Patna High Court Quashes Librarian's Appointment, Says Plea Of Preference To Female Candidate Has No Meaning When Others Merit Not Considered

While interpreting a clause in the recruitment advertisement which stated that preference had to be given to female candidates, the Patna High Court observed that the plea of preference to a female candidate would have no meaning when merit of other candidates have not at all been considered and such female candidate has been directly appointed.

The court made the observation while quashing the appointment and regularization of a woman candidate on the post of Librarian in the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women’s Institute of Technology. The court granted the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, a liberty to make fresh appointment on the post of Librarian in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to all eligible candidates. 

“As such, the contention of the respondents that as per the advertisement, the female candidate was to be given preference is not acceptable, inasmuch as the ‘preference’ connotes that other thing being equal, the women candidate shall be given preference. When assessment/marking/evaluation of the candidates have not been done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee of the respective inter se merit of the candidates, the plea of preference has no meaning,” a bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha held.

The court was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of the appointment of the female candidate to the post of Librarian, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Women’s Institute of Technology which is affiliated to the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.

The petitioner, who was himself a candidate in the selection process and had been working as a Librarian in the Institute since 2007 on Class-III post on contract basis, raised a three point challenge against the appointment of the said female candidate.

Firstly, he contended that despite working in the Institute since 2007 and carrying out the work of the Librarian, he was ignored for appointment and a less qualified candidate was selected to the post. Secondly, he contended that the selection of the said female candidate was for extraneous considerations as she was the daughter of the P.A. to the Vice Chancellor of the University and was accordingly favored.

Finally, he pointed out that the interview for the selection to the post was held on two dates, i.e. 20-02-2015 and 24-02-2015. The petitioner and several others had appeared in the interview on 24-02-2015. While the female candidate, who was finally selected, had appeared in the interview on 20-02-2015 along with some other candidates, the court was told. He contended that the selection was made only on the basis of the evaluation of the interviews held on 20-02-2015 as the evaluation sheet only shows the names of the candidates who appeared on 20-02-2015 and those candidates who appeared on 24-02-2015 were not considered at all as their names did not find any mention in the evaluation sheet.

However, the university contended that the female candidate fulfils the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Librarian, as prescribed in the advertisement, and she was given preference based on the terms of the advertisement.

While referring to the attendance sheet of all the appearing candidates, the bench observed that scrutiny was done with regards to those candidates who had appeared on 20-02-2015. However, the bench further observed, “The attendance sheet of the candidates, including the petitioner, who were called for interview on 24.02.2015, merely contains their signatures on that sheet and neither scrutiny with regard to their education qualification and experience has been done on 24.02.2015 nor there is any column of remarks/marks.”

The court further observed that the University did not disclose the names of the members of the Selection Committee and how many members were there in the Interview Board despite being asked to do so. The court also noted that the evaluation/marking done by the Interview Board/Selection Committee was also not brought on record.

“There is no relevant document on the record of this case to show the constitution of Selection Committee/ Interview Board and/or the assessment/marking done by the Interview Board during the process of interview of the respective candidates. The merit list does not contain the inter se merit of the candidates and their performance in the interview is also not available on the record,” the bench noted.

The bench held that the appointment on the post of Librarian was not done in fair manner and the contention of the petitioner, that the candidate who was finally appointed to the post was based on extraneous considerations, was indeed correct.

“The basic procedure for appointment, i.e. constitution of the Selection Committee, constitution of the Interview Board, assessment/marking done by the Interview Board of the candidates for the purpose of deciding the inter se merit has also not been done,” the bench further observed.

Case Title: Rovins Kumar vs. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga and Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6203 of 2016

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan

For the University : Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi

For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suryakant Kumar Mr. Neeraj Raj

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment