Case title:
Rovins Kumar vs. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga
Date of Order:
30 May 2023
Bench:
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Parties:
Petitioner – Rovins Kumar
Respondent- The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga
SUBJECT
The present writ petition has been filed to quash the appointment of respondent No.5 in Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga (the university), under the orders of the Vice-chancellor.
OVERVIEW
- The Women's Institute of Technology, Darbhanga, was established by the University in 2004.
- The Vice Chancellor of the University is the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Institute, and the Registrar of the University is the Ex-Officio Member of the Managing Committee of the Institute.
- As per guidelines issued by the All India Council of Technical Education, the State Government approved and sanctioned several Class III and IV posts, including that of a librarian.
- On 23.01.2015, an advertisement was published inviting applications for various posts.
- The petitioner applied for the post of librarian as he fulfilled the eligibility criteria.
- Eight candidates, including respondent No.5, were called for interviews. However, the petitioner was not called for the same.
- In response, the petitioner filed a representation on 20.02.2015 requesting that he appear for the interview.
- The petitioner, along with six other candidates, appeared for an interview. However, respondent No.5 was selected for the post.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Librarian in Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, is valid?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- Mr. Sarvdeo Singh and Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan represented the petitioner in this case.
- The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is far more qualified for the most than respondent no.5, and yet the petitioner has been ignored for appointment as Librarian.
- It was contended that respondent no.5 was favored by the university as she is the daughter of P.A. to the Vice Chancellor of the University.
- The counsel further submitted that the appointment was made based on the first interview conducted and not the second interview in which the petitioner and six others participated.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Advocate Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi represented the respondents in the present case.
- Counsel submitted that respondent No. 5 fulfills the eligibility criteria for appointment as prescribed in the advertisement.
- The counsel also noted that, as per the terms of the advertisement, female candidates were to be given preference.
- The cases, Madan Lal and Others v. the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others [(1995) 3 SCC 486], Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, [(2011) 1 SCC 150], and G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, [ (1976) 3 SCC 585] were cited in support of the counsel's arguments.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Patna High Court allowed the writ petition.
- The court found serious discrepancies in the appointment process and held that the selection of respondent No. 5 was not correct in the eyes of the law.
- The court viewed that the respondents' contention that a female candidate is to be given preference is not acceptable.
- It was ruled that when assessment/marking/evaluation of the candidates has not been done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee according to the merit of the candidates, the plea for preference has no meaning.
- The bench concluded by observing that selection to the post of Librarian was not done fairly and hence directed the respondents to make a fresh appointment following the law after allowing all eligible candidates.
CONCLUSION
Fair selection of candidates is critical to any recruitment process. It ensures that all individuals have equal opportunity to be considered for a job or position. The present case deals with an unfair selection owing to personal bias by the recruiting university. The bench consisting of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha delivered that the basic appointment process involves several key steps, such as forming the Selection Committee, establishing the Interview Board, and evaluating the candidates' performance to determine their relative merit. However, in the case at hand, the candidates have not been evaluated on a merit basis, and hence the appointment of respondent No. 5 was quashed.
