Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4386 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohd. Zafarullah Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 5.1.2019 by which his claim for appointment as Guest Faculty in the Department of Journalism, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi has been turned down.
The facts which are not in dispute are that the Registrar of the University on 7.7.2018 communicated to the Chairman, Department of Journalism about the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor to the appointment of seven teachers as Guest Faculty in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, which also included the name of the petitioner. Thereafter on 11.8.2018, respondent no.6 who took over charge as Incharge Head of Department informed the Registrar that the petitioner and one Prashant Kumar do not possess the requisite qualification as per U.G.C. norms. She recommended for cancellation of name of petitioner and Prashant Kumar and for approving the rest of the panel. On 16.8.2018, the Chairman, Department of Journalism was communicated that the earlier order dated 7.7.2018 has been cancelled and now a panel of five names as suggested by her has been approved. It did not include the name of the petitioner and Prashant Kumar. The petitioner challenged the same by filing Writ-A No.23785 of 2018 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 14.11.2018 directing respondent no.4 to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Guest Faculty. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been communicated the impugned order passed by Vice Chancellor stating that earlier Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhayay, Head of the Department sent a request for appointment of seven Guest Faculty. He retired on 6.7.2018. Thereafter the present Incharge Head of the Department made request for appointment of only five Guest Faculty, as seven persons are not required. The proposal sent by the Incharge Head of Department was accorded approval and therefore, a panel of only five Guest Lecturers has been notified.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. It is urged that the University initially notified panel of seven persons but without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, his name was excluded and a panel of five persons was notified. Second, it is urged that while notifying panel of five persons out of seven notified earlier, the interse merit has not been considered. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner was excluded without having regard to his merit and other achievements, though the objection taken earlier that he did not possess requisite qualification was not found to be correct.
On 23.4.2019, this Court directed learned counsel for the University to produce the original records relating to appointment of Guest Faculty in the University.
In compliance of the said order, the original records have been placed before this Court. It reveals that the Incharge Head of Department, after retirement of the previous incumbent, by letter dated 11.8.2018 initially raised an objection relating to qualification of the petitioner and Prashant Kumar. Accordingly, the names of petitioner and Prashant Kumar were excluded and only names of five persons was notified by order dated 16.8.2018. It is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent University that after enquiry, the objection relating to lack of requisite qualification by the petitioner was not found to be correct. Thereafter, the Incharge Head of Department in a communication sent to the Registrar mentioned that at present there is no need of employing more than five persons as Guest Faculty. Acting on the same, the Vice Chancellor once again approved the same panel of five persons.
As far as action of the University in reducing the strength of panel on the ground that it does not require more than five Guest Faculty is concerned, the same could not be a matter of judicial review, as it depends on the requirement of the Department which could be best decided by the authorities themselves. However, there is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that while notifying fresh panel, the interse merit of the candidates has not been considered. Learned counsel for the University admits that there is nothing on record to show that interse merit of the candidates was considered while excluding the name of two persons. He also is not in a position to clarify as to what criteria was followed, if any, to assess the interse merit of the candidates. Concededly, when the panel was reduced to five, it was on ground that two candidates did not possess the minimum qualification. Even after the said objection was found to be incorrect, the same panel has been approved without assessing the interse merits of the candidates. Learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that liberty be granted to the Vice Chancellor to re-visit the matter, keeping in mind the interse merits of the candidates.
Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of by directing the Vice Chancellor to re-visit the matter and take decision in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and other persons whose names were placed in the newly notified panel, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 26.4.2019 SL