Decided on February 26,1999



- (1.) PURSUANT to the advertisement notice No. Adm/Two/96/9853 dated 25.4.1996 a selection, process was initiated. By this process, a post of Lecturer in the subject of Botany was to be filled by the respondent Jammu University. In this selection, respondent No. 10 came to be selected. It is this selection of aforementioned respondent which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.
(2.) THE petitioner submits that the qualification for the post was indicated in the notice referred to above. The essential qualifications which were prescribed are as under: - i) "Masters Degree in the subject concerned with atleast 55% marks or its equivalent grade, ii) Passed the eligibility test for Lecturer (NET) conducted by UGC CSIR or similar test a credited by UGC. Provided that the candidates who have submitted Ph.D Thesis or pass M.Phill by 31.12.93 exempted from the eligibility test of Lecturer conducted by UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC."
(3.) THE petitioner submits that being fully eligible, she applied for the same. The educational attainments of the petitioner are given in paragraph 6 of the petition. The petitioner has done M.Sc in Botany with Cytogenetics as a special subject. The other attainments includes the equisition of M. Phill Degree in Liminology. This happened in the year 1988 -90. So far as Ph.D qualification is concerned, this is said to have been acquired in the year 1990 -94. This is in Liminology and aquatic Biology. It is further submitted that she has been a Research Associate in Environmental Sciences. As per the petitioner, she has nine paper publications to her credit. She is said to have attended 12 conferences, two workshops and presented papers in different conference/symposia these are said to be 16 in number. The petitioner submits that but for the presence of professor MC Sharma, who was deputed as an observer in the University, her chance for getting selected for the post were very bright. It is submitted that when she was being interviewed by the Board, the aforementioned professor was asking questions. This disturbed the thought process of the petitioner. The question were put in such a manner so that this may create doubt and wrong impressions in the minds of other members of the Selection Committee. The requisite avernments are made in para 7 of the petition. The further assertion made in the petition and which is apparent from the perusal of the para 10 of the petition is that on professor A. K. Koul who was Specialist in Cytogenetics, wanted respondent No.10 to be selected. It is because respondent No. 11 had attained her Ph.D in the aforementioned subject. With a view to elaborate that Sh. A. K. Koul had been influencing the selection in the University, some other facts and figures have been given. It is indicated that in the previous selection made by the University, out often Scholars, eight have been selected belonging to the above discipline. It is in this manner sought to be urged that professor A. K. Koul was always influencing the selection process and would see to it that only this very branch gets prominence in the teaching faculty. In this manner, it is suggested that professor A. K. Koul enabled professor MC Sharma to act as an observer in the selection process in which respondent No.10 was selected. It is also urged that there was no necessity to appoint an observer. The appointment of professor MC Sharma as observer is being objected to and it is submitted that this appointment should not have been permitted. For this, reliance is being placed on Section 36 of the Act. It is submitted that the Committee has to consist of the members who fall under the parameters of Section 36 of the University Act. It is urged that Sh. MC Sharma could not be appointed under Section 36 and his presence has effected the whole selection process. It is further submitted that the respondent No.10 was initially doing her research job under Professor A. K. Koul. He retired on 3rd October95. After the retirement of Professor A. K. Koul, the respondent No.10 joined as a Research Associate under the guidance of Professor MC Sharma. For this reliance is placed on a document Annexure -R 15. When respondent No. 10 filled up her form as a Research Fellow/Associate, this was countersigned by Professor MC Sharma. It is further submitted that this association of Mr. MC Sharma was not a mere formality but it was an essential requirement. For this reliance is placed on a brochure issued by CSIR Research Fellowships and Associateships. Specific reliance is placed on the preamble to the above guideline. The requisite averment that Professor MC Sharma was the person who was to act as a guide in terms of brochure referred to above are made in paragraph 12 of the writ -petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.