Court upholds University of Rajasthan Assistant Professors' appointment despite illegal selection process. Guidelines issued for future selection.

MRS. REKHA CHATURVEDI Versus. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

MRS. REKHA CHATURVEDI Versus. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. - 1993 (1) SCR 186, 1993 (3) Suppl. SCC 168, 1993 (1) JT 220, 1993 (1) SCALE 93 Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the selection process and qualifications of candidates.
2. Relaxation of minimum required qualifications.
3. Preservation of minutes of the Selection Committee meetings.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the selection process and qualifications of candidates

The petitioner challenged the appointment of six respondents from the General Category as Assistant Professors (Lecturers) in the Department of History at the University of Rajasthan. The University invited applications by advertisement dated 12.10.1983, with the last date for submission being 14.11.1983. The Scrutiny Committee recommended 106 candidates for interview, out of which 65 appeared, and 8 were selected, including the respondents. The minimum qualifications for the post, as per Ordinance 149-B, included a Doctorate degree or equivalent research work and a good academic record with at least a second-class Master's degree. However, the advertisement had slight variations in qualifications. The Court emphasized that qualifications must be judged with reference to the last date for submitting applications, not the date of selection, to avoid arbitrariness and discrimination.

Issue 2: Relaxation of minimum required qualifications

The Court noted that the University or its Selection Committee could relax the minimum required qualifications if specifically stated in the advertisement/notification. However, there was no record of the minutes of the meetings of the Scrutiny Committee to show whether and how the qualifications were relaxed. The affidavit from the University indicated that the minutes were destroyed. The Court held that the selection process was illegal as the qualifications were considered as of the date of selection rather than the last date for applications. Despite this, the Court did not set aside the selections due to the long duration (eight years) since the appointments and the lack of records showing the Committee's considerations.

Issue 3: Preservation of minutes of the Selection Committee meetings

The Court directed that the minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee should be preserved for a sufficiently long time and until any challenge to the selection process is finally disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the minutes are destroyed or claimed unavailable.

Guidelines for Future Selection Process:

1. The University must ensure that advertised qualifications align with those prescribed by its Ordinance/Statutes.
2. Candidates must be qualified as of the last date for applications or a specifically mentioned date in the advertisement/notification.
3. Any relaxation of qualifications must be explicitly stated in the advertisement/notification, along with the conditions for such relaxation.
4. The reasons for any relaxation must be documented in the selection proceedings.
5. Minutes of the Selection Committee meetings must be preserved for a sufficiently long time and until any challenge is resolved.

Conclusion:

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, but the Court directed the University and its Selection Committee to observe the specified norms in all future selections.