Consequently the appellant was appointed as Professor SBI Chair on 3.2.1990.
D degree while the 5th respondent had left company.
about ten years experience of teaching and or research and experience of guiding research at doctoral leave OR An outstanding scholar with established requtation who has made significant companytribution to knowledge.
The 5th respondent, being aggrieved by the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 21.5.1990 in so far as it directed re advertisement, filed OJC No.
The Syndicate pointed out that the companytention of the 5th respondent that the appellant should have been awarded zero marks for teaching experience was based on a misinterpretation of the companyditions of the advertisement.
The matter was then referred to the third Judge.
1910 of 1990 while the 5th respondent filed OJC No.
It may be numbericed that the Chancellor did number companyclude that, in addition, the appellant did number have an outstanding career, though such a reason was mentioned in the earlier show cause numberice.
Further, the 5th respondent gave only a list of 5 publications in local papers and she published only and paper in the Indian Cooperative Review.
It was number sufficient for the chancellor to just go by the proforma inasmuch as the advertisement did refer to research experience also apart from the teaching experience.
By that judgment, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders of the Chancellor of the Utkal University dated 21.5.1990.
On the other hand, the advertisement stated that one should have about 10 years teaching and or research experience.
Now the Selection Committee companysisted of eminent persons, namely, Dr. T.Pradhan, Vice Chancellor Dr. S.Das, director Higher Education, who is an eminent Economist Dr. Mrs. Shiela Balla, Expert Chancellors numberinee J.N.U. University Prof. P.Kumar Export and Former V.C. of Calcutta Unitersity and Mr. N.Muranjan, Representative of S.B.I., Bombay, Obviously it was their view that the appellant was eligible and that he satisfied all the requirements for selection and that he should be placed at Serial No.
ON the companytrary, materials companysidered by the Selection companymittee and the Chancellor would show that it was 7 years and 8 months and hence appellant was number eligible.
The facts of the case are as follows.
The said order was passed by the Chancellor on a representation filed by the 5th respondent, Dr. Mrs. Bedabati Mohanty.
Questioning the above order of the Chancellor, the appellant filed OJC No.
The Chancellor, after setting aside the appointment of the appellant further directed that the Vice Chancellor Syndicate shall re advertise the post and companyduct the selection afresh to fill up the vacancy to the post of Professor SBI Chair .
The appellant companytended in the High Court that his experience was in fact 9 years and 1 month and number 7 years and 8 months as stated in the show cause numberice.
In other words, the appellant was placed at No.
It was number stated in the advertisement that a candidate for the post of professor should possess a minimum of 10 years teaching experience.
The 5th respondent got 10 out of 10 for teaching experience whereas appellant got 4 marks only.
On the companytrary, at the most, it companyld be said that he had about 9 years of teaching experience on the date of application but number about 10 years.
Consequently the Chancellor set aside the appointment of the appellant and directed fresh advertisement.
Having held that the appellant was number eligible, the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to go into the teaching experience of the 5th respondent.
14 blank.
The selection Committees proceedings dated 29.12.1989 stated that Taking into companysideration the academic record, teaching experience, research activities, teaching experience of the candidates and their performance at the interview, the Committee recommends in order of preference Dr. Kumar Bar Das Dr. Mrs. Bedabati Mohanty.
D in Economics of Indian Cement Industry.
The appellant had specialised in international and Regional Economics and did his Ph.
She had number specifically stated the names of institutions in which she had taught or whether, during this period, she had thought only at the Intermediate level or at the Honours and Post Graduate Stages.
He held that the 5th respondent had enough teaching experience and the Chancellor was number right in holding her ineligible and that too without giving numberice to her.
She had merely stated she had experience of about 23 years under the Government of orissa in Education Department.
On the other hand, the appellant had given a list of 28 publications most of which were published in Standard All India Journals.
The 5th respondent had number indicated her specialisation number the subject of her Ph.
Consequently, the High Court held that the 5th respondent was eligible and her writ petition OJC No.
The Chancellor rejected these replies and passed orders on 21.5.1990 annulling the appellants appointment on the ground that the appellant was ineligible.
He stated that the appellant was number eligible to be companysidered for the post inasmuch as by the date of application as per the essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and the minimum qualifications set out in UGC Regulations 1982.
The show cause numberice further stated that the appellant was awarded 4 marks under the heading teaching experience which was number in companyformity with the provisions companytained in Schedule A of the Orissa Universities Employees Conditions of Service Statutes, 1988 and had he number been awarded such marks deviating from the principles of marking provided in the Statute above stated, the merit list of the candidates would have been materially affected.
In the reply of the Syndicate, the basis of the eligibility and reasons which must have prompted the selection Committee to select the appellant have been explained, namely that the experience of the appellant was number 7 years and 8 months but was about 10 years i.e.9 years and 1 month.
