=20)

w.r.t

communication

skills,

confidence level, quality of

response and over all

personality

19

19

19

10

8

Total Marks obtained

56

58

60

61

62

Marks give in the merit list.

67

64

62

54

33

2

Raj Kumar Arora

2013.08.19 10:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-8605-2012 (O&M)

Criteria opted for

recruitment/Name of the

candidates

Ms.Meenaks

hi Suhag

Ms.Pooja

Ms.Dipti

Dr.Raj Bala.

Dr.Sukhdev

Comment

11

marks

were given

extra in the

academic

and research

performance

6

marks

were given

extra in the

academic

and

research

performanc

e

02 marks

were

given in

the

teaching

experienc

e

irrelevant

ly as she

is

teaching

life

sciences

in

the

college

not

environm

ental

science

education

. Also the

tenure is

not

mentione

d in the

experienc

e

certificat

e which

was

attached

by her

with the

applicatio

n form

In total 7

marks were

deducted in

academic and

research while

preparing the

merit list

29 marks in

total

was

deducted

while

preparing the

merit list, 8

marks

for

Ph.D,

19

marks

for

research

performance

and 02 marks

for teaching

experience

A perusal of the comparative merit indicates that

wherever the petitioners deserve they have been given more marks

than the respondents. The fields in which the respondents deserved

more marks have been granted on the basis of the merit determined

by the Selection Committee. On the basis of overall performance, the

respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 have been given marks 67, 64 & 62

respectively whereas the petitioners have obtained 54, and 33 marks

respectively. Besid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top