Umasankar Saha vs Tripura University And Ors

By means of this writ petition, the appointment of respondent No.4 in the post of the first Finance Officer pursuant to the advertisement No.TU/04/2013 dated 13.11.2013 has been challenged. The respondent No.4 was appointed by the communication issued in pursuance to another communication under No.37-6/2014-Desk(U)(Part) dated 18.01.2017 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India [Annexure-5 to the writ petition]. The said communication by which the petitioner was appointed as the First Finance Officer of Tripura University under No.F.TU/REG/PF-OFCR/09/2007 dated 20.01.2017 was issued by the Registrar, Tripura University. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 had resumed the charge of the First Finance Officer. But the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the selection committee interviewed the candidates for the said post on 07.07.2015 and recommended a panel of names. The said recommendation was sent to the Ministry of Human Resources Development on 05.07.2015 but subsequently, Ministry of Human Resource Development(MHRD) by the letter dated 23.06.2016 had requested the Registrar, Tripura University to send a duplicate copy of the said recommendation. Strangely, on 14.09.2016, the Selection Committee held another meeting in New Delhi at the initiative of Tripura University (TU) and according to the petitioner on culminating of the meeting, they had sent a fresh recommendation. It has been also noted by the petitioner that the selection committee at the time of sending the fresh recommendation had noted that the members of the selection committee could not recall the marks secured by the candidates in the interview held on 04.07.2015, but the committee could recall the name of the topper in the interview. Accordingly, they recommended the name of the respondent No.4 for appointment to the post of the First Finance Officer of Tripura University. The said communication by the Selection Committee to the Ministry of Human Resource Development [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] was sent on 14.09.2016. It is obvious that the respondent No.4 was appointed on the basis of the recommendation send by the selection committee. The petitioner has agitated that the said appointment letter dated 20.01.2017 is illegal. He has, in the course of placing the relevant facts, stated that only four candidates were interviewed.

The petitioner has further asserted that the respondent No.4 did not have the minimum eligibility criterion for educational qualification as he was not having a Masters degree with Commerce with at least 55% marks or did not have a Masters degree with Business Administration (Finance) with at least 55% marks. The respondent No.4 was having PGDM(Post Graduate Diploma in Management) from IIBM, Patna, which is equivalent to MBA as per the certificate of IIBM. That apart, the respondent No.4 does not have specialization in Finance. Thus, his qualification does not conform to the qualification as adverted by the University in the advertisement No.TU/01/2013 dated 20.03.2013 for recruitment. The petitioner has placed the materials as disclosed by Tripura University under Right to Information Act [RTI in short]. By means of disclosure, Tripura University had fundamentally revealed the report of the screening committee whereunder the petitioner, the respondent No.4 and two other candidates were found to be eligible to be called for interview for the post of the said Finance Officer. Even, the part of selection committees minutes has been disclosed by Tripura University wherefrom it appears that the selection committee found all the four candidates as stated above, having eligibility criterion. The eligibility criterion as set by the University were as follows :

"(i) A Master Degree with Commerce or Business Administration(Finance) or comparable equivalent degree in relevant area with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC seven point scale from a recognized University/Institute.

(ii) At least 15 years of experience as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.7000/- and above or with 8 years of service in AGP of Rs.8,000/- and above including as Associate Professor along with experience in educational administration.

Or

Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education.

Or

15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post with experience in Finance and Accounts.

Or

A Commerce graduate and qualified CA/CWA with at least 15 years of work experience in the relevant field of activities.

Note: The minimum requirement of 55% shall not be insisted upon for the Finance Officer, Deputy Finance Officer or its equivalent and for the existing incumbents who are already in the university system. However, these marks should be insisted upon for those entering the system from outside and those at the entry points of Assistant Registrar and its equivalent."

The selection committee thereafter scrutinized the eligibility of all the four candidates including the respondent No.4 and the petitioner. Against the respondent No.4, the following note had been recorded in the minutes of the selection committee :

"Date of birth :01.02.1959

Qualification : B. Com-48.66%, MBA (2 Year Full Time

Regular Course)-69,77%.

Service Experience :

As Officer Grade in Tripura Jute Mills Ltd. From 1987 to 1996; As Audit Officer in Tripura University from February, 1996 to September, 1997; As Finance Officer in School of Management & Faculty of Engineering Tripura Management from June, 2005 to July, 2007; As Deputy Director/Director(Administration) from December, 2002 to March, 2006; As Finance Officer (Officiating) from May, 2006 to July, 2007, As Deputy Finance Officer and Finance Officer (I/C), Tripura University from September, 1997 to till date."

The selection committee on the basis of the comparative merit and performance in the interview held on 04.07.2015 recommend the name of the respondent No.4 and reiterated their recommendation subsequently.

The petitioner has asserted further that there cannot be any recommendation on the basis of 'memory' and as such, the subsequent recommendation is ex facie unsustainable in law. Further, the petitioner has alleged that as per Statute 18(3) of the First Statute, the meeting of the selection committee was not valid, if the visitor's nominee and the person nominated by the executive committee were not present in the said meeting. It has been further stated that from the minutes dated 14.09.2016, it does not appear that the members of the selection committee were present. On scrutiny, this court has found that the names of the members of the selection committee had not been revealed at the time of making the disclosure, perhaps for the reason that there was no requisition or query in respect of the names of the members of the said selection committee.

