Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Mohamad Lateef Ahmed, was a Head of Department of Urdu at Government College of Arts and Science, Aurangabad. He applied for the post of Professor of Urdu at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University pursuant to an advertisement dated 7/7/2004. The interview was held on 21/12/2005, and respondent No.2, Dr. Mohamad Gayasuddin, was appointed. The petitioner challenged the appointment on grounds of procedural irregularities, including improper constitution of the expert committee, lack of transparency in evaluation, and failure to follow UGC Regulations and University Ordinances. The court examined the composition of the expert committee and found that it did not include the required number of external experts as per UGC Regulations. The court also noted that the marks awarded to candidates were not disclosed, and the selection process lacked transparency. The court held that the appointment of respondent No.2 was illegal and set it aside, directing the university to conduct a fresh selection process in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The court emphasized that selection processes must be transparent and strictly follow statutory regulations to ensure fairness.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Procedural Irregularities - UGC Regulations, 2000 and University Ordinances - The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.2 as Professor of Urdu on the ground that the selection process was not transparent and did not follow the prescribed procedure. The court found that the expert committee was not properly constituted as per UGC Regulations and the University failed to follow its own ordinances. Held that the appointment was illegal and set aside, directing fresh selection (Paras 1-30). B) Service Law - Selection Process - Constitution of Expert Committee - UGC Regulations, 2000 - The court examined the composition of the expert committee and found that it did not include the required number of experts from outside the university as per UGC norms. The selection was therefore vitiated. Held that the committee must be constituted strictly in accordance with regulations (Paras 15-25). C) Service Law - Transparency - Evaluation of Candidates - University Ordinances - The court noted that the marks awarded to candidates were not disclosed and the selection was not based on a fair and transparent evaluation. The petitioner was not given a fair opportunity. Held that the selection process lacked transparency and was liable to be set aside (Paras 20-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of respondent No.2 as Professor of Urdu was made in accordance with the prescribed procedure and UGC Regulations, and whether the selection process was vitiated by procedural irregularities.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the appointment of respondent No.2, and directed the university to conduct a fresh selection process for the post of Professor of Urdu in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Law Points
- Selection process must be transparent and in accordance with statutory regulations
- UGC Regulations and University Ordinances must be strictly followed
- Expert committee must be properly constituted
- Candidates must be evaluated on prescribed criteria
- Appointment made in violation of procedure is liable to be quashed
