Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dr. Madhu Soodan Rajpurohit And Anr vs Mls University Udaipur And Ors … on 20 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:10372]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5619/2014
1. Dr. Madhu Soodan Rajpurohit S/o Shri Satya Deo Rajpurohit,
C/o 17-E/441, Nandanvan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, PIN 342008.
2. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vyas S/o Dr. Satya Narayan Vyas, 49,
Vidhya Nagar, University Housing Society, Sector No.4, Hiran
Magrari, Udaipur, Rajasthan (PIN 313002)
(At present:- 1, Principal's Bungalow, College Campus,
Modasa Shri N.S. Patel Law College, Modasa, District Aravalli
(Gujarat) (PIN 383315)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur through the
Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Rajasthan
PIN-313039
2. The Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur,
Rajasthan. PIN 313039
3. The Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur,
Rajasthan. PIN 313039
4. Dr. Anand Paliwal S/o Shri Badri Prasad Paliwal, Associate
Professor (Law) College of Law, Mohan Lal Sukhadia
University, Udaipur, Rajasthan. PIN 313039
5. Dr. Shobha Ram Sharma, Lecturer-in-Law, Government Law
College, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
6. Dr. Anil Kumar Kaushik, Principal, Government Law College,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Madhu Soodan Rajpurohit
(Petitioner in Person).
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Mr. Piyush Sharma (R-4).
Mr. Hemant Ballani and Mr.
Sudhanshu Kalla (R-1 to 3).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
20/02/2025
1. Petitioners herein, inter alia, seek quashing of an interview
dated 22.07.2014 conducted by respondent No.1 for the post of
Professor of Law and declare the respondent No.4 as ineligible for
the said post and also seek a declaration that respondent No. 4 is
ineligible for the post of Professor in the subject of Law.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (2 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are
as follows:
2.1. The petitioners were selected by the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission (RPSC) and appointed as lecturers in Law by the
Government of Rajasthan in the year 1995 respectively.
Petitioners No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.6 have over 19 years of
teaching experience in UG classes and more than 10 years in PG
classes.
2.2. On 10.12.2004, Respondent No.4 was appointed as a
Lecturer at Bhupal Nobles Law College, Udaipur. He was on
probation for a year. On 25.06.2007, Respondent No.4 was
selected as an Assistant Professor in Law by Mohanlal Sukhadia
University, Udaipur. On 22.02.2012, Respondent No.4 was selected
as an Associate Professor, although he did not meet the required
qualifications as per the University Act and UGC regulations.
Petitioners plead that they discovered this after an interview for
the position of Professor in Law, which is under challenge herein.
2.3. On 19.02.2013, Respondent No.1 advertised the posts of
Professors in Law, mentioning that all appointments would follow
UGC/AICTE guidelines. The last date for applications was
08.04.2013. On 13.06.2014, interview letters for the post of
Professor were sent to the petitioners, respondents No.4, 5 & 6.
On 24.06.2014, a screening list was displayed, with some
candidates, including Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5, having
remarks about missing Academic Performance Indicator (‘API’)
forms or certificates. Petitioner No.1 had an Academic
Performance Indicator score of 872, and Respondent No.5 had
724, while Respondent No.4’s score was 442.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (3 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
2.4. The interview scheduled for 25.06.2014 was postponed due
to a lack of quorum. After the interview was postponed, the
petitioners met the Vice-Chancellor, who advised submitting
additional documents to correct the discrepancies. Petitioner No.1
submitted these documents on 26.06.2014. Despite this, on
18.07.2014, the screening list remained unchanged.
2.5. On 22.07.2014, the interview was held, but only Respondent
No.4 was interviewed, in the absence of the petitioners,
Respondent No.5 and 6. The interview was conducted without
addressing the petitioners’ concerns or following proper
procedures.
2.6. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Professor on the same
day, despite not fulfilling the required qualifications, and joined
immediately afterward. This was done in haste, circumventing the
court’s oversight. Hence this petition.
3. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is as below:
3.1. The eligibility criteria for the post of Professor of Law were
determined in accordance with UGC Regulations. The UGC, vide its
letter dated 01.03.2016, clarified that the period of active service
spent in pursuing a Ph.D. without availing any leave can be
counted as teaching experience. Respondent No.4 was appointed
as a Lecturer at Bhupal Noble Law College on 21.08.2003 and had
additional research experience from 01.03.2003, making him
eligible for the post.
3.2. The selection process was conducted by a duly constituted
Selection Committee, which included representatives from the
Office of the Chancellor, the State Government, and the University.
The interview for Respondent No.4 was conducted on 22.07.2014,
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (4 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
but before the results were declared, the petitioner approached
the Court and obtained an interim order directing to re-conduct of
the interview. The interview was re-conducted on 28.08.2014 and
confirmed Respondent No.4 as the most meritorious candidate,
and the results were produced before the Court on 12.09.2014.
3.3. After considering the legal opinion and in the absence of any
stay, the Board of Management (BOM) proceeded with the
appointment of Respondent No.4 on 30.09.2014. The petitioner’s
challenge was primarily based on two grounds: (i) Respondent
No.4 allegedly did not have the requisite 10 years of teaching
experience, and (ii) Respondent No.4’s API score was allegedly
miscalculated. Both allegations are baseless as Respondent No.4
met all eligibility criteria, and the API score was assessed per the
prescribed norms.
3.4. During the pendency of the writ petition, at the instance of
the State Government, a committee was constituted to examine
the appointment of respondent No.4 in question, as well as the
qualifications of Respondent No.4. The expert committee found
that the API score awarded to Respondent No.4 was correctly
assessed and that there was no irregularity in the selection
process.
3.5. Furthermore, in light of Regulation 4 and Regulation 10 of
the UGC Regulations, 2010, read with the clarification issued by
the UGC, the selected candidate i.e. Respondent No.4 fulfills the
requisite experience of 10 years, including the experience gained
as a research scholar.
3.6. In addition to the above, as per the form attached with the
reply filed by Respondent No.4 (Annex. R/4/1 at page 294), the
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (5 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
petitioner No.1 himself does not qualify for the post of Professor,
as he has not guided any candidates for research at the doctoral
level, which is a mandatory requirement under Regulation 4.1.0 of
the UGC Regulations, 2010.
Regulation 4.1.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, prescribes
the qualifications for the post of Professor, which includes:
4.1.0 PROFESSOR
A. (i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in the
concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of
high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of
published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books
and/or research/policy papers.
(ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in
university/college, and/or experience in research at the
University/National level institutions/industries, including
experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level.
(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new
curricula and courses, and technology – mediated teaching
learning process.
(iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic
Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based
Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in
Appendix III.
OR
B. An outstanding professional, with established reputation in
the relevant field, who has made significant contributions to
the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be
substantiated by credentials.
3.7. On 16.02.2021, the University conducted an inquiry into
complaints against Respondent No.4’s appointment. On
20.02.2021, the BOM decided to conduct an inquiry, and a
committee was formed on 03.05.2021. However, the fresh
committee, after a detailed examination, justified the API score
awarded to Respondent No.4 and opined that his appointment was
proper. The inquiry report was accepted on 15.09.2022, and
proceedings were dropped by the University vide Resolution No.06
dated 01.10.2022.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (6 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
3.8. The entire selection and appointment process was conducted
as per due process and has been subjected to judicial scrutiny at
various stages. The University has already conducted an
independent inquiry, which has reaffirmed the correctness of
Respondent No.4’s appointment. The petitioner’s challenge is an
abuse of the process of law, aimed at harassing the appointed
candidate without any legal basis. Hence, this petition deserves to
be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and gone through the voluminous record of the writ petition
alongwith an additional affidavit dated 30.01.2017.
5. At the very outset, I may observe that grievance of the
petitioners qua the eligibility and lacking other merits of Dr. Anand
Paliwal (respondent No.4) for being appointed as Professor have
been chapter and verse gone into on various intervals from time
to time both by way of judicial intervention as well as by taking
remedial measures on the administrative side by the competent
authority.
