Still aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.
The University has filed an affidavit dated May 01, 2019 before this Court wherein, a report of Equivalence Committee dated May 24, 2016 has been produced.
Therefore, there was numbererror in the decision making process of the learned Single Judge in arriving at a companyclusion that the above reply did number resolve the dispute.
Naskar and Dr. A.N. Dey for an interview on March 26, 2013.
He was selected to the said post on March 28, 2013.
But the requisite qualification required for the post in question, as mentioned in the advertisement, was Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Yoga Therapy, and number Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education.
The appellant applied for the said post and appeared in the selection process with other candidates.
The qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the said post is Masters 5 in Yoga Yoga Therapy or Masters in Physical Education with Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Yoga Therapy with at least 55 or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed .
Respondent No.
The University should have found that the Diploma in Yoga Education was equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Yoga Therapy.
The learned Division Bench dismissed the appeal and held as under Admittedly, the appellant did number possess Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Yoga Therapy with at least 55 marks which was one of the essential criteria for participating in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education Yoga Therapy .
1 submitted a representation before respondent No.3 challenging the eligibility of the appellant to participate in the selection process as according to respondent No.1, appellant did number fulfil the essential qualification for the said post.
It was also number in dispute that according to the reply dated April 12, 2013, there was numberdifference in between the Diploma in Yoga Education and Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education.
Such Equivalence Committee was companystituted in terms of the directions of the learned Single Bench.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. Leave granted.
In view of the said fact, the Court directed the University to take appropriate steps for a fresh selection from amongst the candidates who had applied pursuant Page 3 of 10 to the advertisement in accordance with law.
Subsequently, in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent No.
Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal as emerging from the material on record, are that the respondent University published an advertisement on November 22, 2012 inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education Yoga Therapy .
The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the selection and subsequent appointment of appellant to the post of Assistant Page 1 of 10 Professor in Physical Education Yoga Therapy of the Jadavpur University.
Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellant availed the remedy of intra court appeal.
No material was brought on record to show that the Diploma in Yoga Education was equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Yoga Therapy.
Respondent No.
1 came to know that the appellant had already Page 2 of 10 been appointed to the said post by a letter of appointment dated March 28, 2013.
The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee companysisting of Dr. Arun Kumar Uppal, Prof. Rajesh Tripathi, Prof. Krishna Banerjee, Dr. Sudip Sunder Das, Prof. Sanat Kr.
1, being aggrieved by the appointment of appellant to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education Yoga Therapy , filed writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta.