Thus, it surfaces that the basic ground of objection is that the respondent No.4 did not possess the Master degree in Commerce or MBA(Finance). Hence, he did not have the eligibility to be called in the interview. Accordingly, the petitioner he has the eligibility and hence has the locustandi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.4.

The University-respondents [the Principal-respondents] have filed the reply and they have admitted the fact in respect of requisition of a copy of the recommendation send by the selection committee by the Ministry of Human Resource Development vide the letter dated 23.06.2016 as that was misplaced and was not traceable in the Ministry. A full meeting of the selection committee held on 14.09.2016 and the members of the selection committee recalled that the respondent No.4 was the topper and accordingly, they had reiterated their recommendation. Thereafter, the following averments have been placed in paras-17 and 18 of the reply filed by the University-respondents :

"17. That, the erstwhile Vice-chancellor Shri Anjan Kumar Ghosh completed his tenure in July, 2018 and at the time of handing overall the confidential files and selection committee recommendations etc. an inventory of documents was done which included copy of the recommendation of the selection committee relating to the selection of first Finance Officer of Tripura University. It appears from the inventory list that the copy of selection papers were within the custody of the then Vice-Chancellor and the same would be detected when specific inventory was made. Shri Anjan Kumar Ghosh, the then Vice-Chancellor of the said University, by a letter dated 13.07.2018 sent the copy of the recommendation of the selection committee relating to the selection of first Finance Officer of Tripura University to the Under Secretary MHRD, Government of India.

The Inventory List of documents dated 13.07.2018. the letter dated 13.07.2018 and photocopy of recommendation of Panel List dated 04.07.2015 for appointment of first Finance Officer of Tripura University are collectively annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R-10, R-11 and R-12 respectively."

18) That, a bare perusal of the panel dated 04.07.2015 reveals that out of 100 marks, Shri Ajay Kumar Ram, Dr. Umasankar Saha and Shri Uttam Kumar Das obtained 42, 48 and 63 marks respectively. Therefore, the decision taken in the meeting held on 14.09.2016 to propose the name of respondent No.4 duly corroborates the panel dated 04.07.2015. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the petitioner doe not stand and the said writ petition ought to be dismissed."

The University-respondents have also asserted that no malafide has been alleged against the members of the selection committee by the petitioner. In so far as the eligibility criterion is concerned, it has been asserted by the petitioner that the selection committee has considered the Post Graduate Diploma in Management, which was recognized by the Government of India as equivalent to the Master of Business Administration as equivalent to the Master degree in Business Administration(Finance). Both the screening committee and the selection committee had accepted the Post Graduate Diploma in Management as equivalent to the required management degree as adverted. Now, the recommendation of the panel for appointment of first Finance Officer for Tripura University as adopted in the meeting held on 04.07.2017 [Annexure-R/7] is available before this court to verify the comparative merit as asserted by the selection committee. One of the candidates namely Ajoy Kumar Ram secured 42 out of 100, the petitioner secured 48 out of 100 and Sri Uttam Kumar Das [the respondent No.4] secured 68, out of 100.

The respondent No.4 has separately filed the reply denying all the allegations brought against him. On 14.01.2019, the petitioner filed the rejoinder but did not raise any question regarding the recommendation [Annexure-R/12], but the petitioner as it appears has confined his challenge on the eligibility criterion. On reading of the eligibility criterion as laid down in the advertisement, this court does not have any doubt that unless the equivalence is challenged, the respondent No.4 is to be considered to have had all the eligibility criteria. Without any basis whatsoever, it has been denied that the inventory list [Annexure-R/10] contained a copy of the recommendation dated 04.07.2015, but it has not been denied that a letter dated 13.07.2018 by the Chairman of the Selection committee to the Ministry of Human Resource Development [Annexure-R/11] clearly states of sending one copy of the recommendation of the selection committee. The copy of the recommendation [Annexure-R/12] is also part of the reply filed by the University-respondents. What the University-respondents have contended that with the inventory, they found the copy of the said recommendation. The other allegations are untenable inasmuch as the element of favouritism, has not supported by any content or document. On the basis of such general allegations the recommendation of the selection committee cannot be interfered with.

Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that on the basis of what has been revealed even from the admitted fact, the University-respondents be directed to set aside the appointment of the respondent No.4 and initiate a fresh process of recruitment to the post of the First Finance Officer.

From the other side, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing respectively for the University-respondents and the respondent No.4 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India-respondent have contended that the respondent No.4 has been selected and appointed by following a fair and transparent procedure. There had been no deviation from the eligibility criterion as adverted. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the apex court in Dhananjay Malik and Others versus State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171 to contend that the writ petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection as he did not raise any valid objection during the selection process in respect of non-fulfilment of educational qualifications.

In the considered view of this court, had it been found that the respondent No.4 did not have the required eligibility criterion, the challenge as raised by the petitioner would not have been discarded at the threshold on the ground of estoppel by conduct. Therefore, this objection is not to be taken seriously in the present circumstances.

Having observed thus, we do not find any tenable ground to interfere with the selection of the respondent No.4 and in consequence thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed, however without costs.