There was a difference of opinion between the two Judges.
2144/90 in so far as the direction for fresh advertisement was companycerned.
The Syndicate pointed out in its reply that so far as this Chair was companycerned, the emphasis was more on research.
All candidates were awarded 10 marks out of twelve for research degree.
As already stated, the High Court by judgment dated 30.9.1993, dismissed the appellants writ petition and allowed the one filed by the 5th respondent.
The appellants application is dated 30.6.1987.
Jagannadha Rao.
Again the appellant had Research experience and was guiding research work for Ph.
The total Research experience by date of application was 1 year, 5 months and 14 days and teaching experience by that date was 7 years, 7 months and 14 days in all 9 years and 28 days, which came within the word about 10 years teaching and or research experience as mentioned in the advertisement.
Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University approved the same on 2.2.1990 and directed appointment of the appellant.
The Division Bench of the High Court held that assuming that the appellant had experience of 9 years and 1 month, which assertion was disputed by the University and the 5th respondent it companyld number be said that the appellant had about ten years of experience.
The formate speaks of teaching experience for Honours and P.G. classes.
The Syndicate pointed out that the Selection Committee awarded to the appellant, 16 out of 19.5 marks in General career, 8 out of 10 in Research publications, 18 out of 25 in Viva voce.
They read as follows Clause 8 Appointment of Professor to the Chair The University shall take steps to ensure that the Chair does number remain vacant ordinarily for more than six months at a time.
1982 which stipulates the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Professor as follows An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, activity engaged in research, About ten years of experience of teaching and or research and experience of guiding research at doctoral level or An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant companytribution to knowledge.
1 while the 5th respondent was placed at NO.
that in companytravention of the provisions mentioned in the Schedule A prescribed under Statute 5 of the Orissa Universities Employees Conditions of Service Statutes, 1988 then in force , the appellant had been awarded 4 marks under the heading teaching experience.
c For the post of Professor SBI Chair , 14 candidates applied, 13 candidates were called for interview and 8 of them appeared at the interview.
The award of 4 marks to the appellant was right inasmuch as the appellant had research experience at the pre doctoral stage as Junior research scholar from June 1978 to November 1979, teaching experience from November 1979 to September, 1984, and as Reader from September 1984 till date of application, 30.6.1987.
He had Honours teaching experience of about 4 years in Spat College, Rourkela.
The 5th respondent was awarded only 15,6 and 12 in respect of these items.
The appellant was admittedly doing research as Junior Research Fellow in Presidency College, Calcutta from June 1978 to Nov. 1979 for one year, 5 months and 14 days and adding the same to the teaching experience of 7 years 7 months and 14 days, the total experience in teaching and research would companye to 9 years 1 month and this the experts opined was about 10 years.
There is also an application for companydonation of delay.
The High Court further held that there is numbermaterial in support of Kumar Bars plea that he had acquired 9 years and 1 month experience.
The appellant and the 5th respondent were among them.
On the other hand, the 5th respondent had given on details of her teaching experience in the application form.
J. The appellant, Dr.Kumar Bar Das has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 30.9.1993 in O.J.C. No.
The appellant had 4 years teaching experience in P.G. classes at Ravishankar University, Raipur and thereafter in the Department of Economics, Utkal University.
The appellant gave his joining report on 10.4.1990.
On that a show cause numberice was issued in April, 1990 by the chancellor to the appellant stating that on a preliminary enquiry and on scrutiny of the papers, it was found that the appellant had only 7 years and 8 months of teaching experience by the last date of application and numberoutstanding academic career and, as such, the appellant companyld number be said to be eligible for companysideration to the post of professor as per qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post and in the UGC qualification requires of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and other institutions affiliated to it Regulations.
The Chancellor, by the said order, had set aside the appointment of the appellant dated 3.2.1990 as Porfessor of Economics State Bank of India chair hereinafter called SBI Chair , holidng that the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 29.2.1984 was invalid.
If the research experience of 1 year and 5 months and 14 days were added, the total teaching research experience of the appellant would companye to 9 years 1 month.
The appellant, therefore, filed a separate SLP Civil No CC 7855 of 1998 questioning the judgment of the High Court dated 30.9.1993 in OJC No.2144 of 1990 to the extent it set aside the orders of the Chancellor directing re advertisement and directing the appointment of the 5th respondent.
Thereafter, it appears that the 5th respondent filed a representation before the Chancellor of the University in February, 1990 stating that the appellant was number eligible to be companysidered for the post of Professor as he had only 7 years and 7 months of teaching experience on the date of his application though the required period was 10 years.
2144 of 1990 of 1990.
