- (1.) The prayer of the petitioner in this petition is for quashing advertisement dated 19.1.2007 (Annexure P-8). It has been claimed that the DAV College of Engineering and Technology, Kanina, Distt. Mohindergarh through its Managing Committee-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Management') has advertised the same posts of Lecturers in various subjects on which posts, the petitioners are already working as regular Lecturers. The other prayer made by the petitioners is that the directions be issued Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak-respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-University') to accord approval to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee recommending their appointment as regular Lecturers in the concerned subjects.
(2.) In the written statements filed by respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, the fear of the petitioners that the same posts have been advertised have been put to rest. In paragraph 2 of the reply filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2, it has been categorically stated that the posts of Lecturer advertised by the respondent-Management vide advertisement dated 19.1.2007 are different than those held by the petitioners. The aforementioned advertisement has been issued in pursuance to the letter dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure R-1) sent by All India Council for Technical Education which require the respondent-Management to appoint the senior faculty in the College. Therefore, the first prayer made by the petitioner does not survive.
(3.) The second prayer for issuance of direction to respondent-University has to be examined in the backdrop of few facts. The petitioners have applied for appointment as Lecturers in their respective subjects in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure P-4). Respondent-Management constituted interview committee and it has invited three or four subject experts depending on the requirement of rules who were to be Members of the Selection Committee. The respondent-Management in its written statement has stated that it has associated three/four subject experts as the case may be strictly in accordance with the norms fixed by the rules. In that regard, a look at the letter dated 21.3.2007 would make it clear that the proceedings of the Selection committee were forwarded to respondent-University by giving the constitution of the Selection Committee along with the names of subject experts. For example, for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering and Information Technology, three Experts were required to be invited. All the three experts were invited well in time vide letter dated 25.7.2006. Their names have also been mentioned namely, Sh. R.S. Chillar, Professor and Head, Department of CSE, MD University, Rohtak, Sh. Nasib Singh Gill, Professor and Head, Deptt. Of Computer Science and Engineering, MD University, Rohtak and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Professor, DAV Institute of Engg. And Technology, Jalandhar. However, only two experts except Mr. Manoj Kumar attended the proceedings of the Selection Committee. We have examined the record of the Management Committee which reveals that Sh. G.P. Chopra was Chairman of the Selection Committee, Sh. Justice R.N. Mittal (Retd.), Vishawanath, R.S. Sharma, S.L. Puri, M.L. Khanna, Punam Suri, D.R. Gupta (nominated by Director, Colleges), S.K. Chopra, Principal, DAV College of Engineering and Technology, Kanina were the Members. The same committee in respect of Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering with four different subject experts were invited namely, Prof. P.N. Gupta, Executive Director, DOEACC Society (MIT), New Delhi, Prof. G.S. Viswewaran, IIT, New Delhi and Prof. S.K. Sharma, JNU, Delhi. However the Selection Committee meeting was attended only by three of the aforementioned experts. Another example is with regard to the Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, which required associating four experts with the meeting of the selection committee. All the four experts namely, Prof. S. Chatterjee, Sector 26, Chandigarh, Prof. S.K. Vyas, JNU, New Delhi, Prof. K.S. Hedge, IIT, New Delhi and Prof. N.K. Jain, IDDC, IIT, New Delhi attended the meeting of the Selection Committee. The position is similar in respect of other subjects. It is thus evident that despite the efforts made by the respondents No. 1 & 2-Management to associate subject experts as per the requirement of the University norms sometime one of the expert did not turn up. In some cases, only two experts instead of three were present in meeting of the Selection Committee whereas in other cases all the three or four were present. Respondents No. 1 &-2-Management cannot be accused of violation of the norms set up by the University nor such a blame could be put at the doors of the petitioners. In fact, they complied with the norms. However, in the meeting of the Selection Committee, one of the experts could not remain present. It is on the aforementioned basis that the respondent-University has raised objection and has not approved the selection of the petitioners.;