Preferring A Female Candidate As Per Advertisement Isn’t Acceptable Contention: Patna HC Quashes Appointment Of Librarian
The Patna High Court has quashed the appointment of a librarian on the ground that the contention that a female candidate was to be given preference as per the advertisement is not acceptable.
A Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha held, “The basic procedure for appointment, i.e. constitution of the Selection Committee, constitution of the Interview Board, assessment/marking done by the Interview Board of the candidates for the purpose of deciding the inter se merit has also not been done. As such, the contention of the respondents that as per the advertisement, the female candidate was to be given preference is not acceptable, inasmuch as the ‘preference’ connotes that other thing being equal, the women candidate shall be given preference.”
The Bench observed that when assessment/marking/evaluation of the candidates has not been done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee of the respective inter se merit of the candidates, the plea of preference has no meaning.
Advocate Sarvdeo Singh appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate Ajay Behari Sinha and Advocate Iqbal Asif Niazi appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
A plea was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the appointment of respondent no. 5 on the post of Librarian pursuant to an advertisement published by Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga under the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the said university. The Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women’s Institute of Technology being affiliated with the said university created posts as per the guidelines issued by the All India Council of Technical Education which was approved by the State Government.
The post of Librarian was also sanctioned and approved and hence an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including the single post of Librarian in the institute was published. The petitioner claimed to be a Master of Library and Information Science and fulfilling the eligibility criteria for appointment, also applied for the post of Librarian, along with other candidates, and a total of eight candidates were called for the interview including respondent no. 5. However, the name of the petitioner did not appear in the list of selected applicants and on filing representation was allowed to appear for the interview but finally the respondent no. 5 was selected for the said post.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “The attendance sheet of the candidates, including the petitioner, who were called for interview on 24.02.2015, merely contains their signatures on that sheet and neither scrutiny with regard to their education qualification and experience has been done on 24.02.2015 nor there is any column of remarks/marks, as in the case of seven candidates, including the respondent no. 5. The attendance sheet of 24.02.2015 only shows that the petitioner was present on the date of the interview.”
The Court had during the argument put a pointed query to the counsel for the respondents as to who were the members of the Selection Committee and how many members were there in the Interview Board, but no reply came forward from their side.
“The evaluation/marking done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee has also not been brought before this Court. There is no relevant document on the record of this case to show the constitution of Selection Committee/ Interview Board and/or the assessment/marking done by the Interview Board during the process of interview of the respective candidates. The merit list does not contain the inter se merit of the candidates and their performance in the interview is also not available on the record”, said the Court.
The Court further noted that the selection and appointment on the post of Librarian was not done in a fair manner and also agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the said appointment was made for extraneous consideration.
“Pursuant to the order, dated 25.09.2019, the respondent no. 5 has not been working as Librarian in the Institute. … Taking into consideration the above mentioned discussion, I come to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner is correct that there was serious discrepancy in the process of appointment. … The regularization of the respondent no. 5 on the post of Librarian is also quashed, with liberty to the respondents to make fresh appointment on the post of Librarian in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to all eligible candidates.”, held the Court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea and quashed the appointment of the librarian.
Cause Title- Rovins Kumar v. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga & Ors.
