IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT APPEAL No.3503/2018 (S – RES) Between:
Smt. Punam Kesharwani, W/o Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Aged about 35 years, U7NG Park, Building No.4, ‘B’ Wing, Flat No.404, Rawalpada, Dahir East, Mumbai – 400 058.
(By Sri. A Nagarajappa, Advocate) And :
1. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), An Autonomous Institution of the University Grants Commission, P.B.No.1075, Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru – 560 072.
Represented by its Director.
2. The University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. Represented by its Commissioner.
(By Sri. T.P.Muthanna, Advocate for R1; Sri. H.R.Showri, Advocate for R2) …Appellant ...Respondents This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 28.08.2018 of this Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court made in WP No.35392/2017 [S-RES] and allow the appeal accordingly.
This Writ Appeal coming on for dictating orders this day, Devdas J, Delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant herein calling in question the order dated 28.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35392/2017 (S-RES).
2. It is case of the appellant that in response to the advertisement dated 21.4.2017, issued by the first respondent - National Assessment and Accreditation Council (hereinafter called as ‘NAAC’) for appointment of ten vacant posts of Asst. Advisors and Deputy Advisors respectively, the petitioner made an application.
3. In terms of the recruitment notification, the application was to be submitted on line and accordingly, the appellant submitted the application on line. The grievance of the appellant is that subsequent to the application filed by the appellant, she was not called for interview and not short listed & was not selected.
Questioning the same, the appellant herein approached this Court in W.P.No.35392/2017 (S-RES).
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that non-short listing of the appellant is not in terms of the prescribed guidelines. Therefore, the very action in short-listing, without giving an opportunity was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel while pointing out to the note in the last page of the recruitment notification, with respect to Points 5 and 6, would submit that method of selection was required to be through written test and interview. Mere fulfillment of eligibility will not entitle any candidate for being called for interview. Most stringent criteria including holding of written test may be applied for short listing the candidates to be called for interview. An applicant having higher qualification or merit and securing marks in the written test, may be given preference. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant herein had in fact forwarded all the copies of the certificates through registered post. To substantiate the contention, the acknowledgment for having dispatched the documents/information through registered post has been furnished at Annexure Q wherein it is seen that on 19.5.2017 in the name of the appellant herein, the registered post was forwarded to the Director of NAAC.
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1- NAAC would submit that the above printed format of the application was to be submitted on line and in the last column it has been made clear that printed copy of the application duly signed by the candidate should be posted to NAAC office at Bangalore. Further it is pointed out that since the appellant did not furnish the required information, an e-mail dated 30th May, 2017 was forwarded to the appellant seeking submission of scanned copy of four documents mentioned therein. It was also made clear that the said document should be up loaded on or before 2nd June, 2017 by 5.30 p.m. It is also made clear that in case if it is not received within the aforesaid date, action will be taken on the application as per NAAC rules and the same is liable for rejection. It is therefore, submitted that in the light of the above the appellant did not upload the scanned copies of the documents for verification. Since the appellant did not furnish the required information, there was no question of considering the candidature of the appellant for short listing.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent – NAAC has also furnished guidelines governing the recruitment rules which is in the form of report and the committee constituted by NAAC for framing the guidelines for short-listing of applicants to academic and non-academic posts. In the said guidelines, for academic post, such as Asst. Advisor and Deputy Advisor, it is stated that these are academic posts and there was no need to conduct the written test for that. The recruitment is to be made through the process of interview and method has to be devised for short listing the applicants for these posts. The committee by following the same on the basis of NAAC rules and the method applied by other institution of higher learning, has advised short listing for each posts.
7. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that these guidelines were not brought to the notice of the applicants at the time of recruitment process.
8. On going through the material on record we find that the appellant has approached this Court by filing a writ petition and in the memorandum of writ petition, is bereft to details and is as bald as it could be. The appellant has concealed the fact that she received e-mail from the respondent NAAC. As pointed out by the learned counsel, the e-mail was addressed to the applicant in view of the e-mail ID provided by the applicant along with application on 30.5.2017, providing three days time. The applicant has failed to up-load the scanned copies. The requirement was not to furnish copies by registered post. Even assuming that the applicant had health issues, but that cannot prevent her from uploading the information online. Therefore, the submission of the applicant that she had all the documents, but she could not upload them due to health problem and therefore, she has not been able to comply with the requirement as per recruitment notification cannot be countenanced. Reliance placed on the postal acknowledgement is also of no consequence, since, the postal acknowledgement is dated 19.05.2017, while the e-mail was sent by NAAC on 30.05.2017, requiring uploading of four documents on or before 02.06.2017. The registered post may be of the original application which was required to be forwarded, in terms of the last column in the application form.
9. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE nm