Dr. M.N. Rajesh v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: a. Issue a writ and / or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to produce the documents pertaining to the eligibility and appointment of Respondent No.2 to the post of Associate Professor in Russian and Central Asian Studies (Unreserved); b. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus quashing the appointment of Respondent No.2 to the post of Associate Professor in Russian and Central Asian Studies (Unreserved) with Respondent No.1; c. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to consider appointment of the petitioner to the Post of Associate Professor in Russian and Central Asian Studies (unreserved); 2017:DHC:4505 d. Alternately issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.1 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor in Russian and Central Asian Studies (unreserved); e. Any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

2. Some of the facts are, the respondent no.1 had issued an advertisement on 17th November, 2012 for certain positions including the position of Associate Professor in Russian and Central Asian studies. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 had applied for the same. The petitioner was called for the interview on 23rd May, 2013. It is contended by Mr. S.S. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the application of the respondent no.2 was initially rejected. But on reconsideration, he was called for the interview and pursuant to the recommendation made by the Committee, respondent no.2 was appointed. Mr. Ray would challenge the appointment of the respondent no.2 primarily on the grounds that (i) respondent no.2 did not achieve the API Score of 300 (ii) the respondent did not have the eligibility of 8 years for being considered for appointment as Associate Professor (iii) he does not have the relevant qualification for the post in question inasmuch as the petitioner has done his Ph.D in International Studies whereas the requirement was in Russian / CAS Studies. In so far as his submission at serial no.

(i) above, that respondent no.2 does not have the API Score of 300 is concerned, he states that in the paper published in Category ‘A’ Journal, India Quarterly ‘Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons’ reporting an International Conference, respondent no.2 awarded himself 35 marks in place of 21 marks. In other words, he has been given the benefit of 14 marks. That apart, the 20 marks given for Research Project, which was not undertaken by the respondent No.2 need to have been deducted from the total marks of 332.5. It is his submission that respondent no.2 has not submitted any proof in support of his presenting papers at National / International Conference for which 82.[5] marks have been allotted. Mr. Ray, would state if 14/20/82.[5] marks are subtracted from the total marks of 332.5, his API Score would be less than 300 and would not have qualified for being appointed as Associate Professor. In so far as the submission at serial no.

(ii) above is concerned, Mr. Ray would draw my attention to page 97 of the paper book, which is part of the application submitted by respondent no.2 wherein he has shown his experience as under: -

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Sl.    Name of Employer      /      Post held/        Period of         Basic Salary last   Nature       of   │
│ No.    Status of Institute   /     Designation       Employment         drawn, pay scale    duties            │
│        University  (Govt.    /                                          and Grade Pay                         │
│        Quasi      Govt.      /                                                                                │
│        Autonomous etc. )                                                                                      │
│                                                  From         To                                              │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  1.       MITHILA UNIV.          LECTURER        Nov, 96 – Sept, 01     8,000 – 13,500       Teaching         │
│                                                                                              Grade            │
│  2.       MAGADH UNIV.           LECTURER        Sept, 01 – Sept, 02    8,000 – 13,500       -Do-             │
│  3.        JNU (RCAS/SIS)        RES.            Sept, 02 – Sept., 05   (On lien)            Fined            │
│                                  ASSOCIATE                              10,700                                │
│  4.       ZAKIR HUSSAIN          LECTURER        Jan, 06 – April, 06    15,600 – 37,000      Teaching         │
│             COLLEGE                                                                          Grade            │
│  5.         DYAL SINGH           ASST. PROF.     Aug, 06 to Conti.      15,600 – 37,000      Teaching         │
│              COLLEGE                                                                         and              │
│                                                                                              Research         │
│                                                                                              Guidance.        │
│        He states between 1992 – 1999, the respondent no.2 was pursuing his Ph.D. That                         │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

AUGUST 17, 2017 jg