6. Let us see how.
7. First and foremost, reference may be had to an order dated
11.08.2014, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, then
seized of the matter, which not only sums up the entire
controversy, but also gave an interim direction to take remedial
measures, which led to cancellation of the earlier interview
conducted by the Interview Board of the University. Subsequent
thereto, a fresh interview was conducted, wherein petitioners
herein were also contenders for the post in question. The said
order reads as follows:-
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (7 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
“The petitioners have challenged the selection process
for the post of Professor in Law by the respondent- Mohanlal
Sukhadia University, Udaipur (“University”, for short). The
dispute raised by the petitioners before this Court is about the
petitioners being excluded from the zone of consideration and
not called for interview on the postponed date for the said post
on account of non-giving of their API (Academic Performance
Indicator) marks on website or without deciding their
representations.
According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1, Dr.
M.S. Rajpuorhit, and as admitted by the respondent- M.L.S.
University in its reply to writ petition (Page 135 of the reply)
that the petitioner No.1 had secured API to tune of “881.5”.
The petitioner No.2, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Vyas, has claimed that
his API was more than 500 but on the postponed date of
interview for the said post on 22.07.2014 at 09.00 AM, the
private respondent No.4- Dr. Anand Paliwal, the only person
out of 5 candidates, was called for the said interview for the
said post and the remaining four candidates are shown as
“absent” and only the private respondent No.4- Dr. Anand
Paliwal, is shown “present” and he was interviewed on that
date.
The petitioners have submitted that well before the said
postponed date i.e. 22.07.2014, they had already submitted a
representations to the respondent – University vide the Annex.
13 & 14 dated 20.07.2014 and 21.07.2014 raising their
aforesaid grievance/s but without deciding the said
representations first by a speaking order, the respondent
University, fixed the interview date on 22.07.2014 and they
were communicated the said date of 22.07.2014 vide the letter
dated 09.07.2014. but since the respondent University did not
clarify their stand about the higher API marks of the present
two petitioners, yet interview process was held on 22.07.2014
by interviewing only one of the 5 candidates, namely, Dr.
Anand Paliwal.
Prima-facie, this indicates that these four persons,
including the present 2 petitioners, were deprived of their
reasonable opportunity to participate in the said selection
process on 22.07.2014 and only one of the candidate, who has
been arrayed as private respondent No.4, Dr. Anand Paliwal,
was so interviewed on 22.07.2014.
On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Tirkha, Addl. Officer-
in-Charge (Professor), M.L.S. University, and Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Barber, Assistant Registrar, MLS University, submitted
that if the petitioners themselves chose to remain absent on the
given date of 22.07.2014 that have to thank themselves and
they could have attended the interview on 22.07.2014 and in
getting the position about their API(s) clarified on that date.
On the previous date i.e. on 25.06.2014, on which the
interviews were to be held, all the candidates except one Dr.
Anil Kaushik, who was absent, the present two petitioners
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (8 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
were all present but on the postponed date l.e. on 22.07.2014,
however, only one candidate, out of 5 candidates, Dr. Anand
Paliwal, was present.
After hearing the parties at some length, this Court is
not satisfied with the stand taken by the respondent- M.L.S.
University and it was expected of the respondent University to
inform either on the official website of the University or
otherwise the comparative the API/s of all the candidates
appearing for the said post before the said interviews were
taken on 22.07.2014 to maintain sufficient transparency in the
selection process. The copy of the attendance-sheet dated
22.07.2014 and other documents produced by the respondents
before the Court during the course of arguments are taken on
record, which prima-facie indicates that a majority of the
candidates were deprived of their opportunity to appear in the
said interview on 22.07.2014 and two of them are before this
Court in the present writ petition.
The API of the person candidate interviewed, Dr. Anand
Paliwali, is shown to be 442 whereas the present petitioners
admittedly have higher API(s) than the person so interviewed
and the selection process has yet not been completed and the
result of the same has not been declared by the respondent-
University.
Therefore, by way this interim order, it is directed that it
would be in the fitness of the things if the respondent- M.L.S.
University, re-holds the interview of all the five candidates
again as per the date convenient to them, after declaring the
comparative API(s) of all the five candidates and either
upload the same on their official website of the University or
inform the candidates of their respective API(s) and then hold
the interview of all five of them again on the given date. The
present petitioners as well as other candidates shall be
informed of the said date by separate communications and
result of re-holding of the interview may be produced before
this Court on the next date along-with affidavit of the
concerned authority of the respondent University.
