LexG.N. NAYAK versus GOA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y A G.N. NAYAK v. GOA UNIVERSITY ~ND ORS. ')l. JANUARY 29, 2002 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.] Service Law: Selection-Post of Professor in Marine Science-Minimum and additional -< c qualifications prescribed with experience in teaching and/or research- Inclusion of pre-doctoral research in calq1lating experience-Amendment in qualifications and constitution of Selection Commil/ee contrary to Statutes- Bias--Method of assessment of candidates by Selection Commillee-Allegation of-Held, it is for the University to decide the type of research required for D qualification-Plea of amendment in qualifications cannot be raised since interviews were al/ended by candidates without protest-On facts, there is no violation in constitution of Selection Commillee-On facts, no bias-Method . .., of assessment adopted by Selection Commi/tee unanimously, must be respected------Goa University Act, 1984. "- '> E In August 1994, respondent-University issue<t an advertisement for the post of Professor, Marine Science prescribing minimum and additional qualifications. The minimum qualification, stated in two limbs, was as follows: "An eminent scholar with public work of high quality actively .. F engaged in research with 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching and/or research at the University/National level Institution including experience of guiding research at doctoral level (OR) an outstanding scholar with established reputation with significant contribution to knowledge." G Apt-1ellant and respondent 5, who were Readers in Department of Marine Science, applied for the post. Both were called for interview. Meanwhile, respondent 2, who is the Head of the Department, wrote a note - to Vice Chancellor and Dean of Faculty of the University for early holding of the interview since the appellant, who was a dedicated and intelligent H faculty, had received an appointment letter from another University for 636 • G.N. NAY AK v. GOA UNIVERSITY 637 a similar post. Respondent 5, who obtained a copy of the note, objected A to the participation of respondent 2 and the Dean of the Faculty to the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of the University in Selection Committee apprehending bias in favour of the appellant. Since no reply was forthcoming, respondent 5 filed a Writ Petition before High Court for the same. The Writ Petition was, however, withdrawn. Respondent 2 was not in the Selection Committee. Neither the appellant nor respondent 5 were B found suitable for the post. In October 1995, another advertisement was issued for the post keeping the same minimum qualifications while amending the additional · qualifications. A fresh Selection Committee was constituted which included C respondent 2. The Committee recommended the appointment of the appellant. Respondent 5 filed another writ petition before the High Court challenging the selection of the appellant. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the selection of the appellant. The High Court held that the eligibility criteria! had been illegally amended by University contrary to the Statutes of the University; that the appellant was not D qualified and did not possess the essential qualifications for the post; that the Selection Committee was not legally constituted; that the selection process was vitiated by bias; and that no proper records were maintained disclosing inter-se grading among the candidates. In appeal to this Court, the appellant, raising a preliminary E objection, contended that respondent 5, after withdrawing the earlier writ petition without liberty to file a fresh application on the same cause of action, cannot be permitted to re-agitate the identical issues again. The appellant held that he fulfils the prescribed minimum qualifications laid down under the first limb if his three-year pre-doctoral research is counted F besides his teaching experience. Respondent 5 contended that the amendment of the qualifications in the second advertisement for the post was illegal since the amendment had neither been prescribed by the t:xecutive Council nor recommended by the Academic Council and are contrary to the Statutes framed under G the Goa University Act, 1984; and that the Selection Committee was not legally constituted under the Statutes. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The phrase 'research at the University/National level H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.