Dr. Abhay Kumar v. Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Anr.

1. Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the action of the respondent no.1/University in not calling him for the interview for the post of an Associate Professor. Petitioner claims that he has not been called although he has the necessary eight years experience. This requirement of 2013:DHC:5612 eight years experience is expressed in the following words as per the advertisement:- “3. A minimum of eight years experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University/College or Accredited Research Institution, excluding the period of doctoral research with some distinction in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of a minimum of five publications as books and/or research/policy papers.” A reading of the aforesaid requirement shows that eight years experience can be either of teaching or part of the period can be academic/research position equivalent to an Assistant Professor.

2. Petitioner has shown his alleged compliance by filing the document at page 86 which shows the experience of 2 years 10 months and 14 days of teaching in Apeejay Saraswati P.G. College for Girls at Charkhi Dadri in Haryana. When asked to point out experience of balanced period to total upto eight years, counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw benefit of the certificate of the respondent no.1-University itself filed at page 87. When we see this certificate (in vernacular language) it is found that the said certificate only talks of research as a post doctoral fellow. It is not stated in this certificate that the research as a post doctoral fellow is the research position equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor in a University, and which is the requirement of experience in terms of the advertisement.

3. I may also state that total of aforesaid two periods would work out to 7 years and 10 months and therefore for the balance period of two months petitioner has filed a certificate at page 88 dated 11.12.2012 of two months experience in Indian Social Institute. Once again when we refer to the certificate it only shows that the petitioner has worked for two months as a Research Associate without in any manner this certificate specifying that the research is at a position equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor. Therefore, petitioner in my opinion has not satisfied this Court that he met the requirement of eight years experience.

4. I may state that I have only gone on the aspect of eight years experience and not on the other requirements as stated in the advertisement, and it is not known as to whether petitioner met those other qualifications or not, and whether petitioner has been rejected on grounds other than requirement of eight years experience. This I am stating because when the counsel for the petitioner was put a query that how the petitioner was stating that it was only because of lacking in eight years experience that petitioner was not called for the interview, counsel for the petitioner could not point out any document of the respondent no.1/University that petitioner is not being called only on account of lacking in eight years experience. It is therefore perfectly possible that petitioner may not be meeting other requirements as per the advertisement for the post of Associate Professor, however, on this aspect I do not say so finally in one way or the other.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

OCTOBER 31, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne