S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the decision making process undertaken by the respondent no. 2 pursuant to Advertisement No. 7581, dated 7th November, 2015, so far as it relates to appointment on the post of Lecturer under the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology to the extent respondent no. 4 has been declared as a successful candidate, especially in view of the fact that the respondent no. 4 has been wrongly awarded the highest marks contrary to the norms specified by the respondent no. 2 itself. Further prayer has been made to quash the letter of appointment/ offer of appointment issued in favour of respondent no. 4 by the respondent no. 2 on the post of Lecturer and to grant appointment to the petitioner in the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology under the Dental Institute of the RIMS pursuant to the Advertisement No. 7581, dated 07.11.2015 in view of the fact that petitioner is the most eligible candidate as per the norms prescribed by the respondent no. 2.
(3.) The facts of the case giving rise to this application is that an advertisement being Advertisement No. 7581, dated 07.11.2015 had been published in the Website inviting applications along with complete Bio-Data for filling up the post under different departments of Dental Institute of the respondent - RIMS. The qualification for the post of Lecturer had been prescribed as "MDS in concerned subject with 3 years' teaching experience as Tutor/ Senior Resident in concerned subject". The candidates were also required to submit details of the papers published by the candidates in State, National and International Journals. Further, in the Advertisement, vide Clause-18, it was clearly provided, inter alia, that "the age and experience of the candidate shall be counted as on 30.11.2015". Petitioner as well as other candidates applied for the same and were called for interview. Pursuant to the Interview Letter dated 14.03.2016, petitioner was directed to be present for interview on 01.04.2016 along with the documentary evidences in support of his qualification, experience and research works etc. During the course of interview, it was informed to the candidates that the marks would be allotted for the academic qualification of the candidates, being 70 points out of the total 100 marks and 30 marks would be awarded for the interview. The candidates were further informed that the candidates would be allotted marks in the following manner: (i) Maximum 25 point/marks on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in BDS Examination; (ii) Maximum 10 points/ marks for having Degree of MDS in concerned speciality subject; (iii) It was pointed out that 2 point/ marks would be deducted for such candidates who have failed in MDS examination; (iv) Maximum 15 points/ marks would be awarded for Articles/ journals published during the qualifying period. Each publication made in International Journal was to carry 4 points/ marks, whereas publications made in National Journals were to carry 3 points/ marks. After the interview, the results were published vide Memo No. 10370, dated 18.08.2016 wherein Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma (Respondent No. 4) had been shown to be selected for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology. No information was given by the respondents - RIMS about the mode and manner in which marks were awarded to the petitioner and/or respondent no. 4 and other candidates and even details of the marks awarded to the petitioner and other candidates were not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 on 25.08.2016 asking about the marks/ points obtained by the candidates who had appeared for interview. The information asked for by the petitioner was not supplied to him and under the said circumstances, petitioner preferred First Appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter, partial information was provided to him in the form of tabular sheet containing marks obtained by each candidate. From the information furnished by the respondents, the petitioner could come to know that he was awarded 49.05 whereas respondent no. 4 was awarded 49.85 marks out of 70 marks. However, petitioner was awarded only 15 marks in interview whereas respondent no. 4 was awarded 21 marks out of 30 marks. When petitioner again sought for information under RTI regarding segregated marks given to each candidates for academics, it was transpired that respondent no. 4 was awarded 8 marks out of maximum 15 marks for publication.;