Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Mahantesh, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent, Dr. Santosh G. P., as Assistant Professor in the discipline of Food and Industrial Microbiology at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The petitioner also sought quashing of the scorecard (Annexure-E) and the appointment order dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-F). The University had issued a notification calling for applications for various posts, including Assistant Professor, under the University Grants Commission Rules. Both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent applied and were called for interview. The petitioner secured total marks of 67.137, while the 3rd respondent secured 71.95 marks, leading to the selection of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submitted a representation objecting to the appointment, alleging illegality and violation of rules. The court examined the facts and found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules. The court noted that the marks awarded by the expert committee in the interview were based on their assessment and cannot be re-evaluated by the court in writ jurisdiction. The court held that there was no procedural irregularity or illegality in the selection process. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment of the 3rd respondent.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Judicial Review - Selection Process - The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Professor on the ground that the selection was illegal. The court held that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the University Grants Commission Rules and the marks awarded by the expert committee cannot be re-evaluated by the court in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Selection - Marks - Expert Committee - The court observed that the petitioner secured 67.137 marks while the 3rd respondent secured 71.95 marks, and the selection was based on merit. The court declined to interfere with the expert assessment of the interview. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Professor is illegal and contrary to the Rules, and whether the scorecard and appointment order are liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Professor is upheld.
Law Points
- Judicial review of selection process limited to procedural irregularities
- not re-evaluation of marks
- University Grants Commission Rules
- Appointment based on merit
- No interference with expert assessment
