MONICA TOMAR Vs. YASHWANT SINGH PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has obtained her Ph.D. Degree in the subject of Mycology and Plant Pathology in the year 2004. She has qualified National Eligibility Test (NET) in the year 2006. Respondent No. 1 - University has issued an advertisement bearing No. 7 of 2008 whereby applications were invited for filling up five posts of Assistant Scientists/Assistant Professors/Assistant Extension Specialist. Three posts were to be filled up in Mycology and Plant Pathology Department, one post in Forest Plant Protection (Pathology Discipline) and one post in RHRSS Tabo (Plant Pathology Discipline). The last date of receipt of applications was 6th September, 2008. Petitioner and private respondents submitted their applications for considering their candidatures for the post of Assistant Professors in the respondent/University. The petitioner was interviewed on 22nd and 23rd October, 2009 vide Annexures P6 -A and P6 -B. The respondent/University has selected and appointed respondent No. 2 as Assistant Professor in the subject of Mycology and Plant Pathology, respondent No. 3 in RHRSS Tabo (Plant Pathology Discipline) and respondent No. 4 in Forest Plant Protection (Pathology Discipline) on the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. The petitioner has confined her challenge only to the appointment of respondent No. 2, Monica Sharma to the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Mycology and Plant Pathology.

(2.) MR . Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondent No. 2 did not fulfill the minimum essential educational qualification of Ph.D. in the subject of Mycology and Plant Pathology and thus she could not be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Mycology and Plant Pathology. He has further argued that the respondent -University at no given time has equated the degree of Ph.D. obtained by respondent No. 2 from Germany; vis -à -vis in the subject of Mycology and Plant Pathology. He has further argued that the Screening Committee constituted by the respondent -University has found the respondent No. 2 eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Biotechnology as well in the subject of Mycology and Plant Pathology. He also contended that the petitioner was fully eligible and qualified and should have been considered for appointment ignoring the candidature of respondent No. 2. He lastly contended that his client has been kept at No. 1 in the waiting list for appointment to the post in question.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and record carefully.