The said process may be completed within a period of
one month from today.
List the matter again on 12.09.2014.”
8. Apropos, the respondent No.4 was declared as successful
candidate in the interview. An appointment letter was issued to
him. The said appointment letter was also sought to be withheld
and/or stayed during the pendency of the writ proceedings by
filing a subsequent stay application. Said application too once
again considered merits and demerits of the allegations. The
Single Bench, then seized of the matter, presided over by Nirmaljit
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (9 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
Kaur, J. (as she then was in this Court) passed an order dated
25.11.2014, which reads as follows:-
“Admitted. Notice need not be issued to the respondents
as they are being represented.
Heard on the second stay application.
The prayer in the second stay application is for staying
the execution, effect and operation of the order dated
30.09.2014 (Annexure-24) passed by the respondent-University
vide which the respondent No.4 joined as Professor in the
subject of Law.
At the first instance, the petitioner challenged the
interview ordered to be conducted on 22.7.2014 for the post of
Professor in the subject of Law. Vide an interim order dated
11.8.2014, the Court directed the University to re-hold the
interview of all the five candidates again as per the date
convenient to them, after declaring the comparative API(S) of
all the five candidates and thereafter to hold the interview of
all five of them again on the given date.
In pursuance to the said order, the earlier interview
dated 22.7.2014 was cancelled and fresh interview was held.
The result of the fresh interview held on 28.8.2014 was placed
on record. In pursuance to the same, respondent No.4 was
selected and accorded appointment as Professor by order
dated 30.09.2014 passed by the University. The said
appointment is made subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
The petitioner while praying for stay of the operation of
the order dated 30.09.2014 submitted that respondent No.4 is
not eligible for the post of Professor as he does not fulfil the
requisite qualification laid down under Regulation 4.1.0 of the
UGC Regulation, 2010 and did not have 10 years of experience
in teaching. A(ii) of Regulation 4.1.0 reads as under:-
“A minimum of ten years of teaching
experience in university/college, and/or
experience in research at the University/National
level institutions/industries, including experience
of guiding candidates for research at doctoral
level.”
It is evident from the UGC Regulation reproduced above
that the required experience for the post of Professor is
“minimum of ten years of teaching experience in
university/college”. It is not specified that the said teaching
experience has to be only for Assistant Professor or Associate
Professor whereas respondent No.4 in his reply has stated that
he has got teaching experience of 12 years to under graduate,
10 years experience to post graduate and 04 years to Ph.D.
Guides.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (10 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
While challenging the teaching experience, it is
contended that respondent No.4 was appointed as Assistant
Professor on 25.6.2007 and the said appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor was not in accordance with the
qualifications and eligibility criteria. The subsequent
appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Associate
Professor on 22.2.2012 was not as per the regulations as he
did not complete the number of years required for the post of
Associate Professor.
However, the petitioner never challenged the
appointment of the respondent No.4 as Associate Professor at
that point of time. Moreover, it is not disputed that the
respondent No.4 after joining as Associate Professor has been
working on the post till his selection as Professor.
Meanwhile, the respondent No.4 has already joined as
Professor.
In these circumstances, no ground is made out to stay the
order dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure-24). The second application
for stay (4853/2014) is dismissed.
The first stay application also stands disposed of.
Put up this matter for hearing after three months.”
9. In fact on threadbare perusal of the entire record in the light
of the observations herein above made by the learned Single
Judge of this Court, would suffice at this stage itself to dismiss the
writ petition, as I am in respectful agreement with what has been
held therein while dismissing the stay application.
10. Be that as it may, the matter did not rest at that, as it
transpires that owing to the relentless efforts of the petitioners the
competent administrative authorities deemed it fit to refer the
entire matter to have a fresh look by constituting an Inquiry
Committee of 3 experts, as is borne out from the Agenda-T3 of
minutes of meeting dated 20.02.2021, which was convened under
the Chairmanship of Vice Chancellor of the University. The same
reads as under:-
“T/3. To consider the letter received from Secretary, H.E.
the Chancellor & Governor, Rajbhawan, Jaipur
F.3(1)RB/2021/805 dated 17.02.2021 regarding enquire all the
matter related to Dr. Anand Paliwal, Prof. of Law.
