Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Geetika Mehrotra & Another … vs Union Of India & Others on 1 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
1
Reserved on: 17.06.2025
Delivered on: 01.07.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 198 of 2012
17 June, 2025
Dr. Geetika Mehrotra & another --Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & others. --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
By means of this writ petition, petitioners
have sought the following reliefs:-
“1. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the appointment order dated 09-06-
2012 of the private respondents and also to hold that
the entire selection process conducted by the Committee
of Management dehors the rules and quash the same
after calling the entire records from the respondents.
“2. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding to the respondent to the
consider the candidature of the petitioners for
appointment as Lecturer/ Assistant Professor B.Ed, DWT
College, Dehradun as per their eligibility, qualification
and merit w.e.f. 2008 as given to others along with all
consequential benefits had it been the impugned order
was never in existence in utter disregard to the pointed
objections raised by the petitioners regarding nepotism
and favoritism in the selection process for the post in
question thus the entire exercise for giving appointment
to the private respondents on the post in question is
based on arbitrary and colorable exercise of power and
violative to the Constitution scheme for public
employment and opposes public policy as per section 23
of the Indian Contract Act.”
2
2. Dayanand Shikshan Sansthan (respondent
no. 6) vide notification dated 19.07.2006, invited
applications for appointment on the post of lecturer in
various subjects. Petitioners applied for the post of
lecturer (B.Ed.) in response to the said advertisement,
but they were not selected and respondent nos. 11 &
12 were selected and appointed. Petitioners have
challenged the order of appointment dated 09.06.2012
issued in favour of respondent nos. 11 & 12 on the
following grounds:-
(i) Petitioners applied pursuant to
advertisement dated 19.07.2006 and they were asked
to appear for interview on 02.05.2008, however the
interview was cancelled and on 06.08.2008, another
advertisement was issued, petitioners again applied
and they were called before Selection Committee for
interview on 14.01.2009 but the date of interview was
postponed to 18.06.2009, and interview was ultimately
held on 23.07.2010. This delay was caused without any
reason or justification and was aimed at providing
undue benefit to some chosen candidates.
(ii) The Selection Committee, originally
constituted for the interview to be held on 02.05.2008,
held the interview on 23.07.2010; since during the
interregnum, identity of the members of Selection
Committee was revealed to the candidates; therefore
the selection process stood vitiated; due to disclosure
of identity of members of Selection Committee,
transparency in the selection was lost.
(iii) Respondent nos. 11 & 12, who were
selected and appointed, are less meritorious and they
have also not qualified National Eligibility Test (NET),
3
which is necessary as per UGC Regulations, therefore
their selection and appointment as Lecturer (B.Ed.) is
unsustainable.
(iv) Petitioners had experience of teaching in
a Government college, therefore, they had preferential
right of appointment, therefore they could not be non
suited for appointment.
3. Dr. Arti Dixit, Principal, DWT College,
Derhadun has filed counter affidavit on behalf of
respondent nos. 6 & 7 stating that the vacancies in
question were advertised before 11.07.2009, when
UGC (Minimum Qualification required for the
Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in
Universities and Institutes Affiliated to it) (3rd
Amendment) Regulations, 2009 were notified; there
were two unreserved post of lecturer (B.Ed.) against
which respondent nos. 11 & 12 were selected and
recommended by the Selection Committee, while name
of petitioner no. 1 was placed in the waiting list at
serial number 1; the condition of passing National
Eligibility Test is relaxed in favour of Ph.D. degree
holders by U.G.C. Regulations, thus the claim for
preferential treatment made by petitioners based on
passing National Eligibility Test is erroneous; the UGC
(Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment
and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities
and Institutes Affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment)
Regulations, 2009, notified on 11.07.2009 was not
adopted by the State Government till conclusion of
selection process.
4
4. We do not find any merit in the challenge
thrown by petitioners to the selection and appointment
of respondent nos. 11 & 12. The mere fact that the
vacancies in question were advertised on 19.07.2006
and re-advertised on 06.08.2008 without anything
more, is not sufficient ground to disturb the selection.
