AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned C.G.C appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5, Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.8,9,16 & 27, Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.13,15,24 & 29, Mr. R.K.P Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.19,21 & 23, Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.14,20,30 & 31 and Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel vice Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.12.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have primarily challenged the selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in the National Institute of Technology, [the NIT in short], Agartala pursuant to the interview held on 09.03.2010, 10.03.2010 and 11.03.2010. They have also challenged the related and the consequential notifications in this regard. The petitioners have alleged of foul play in the selection process at the behest of the respondents No.6 & 7. After scanning of those materials, it appeared that both the petitioners were the members of the Board of Governors'' [BOG in short] which had confirmed the selection process. However, while the said recommendation of the selection committee was being considered, the petitioners were requested to abstain from the meeting as they were the candidates for the post of Professor in the department of Mechanical Engineering. Only thereafter, the recommendation of the selection committee was opened and the BOG approved the panels according to the merit and category wise. The petitioners in this writ petition have stated that the well-laid procedures were violated. Even before the approval of the BOG, the list was published by the notice dated 31.03.2010, Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The petitioners have further averred in the writ petition as under:
"Moreover, in the earlier note dated 11.03.2010 brought out by the Chairman of the selection committees and in the notice dated 31.03.2010, there is no trace of these 9 candidates. How these 9 candidates got into the notification is under cloud. This has made the petitioner, therefore, reason to believe that there is flagrant violation of fair play in the selection and appointment of Assistant professor, Associate Professor and Professors in pursuance of interview held on 9th, 10th and 11th March, 2010."
The petitioners are the Associate Professors in the NIT. They had also applied for the post of Professor as they had the eligibility for the said post. In Para-14 of the writ petition, it has been asserted by the petitioners thus:
"because of unfair play and irregularities in the selection process, they have been denied fair consideration for promotion to the post of Professor, and therefore against the unfair play and irregularity in the selection process, the petitioners made Demand Notices dated 25.04.2013 and 19.05.2013 in details and asked not to make any upliftment either by CAS or direct recruitment to the persons recruited in pursuance of interview dated 9th to and 11th March, 2013. But instead of disposing the said Demand Notices the respondent authority have taken initiative to provide them appointment and promotion to their higher post either by CAS or direct recruitment. In such situation, the petitioners pray for an interim direction restraining the respondent authority from providing any appointment/promotion to higher post/grade and CAS benefits to respondents No.8 to 32 pending disposal of the writ petition."
Beyond this, no materials or any foundation has been laid for challenging the non-selection of the petitioners as the Professor. The petitioners have challenged, as it appears, the selection and appointment in the posts of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in which they do not have any claim and thus, the petitioners did not have any standing to approach this court by filing this writ petition seeking the relief as aforesaid.
In reply to the Para-14 of the writ petition, the NIT-respondents have categorically stated that no upliftment either by Career Advancement Scheme [CAS] or direct recruitment to any person came in existence in the post of Professor after the demand notice dated 25.04.2013 and 19.05.2013 were served. They denied that there was irregularity in the selection process. So far the allegation of publishing the notice dated 31.03.2010 before the recommendation of the selection committee got approved by 14th Meeting of the BOG which was held on 06.04.2010 is concerned, the NIT-respondents have stated that the date was mentioned in the notice as 31.03.2010 by mistake and no common merit list was published before the recommendation of the selection committee got approved on 06.04.2010. The NIT-respondents have categorically stated in their reply that the selection committee was constituted as per the provisions of NIT Act, 2007 and the First Statutes comprising of the Visitor''s nominee, two subject experts, representative of the Board and Director as Chairman, Head of the Department concerned for the posts other than Professor. The constitution of the selection committee for recruitment and appointment was done as per the provisions of the statute. Thereafter, as per the recommendation, the appointments were made and there was no scope even to consider the appointment of the petitioners in the post of Professor. So far the allegations of irregularities, as alleged, are concerned in respect of the posts like Assistant Professor or Associate Professor, the petitioners does not have any locus standi and hence, they cannot maintain this writ petition in view of the decision of the apex court in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 119, where it has been observed that "in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person i.e. non-appointee to assail the legality of the offending action. Third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Only public law declaration would be made at the behest of the petitioner, a public spirited person." As the NIT-respondents have clearly stated that no appointment was made or even considered for recruitment to the post of Professor of the concerned branch, the petitioners did not have any locus to move this court challenging the selection and appointment in those posts with which they are not concerned, as there exists no reason for the petitioners to be aggrieved by the selection or appointment of the private respondents. Similarly, in B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees'' Association and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731(II), the apex court had occasion to observe as under:
"It is settled law by a catena of decisions that Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 119 was pleased to hold that the evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates would not be gone into a public interest litigation and only in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person, it may be open to be considered. It was also held that in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person that is the non- appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the action and that third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Further, it was declared that only public law declaration would be made at the behest of public spirited person coming before the Court as a petitioner having regard to the fact that the neither of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were or could have been candidates for the post of Managing Director of the Board and the High Court could not have gone beyond the limits of quo warranto so very well delineated by a catena of decisions of this Court and applied the test which could not have been applied even in a certiorari proceedings brought before the Court by an aggrieved party who was a candidate for the post."
The petitioners have failed to produce any material in the writ petition to show that they were denied appointment to the post of Professor illegally. That apart, the NIT-respondents have categorically stated that no appointment has been made in the post of Professor in the branch where the petitioners are supposed to be considered and hence, this writ petition is untenable and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.