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (11 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
The house discussed the matter in light of the documents,
facts and information reported in table agenda (Page 14-56)
along with the letters received from Secretary, H.E. the
Chancellor & Governor of Rajasthan and the State Govt. etc.,
against his appointment on the post of Associate Professor &
Professor of Law regarding not having the minimum prescribed
academic qualifications, requisite teaching experience etc. by
him for these posts and the irregularities done by him. Looking
into the seriousness of the matter it was resolved to constitute a
three members external enquiry committee, to examine all issues
pertaining to his appointment on the post of Associate Professor
& Professor of Law and the irregularities done by him as
referred above. Composition of the committee shall be as under:
1. Prof. V. K. Singh, Vice-Chancellor, Maharaja Ganga Singh
University, Bikaner (Convener)
2. Dr. G.P. Singh, Principal, Government Dungar College,
Bikaner. (Member)
3. Dr. Rajkumar Upadhyay, Registrar, University of Kota, Kota,
(Member)
The committee should be requested to submit its report on
these issues as soon as possible. The Raj Bhawan & the State
Government should also be informed about the same.”
11. The aforesaid clearly reveals that the constituted Inquiry
Committee comprised of persons of credible experience and
having domain expertise in their respective fields. The convener of
the Committee was the concededly Vice Chancellor of another
University and other two members were also of the rank of
Principal of Government College and Registrar of another
University. Thus, clearly it was constituted of completely
independent members having no prejudice of any kind qua any of
the selected or rejected candidates.
12. The said Committee, after conducting a thorough inquiry and
after sifting through the entire record, rendered its expert opinion
not only on the eligibility of the respondent No.4, but also with
respect to the procedure adopted for selection on the post of
Professor, of which, the petitioners herein are contenders. The
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (12 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]
relevant extract of the said report dated 02.08.2022 reads as
under:-
“Report
1. However in the interest of the things, the committee
relooked into the various categories of API Score and found that
API Score has been rightly awarded as per the UGC API
guidelines by Statutory Selection Committee under the
Categories of Research Publication, Conferences, Research
guidance, Seminars and invited lecturers, training programs etc.
2. The committee considered each and every aspect and came
to the conclusion after the due deliberations that the calculation
of the API score made by Statutory Selection Committee i.e. 442
at the time of Selection for the post of Associate Professor and
Professor WHICH IS justified in our opinion.
3. The Committee has thoroughly examined the matter in
light of above mentioned terms of reference relating to the
recruitment of Prof. Anand Paliwal.
The committee unanimously expresses the opinion that
after hearing Prof. Anand Paliwal and as per the material made
available by the University and Prof. Paliwal that the University
adopted a fair and transparent process and also API guidelines
applicable for the aforesaid recruitment.
Therefore, Prof. Anand Paliwal’s Selection and
appointment was rightly done on the posts in question and API
Scores were rightly awarded for both the post as per the
statutory norms and procedures of University and UGC
regulations.
S/d S/d S/d
(Prof. U.C. Sankhla) (Prof. C.P. Jain) (Prof.Pradeep Trikha)
External Subject Expert Member, Convenor
Ex.-VC, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law Dean, College of SC. Director, IQAC
University, Jaipur"
13. On a Court query, it transpires that the said report of the
inquiry Committee has not been challenged. The argument qua
the same is that since the said subsequent development was after
filing of the writ petition, therefore, it was not required to be
challenged independently.
14. Be that as it may, having seen the inquiry report and the
contents thereof, it is not for this Court to re-appraise the
observations made and conclusion drawn by the domain experts,
find fault with, supersede the same and substitute it’s own
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10372] (13 of 13) [CW-5619/2014]opinion, unless of course, it is a case of alleged mala fide. There is
no mala fide alleged against any of the Members of the Inquiry
Committee and/or competent administrative authorities who
decided to constitute the Inquiry Committee of 3 experts.
15. As an upshot, no grounds to interfere are made out and the
writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to take
appropriate steps qua the inquiry report as they may deem fit.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
238-Jitender-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 09:58:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link