PRASANTA KUMAR PATRI Vs. REGISTRAR, UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have prayed to quash the entire selection process of admission in Part -time Executive M.B.A. Programme of the P.G. Department for the academic session of 2004 -2007 alleging "the same to have been conducted by an illegally constituted Selection Committee." Simultaneously, they have also claimed themselves to be eligible for the said course and have sought for direction to the opp.parties for their admission. The factual aspect runs as follows : In response to the advertisement in daily newspapers by the Utkal University for the Part -time Executive Programme of P.G. Department for academic session 2004 -2007, the petitioners applied for the same with a view to undergo the aforesaid programme. Both of them did their Graduation form the Utkal University in the year 2003 and having more than seven years professional experience at Executive/Supervisory Level (Annexures -1 to 4) appeared in the interview being called by the Utkal University on 16.8.2004. They performed to their utmost satisfaction but were not selected even for the reserved category as per Annexure -7 to which petitioner No.1 belongs being the son of an ex -army personnel. As they did not find their names in the provisional merit list (Annexure -5) they represented vide Annexure -6 which was not responded resulting in filing of the writ application. According to them, they were having required qualification as per Information Bulletin of 2004 -2005, copy of which is Annexure -8. They have averred that the Selection Committee should have been constituted by five members as per Annexure -9 and the Committee which conducted the interview was consisting of three members. Therefore, according to them, the entire selection process should be quashed. It has also been averred that they were discriminated and they were not selected for the said course.

(2.) OPP .party Nos. 1 to 4 filed counter with the averment denying the allegations. According to them, the petitioners were not having requisite qualification, i.e., they had not gathered experience of two years after obtaining the Graduation degree. Therefore, they were not considered for admission. The Utkal University has taken a stand that the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provision (Annexure -9) and the members were highly qualified to conduct the interview. There is no mala fide on their part and the process of selection should not be interfered with. It is also stated by them that the representation of the petitioners was considered by the P.G. Council and stood rejected on 28.8.2004. They have also stated in paragraph -7 of their counter dated 2.11.2004 that the petitioners were not interviewed. Their further stand is that their was no discrimination in selecting the candidates relying on Annexure -A/1 and B -1 series.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have contended that since they had professional/supervisory experience about seven years prior to obtaining the Degree in the year 2003, they should have been selected by the opp.parties considering their experience earned prior to the degree of Graduation. According to the counsel, the Rule 18(e) of the Information Bulletin is wrongly interpreted by the University and has placed reliance on AIR 1997 SC 2602 (D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India and others). It is next contended that the Selection Committee was not constituted by five members violating the norms as per Annexure -9 and, therefore, it should be quashed. He further contends to initiate a contempt proceeding against Nirmal Chandra Kar for filing false affidavit.