Assistant Professor’s Assistant Registrar Bid Fails: P&H HC Says Fresh Administrative-Experience Certificate Came After Deadline

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifying experience for the post of Assistant Registrar.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had not established the requisite qualifying experience within the permitted period and found no infirmity in the authorities’ decision to exclude her candidature.

It also directed

Both writ petitions were dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of private respondents to the post of Assistant Registrar at the respondent-University, seeking appointment according to merit and an investigation into alleged irregularities.

pp. 2–3

The advertisement required a Master’s degree/LLB or specified engineering qualification, together with five years’ experience as an Assistant Professor and experience in educational administration, or an alternative specified experience.

p. 7

The petitioner’s experience certificate submitted with her application showed service as an Assistant Professor but did not mention educational-administration experience.

pp. 7–8

After the Scrutiny Committee identified deficiencies and the University extended the deadline for supplying documents to 20 February 2019, the petitioner submitted a new certificate on 25 February 2019.

pp. 8–10

The Court heard the petitioner’s two connected writ petitions together.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifying experience for the post of Assistant Registrar.

pp. 7–8

ii.Whether the University acted unlawfully in declining to consider the petitioner’s later experience certificate, submitted after the extended deadline.

pp. 8–10

iii.Whether the selection process disclosed any basis to set aside the private respondents’ selection or grant the petitioner appointment.

pp. 2–6, 9–10

03Law Applied

The Court applied the eligibility criteria stated in the recruitment advertisement, including the requirement of five years’ relevant experience and experience in educational administration for the specified Assistant Professor route.

p. 7

It stated that the terms and conditions of an advertisement bind both candidates and the Selection Committee.

p. 9

The Court also considered the University’s published opportunity to cure documentary deficiencies by the prescribed deadline.

pp. 8–9

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the reasoning; the petitions were brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 2

04Reasoning

The certificate initially filed by the petitioner, and the same certificate resubmitted after the Scrutiny Committee’s observations, did not establish educational-administration experience.

pp. 8–10

Although the University allowed candidates to submit deficient documents by 20 February 2019, the petitioner’s later certificate was dated and submitted on 25 February 2019, after that deadline.

p. 10

The Court therefore found no illegality in the authorities’ refusal to consider it.

p. 10

It also rejected the petitioner’s assertion that respondent No. 4 had not been called for interview, noting that his roll number appeared in the revised interview notice.

p. 9