GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 24:
1. Heard Mr. P.J Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.C Das, learned Senior Counsel and Standing Counsel, Dibrugarh University for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Ms. T. Wapangla, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
[2.] The case of the petitioner is that she responded to the advertisement issued by the Dibrugarh University on 18.10.2016 for the post of Assistant Professor in Applied Geology. As per the advertisement, the applicant was required to have specialization in Geochemistry/Petroleum Geology. There were many applicants for the post and finally only 07(seven) candidates shortlisted appeared in the interview. Out of the 07(seven) candidates, who appeared for the interview, the respondent No.6 scored the highest marks at 59.54 while the petitioner scored 57.31 marks as the second highest. It is the case of the petitioner that the Selection Committee has been biased in selecting and recommending the respondent No.6 to the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement as per the advertisement was specialization in Geochemistry or Petroleum Geology and although the respondent No.6 did not have any such specialization on the subject, he was given the highest marks and selected for the post. The petitioner on the other hand has a Ph.D in Applied Geology and therefore, preference ought to have been given to her over the respondent No.6. He submits that the Screening Committee could not have ignored the prescription of the advertisement and make a deviation from what was prescribed in selecting appropriate candidate for the post in question. Mr. P.J Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled principle of law that only eligible persons can be considered for selection to a post. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of K. Sekhar -vs- V. Indiramma and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 586.
[3] Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel has also has drawn the attention of this Court to the dictionary meaning of the word "Specialization" as found in the Chambers 28th Century Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. He submits that by the word 'specialization', it means an expert in a particular area of work. The respondent No.6 is only a Master Degree holder and having studied Geochemistry as one of the paper in the Master Degree syllabus and therefore, he cannot be considered to be a person specialized in the subject prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the respondent No.6 should be set aside and the petitioner appointed to the post in question.
[4.] Mr. N.C Das, learned Senior Counsel and Standing Counsel for the Dibrugarh University on the other hand by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University, submits that out of the 17(seventeen) candidates, who applied for the post, 07(seven) candidates were shortlisted for holding of interview and the Selection Committee after conducting the interview, recommended the respondent No.6 for appointment which was then approved by the Executive Council of the University in its 335th meeting. The respondent No.6 was then appointed to the post and he joined the post on 26.07.2017. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Screening Committee upon scrutinizing the applications submitted by the applicants found that none of the candidates had specialization in Geochemistry and therefore, decided to consider those candidates who had Geochemistry as a subject in the M.Sc syllabus.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOCeb0igox4F7Fls%2F3lbpwkp3G5q7gfEyceX9xivvL%2BtM&caseno=WP(C)/7889/2017&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010224382017&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