Re-advertisement of vacancies can be for various
reasons and if petitioners had any grievance against
fresh advertisement issued on 06.08.2008 or against
delay in holding selection in terms of the earlier
advertisement, then they could have approached the
appropriate forum for intervention to expedite the
selection process, which however, was not done by
them. The subsequent advertisement issued on
06.08.2008 was also not challenged by petitioners and
in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition, they admit that
they responded to the said advertisement, therefore,
they cannot now contend that re-advertisement of
vacancies was illegal or unjustified. Names of the
candidates for whose benefit selection was delayed is
not disclosed and in what manner any candidate got
benefitted is also not stated.
Similarly, the grievance raised against
postponement of date of interview without anything
more, is without substance. The Selection Committee
consists of subject experts and renowned academicians
from different Universities and due to non-availability of
one or the other member on the scheduled date, date
of interview is normally postponed. Postponement of
date of interview in itself is not such illegality, which
may have the effect of vitiating the entire selection
process. Petitioners have not disclosed name of the
5
candidate for whose benefit, interview was postponed
and the manner in which any candidate would be
benefited by postponing the date of interview, is also
not mentioned in the writ petition.
The eligibility for appointment to a post is to
be seen on the last date of submitting application and a
candidate, who was not eligible on the date of making
application, will not get any benefit due to delay in
holding interview, as only such candidates can be
considered by the Selection Committee, who were
eligible on the last date of making application.
5. The second submission made on behalf of the
petitioners is not substantiated by any provision of law
including UGC Regulations. We posed a pointed query
to learned counsel for petitioners whether there is any
law which provides that composition of Selection
Committee has to be changed; new members have to
be inducted whenever date of interview is postponed,
however he was not able to show any law on the said
aspect. In the absence of any contrary provision of law,
there is nothing wrong if the same Selection
Committee, which was constituted for holding interview
on 14.01.2009, holds interview on some other date,
after notice to all shortlisted candidates.
Likewise, the contention that since identity of
members of Selection Committee was leaked to the
candidates, therefore, selection is vitiated, also cannot
be accepted. The members of Selection Committee are
subject experts and renowned academicians and in the
absence of specific allegation of some foul play, their
integrity cannot be doubted. There is no allegation that
6
any selected candidate got favour by approaching a
particular member of Selection Committee nor there is
anything to indicate that fairness of the selection
process was compromised because identity of members
of the Selection Committee was known to the
candidates. Even otherwise also, learned counsel for
petitioners could not show any Circular, Government
Order or Statutory provision to substantiate his
submission that disclosure of identity of members of
the Selection Committee would vitiate the selection
process.
6. The third ground of challenge raised by
petitioners is also without any substance. As per norms
laid down by U.G.C., scholastic performance of a
candidate in the selection for the post of Lecturer /
Assistant Professor is relevant only till short-listing of
candidates, and suitability of a candidate for
appointment is assessed by the Selection Committee
based on performance during viva voce / interview.
Petitioners as well as respondent nos. 11 & 12 were
shortlisted and interviewed; the Selection Committee
found respondent nos. 11 & 12 more suitable and
recommended them for appointment. The Selection
Committee is composed of subject experts and
distinguished academicians. Law is settled that in
academic matters, opinion of subject experts has to be
respected and the assessment made by members of
the Selection Committee during interview, is not open
to judicial review. There is no allegation of nepotism
and favoritism against any member of Selection
Committee nor there is any averment in the petition
that any or all selected candidates were related to any
7
member of the Selection Committee or they were
favourably disposed towards any candidate, therefore,
the selection process cannot be disturbed based on
vague allegations made by petitioners.
It is not in dispute that respondent nos. 11 &
12 did not qualify the National Eligibility Test.
Management of the college has stated in its counter
affidavit, that respondent No. 11 & 12 were eligible
based on their Ph.D Degree and as per UGC
Regulations in vogue on the date of advertisement,
condition of NET was relaxable in favour of Ph.D Degree
holders. Petitioners contend that as on the date of
interview, UGC (Minimum Qualification required for the
Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in
Universities and Institutes Affiliated to it) (3rd
Amendment) Regulations, 2009 were in force and the
Ph.D. degree possessed by respondent nos. 11 & 12
was not as per UGC (Minimum Standards and
Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d. Degrees)
Regulation, 2009, therefore, benefit of Ph.D. degree
was wrongly given to respondent nos. 11 & 12.
