HC directs CUK to go ahead with finalization of selection of AP Economics

11/11/2018

JAMMU, NOV 10: In a petition filed by Dr Showkat Anwar Bhat seeking directions to quashes the panel of experts who have conducted interview for the post of Assistant Professor Economics with further direction to constitute fresh penal in accordance with the UGC regulations; and also seeking quashing the short listing of private respondent to the extent of inclusion private respondent as he is not entitled to points for publication acquired after cutoff dated and 2 points in presence of NET and 3 points in presence of JRF, as NET and SLET are alternate eligibility test.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey of J&K High Court after hearing both the sides observed that no selection is made on the basis of the process initiated in terms of the advertisement notice dated 28th of April, 2017, issued by the respondent University, therefore, there cannot, at this stage, be any challenge thrown to the selection process, what has not been taken to its logical conclusion. The grounds of challenge, as taken in the writ petition by the petitioner, against the application of selection criteria as also against the inclusion of expert members without any approval from the statutory body, cannot be looked into by this Court, at this stage at least, as the selection process in question is yet to culminate and there is nothing before the Court which could give cause to the petitioner for taking all these grounds. In the event, the Court, at this stage, returns any finding on the grounds taken by the petitioner challenging the selection process, the same shall seriously prejudice the cause of both, the petitioner as well as the selected candidate. In this backdrop, the Court feels it necessary and in the interests of justice, to desist from returning any finding on the grounds taken in the petition, as otherwise, same will result in depriving the selected candidate, who may be selected on the basis of the criteria in vogue, of providing him opportunity of being heard.
Justice Magrey further observed that it needs must be said that merely because a particular member has been associated with the selection committee does not give the teeth to the petitioner to claim bias on the part of such a member against any particular candidate, that too, without there being any material to substantiate so. It is only after culmination of the selection process, when the final selection list is issued by the respondents, that the petitioner, if aggrieved, can raise all these grounds as regards the loopholes, if any, having been resorted to by the respondents in the process. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved of the final selection made by the respondents, he shall be at liberty to challenge the selection of the selected candidate on the grounds taken in the petition as also by substantiating the same with further grounds.
With these observations, High Court is of the considered view that the writ petition on hand, at this stage, is premature as none of the rights of the petitioner has been violated in view of the fact that the result of the selection process, in question, is yet to be finalized/ declared. It being so, the writ petition, alongwith connected IA(s), is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, in force as on date shall stand vacated. The respondent University shall go ahead, finalize and publish the selection process.
However, it is made clear that mere dismissal of the writ petition, as above, shall not form an impediment for the petitioner to challenge the selection of the selected candidate, if aggrieved, on the grounds taken in this writ petition coupled with further grounds as may be available to him. JNF

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty