Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Nitin Jaglal Untwal, filed a writ petition under Articles 14, 16, and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.6, Dy. Y.V. Ramanna Murthy, to the post of Associate Professor of Management (Finance) at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad. The petitioner claimed that he was qualified with a Ph.D., MBA (Finance), and MA (Economics), and had cleared the UGC State Eligibility Test in Commerce and Management in 2013 and 2016 respectively. He had teaching experience of about 9.5 years, including four years as Associate Professor. He applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.08.2021 issued by respondent No.5 for eight posts, including the post in question. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.6 did not possess the requisite Ph.D. degree as per UGC Regulations and that the selection process was biased and arbitrary. The respondents, including the Union of India, UGC, State of Maharashtra, and the University, defended the selection, stating that the selection committee had duly considered all candidates and found respondent No.6 suitable based on his qualifications and experience. The court analyzed the scope of judicial review in selection matters, emphasizing that courts should not sit in appeal over the decisions of expert selection committees unless there is clear mala fides or procedural irregularity. The court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of bias or that the selection committee acted arbitrarily. The court held that mere eligibility does not confer a right to appointment, and the selection committee is the best judge of suitability. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality in Public Employment - Articles 14, 16, 226 of the Constitution of India - Judicial Review of Selection Process - The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 on grounds of alleged lack of qualifications and bias. The court held that the selection committee's decision, based on comparative merit and suitability, is not open to judicial review unless the petitioner demonstrates mala fides or procedural irregularity. Mere eligibility does not confer a right to appointment. (Paras 1-20) B) Service Law - Appointment - Eligibility vs. Suitability - UGC Regulations, 2018 - The petitioner contended that respondent No.6 did not possess the required Ph.D. degree as per UGC norms. The court found that the selection committee considered the qualifications and experience of all candidates and found respondent No.6 suitable. The court held that the selection committee is the best judge of suitability, and the court cannot substitute its own assessment. (Paras 10-18) C) Administrative Law - Bias - Allegation of Bias Against Selection Committee - The petitioner alleged bias without any material evidence. The court held that mere allegations of bias, unsupported by evidence, cannot vitiate a selection process. The burden lies on the petitioner to prove bias. (Paras 15-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Associate Professor of Management (Finance) at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad, was arbitrary, illegal, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference under Article 226.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to appointment
- eligibility vs. suitability
- judicial review of selection process
- scope of Articles 14
- 16
- 226 of Constitution of India
- UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications
- burden of proof on petitioner to establish arbitrariness