Management in its counter affidavit has taken
the stand that since selection process was initiated
before 11.07.2009, when UGC Regulations regarding
Minimum Qualification for appointment of teachers was
notified, therefore, respondent nos. 11 & 12 were
eligible for appointment on the strength of their Ph.D.
degree. Management has also stated in its counter
affidavit that UGC (Minimum Qualification required for
the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers
in Universities and Institutes Affiliated to it) (3rd
Amendment) Regulations, 2009 are not applicable as
8
these Regulations were not adopted by the State
Government till selection and appointment of
respondent Nos. 11 & 12.
Admittedly, the selection process commenced
on 19.07.2006, when first advertisement was issued in
respect of the vacancies in question; subsequently,
these vacancies were re-advertised on 06.08.2008
which culminated in selection and appointment of
respondent nos. 11 & 12. UGC (Minimum Qualification
required for the Appointment and Career Advancement
of Teachers in Universities and Institutes Affiliated to it)
(3rd Amendment) were notified subsequently on
11.07.2009, therefore, ongoing selection which
commenced in 2008 would not be affected by the UGC
Regulations notified on 11.07.2009, as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of N.D. Devinkatti v.
Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC
157.
A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of
Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC has reiterated that eligibility
criteria for participating in a selection, notified at the
commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be
changed midway to the detriment of a candidate,
unless the extant rules so permit, or the advertisement,
which is not contrary to the extant rules, so permit.
Para nos. 65.1 and 65.2 of Constitution Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court are reproduced
below:-
“65.1. Recruitment process commences from the
issuance of the advertisement calling for applications
and ends with filling up of vacancies;
9
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the
select list, notified at the commencement of the
recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through
the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so
permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to
the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is
permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement,
the change would have to meet the requirement of
Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-
arbitrariness”
7. Even otherwise also, UGC (Minimum
Qualification required for the Appointment and Career
Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutes
Affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2009,
were not adopted by the State Government till
conclusion of selection process. In the case of Kalyani
Mathivanan v. K. V. Keyaraj and others, reported in
(2015) 6 SCC 363, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
UGC Regulations, are directory for Universities, colleges
and other higher educational institutions under purview
of the State legislation as the matter has been left to
the State Government to adopt and implement the
scheme. Para no. 62 of the said judgment is
reproduced below:
“62. In view of the discussion as made above, we
hold:
62.1. To the extent the State legislation is in
conflict with the Central legislation including subordinate
legislation made by the Central legislation under Entry
25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the
Central legislation and would be inoperative.
62.2. The UGC Regulations being passed by both
the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate
legislation has binding effect on the universities to which
it applies.
62.3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to
teachers and other academic staff in all the Central
universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions
deemed to be universities whose maintenance
expenditure is met by UGC.
62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for
the universities, colleges and other higher educational
institutions under the purview of the State legislation as
the matter has been left to the State Government to
10adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC
Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly
directory.
62.5. The UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been
adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of
conflict between the State legislation and the Statutes
framed under the Central legislation does not arise.
Once they are adopted by the State Government, the
State legislation to be amended appropriately. In such
case also there shall be no conflict between the State
legislation and the Central legislation.”
8. The fourth ground raised by petitioners for
challenging selection and appointment of respondent
nos. 11 & 12 is also not sustainable. There is nothing in
the advertisement or in the statutes of the University to
indicate that preference was to be given to candidates
having teaching experience. In the absence of any such
stipulation in the advertisement or in the applicable
statutes, the Selection Committee cannot give
preference to a candidate based on teaching
experience. Selection has to be held strictly as per the
applicable statutory provisions, and if there is none,
then the criteria set out in the advertisement. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show
violation of any provision of statute or violation of
norms laid down in the advertisement.
9. There is no pleading in the petition that
candidates who were selected and appointed were
without any teaching experience. Law is however
settled that selection committee cannot deviate from
the prescribed norms, by giving weightage for
experience; it is bound to follow the criteria of selection
as prescribed by Statute, and if statute is silent, then
the criteria fixed by the competent authority before
embarking upon the process of selection.
11
10. For the aforesaid reasons, any interference
with the selection and appointment of respondent nos.
11 & 12 would be unwarranted. The writ petition thus
fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
01.07.2025
Navin
[ad_1]
Source link