Prayagraj: Lokendra Tewari son of RP Tewari Advocate High court has won the case. Supreme Court has directed his appointment in III T Allahabad in 4 weeks as Assistant Professor. In Supreme Court of India civil appellate jurisdiction non-reportable civil appeal no(s). 5307 of 2024 in which, Lokendra Kumar Tiwari VS Union of India and others gave their arguments before judge SVV Bhatti. In January 2013, Institute issued an Advertisement numbered FS-01/2013 (“Advertisement”) calling for applications from suitable candidates for the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. The Civil Appeal concerns the appointment of an Assistant Professor. The Advertisement invites applications for appointment to regular posts of Assistant Professor, and the Appellant is among the applicants. The qualifications required for the post and the qualifications possessed by the Appellant are as follows: Criteria Required for Assistant Professor – Ph.D. with First Class or equivalent (in terms of grades) at the preceding degree in the appropriate branch, with a good academic record throughout. Qualifications Possessed by the Appellant – Ph.D. in Information Security, Department of Electronics and Communication, University of Allahabad (November 2008 to May 2012). M.S. in Cyber Law & Information Security, IIIT- Allahabad, First Division; awarded Bronze Medal and Certificate of Merit for securing Third Position in the MS batch; CGPA 9.02/10 (July 2006 – May 2008), Working as Lecturer at Ewing Christian, Experience of minimum 3 years of teaching College (University of Allahabad), Department of /research/industrial experience as on the closing date of the advertisement, 25.02.2013. Computer Science, 21.07.2008 to 05.04.2013; additionally served as Guest Faculty at IIIT- Allahabad from October 2012 to 05.04.2013.
Faculty positions in areas including Information Technology (including Information Security, Laws & Practices, Information and Network Security), Electronics, Management, MSc/LIS, Bioinformatics, Biomedical Engineering. Applied for Assistant Professor in the Information Security/MSCLIS stream (Information Security Laws & Practices; Information and Network Security). The Appellant was invited for the interview held on 18.03.2013. On 06.04.2013, Respondent No. 3 issued a letter of appointment to the Appellant as Assistant Professor on a contract basis for a period of 12 months. The Appellant accepted the appointment on a contract basis, and continued to discharge the duties and functions in the Respondent No. 2/Institute. On 26.03.2014, Respondent No. 2, on a few perceived omissions in the selection process, cancelled all the appointments made pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 06.04.2013. It is pertinent to note that, in the very selection dated 06.04.2013, Respondent No. 2 appointed thirteen individuals as Associate and Assistant Professors in the Institute. The Appellant and another individual, Dr. Ranjana Vyas, were recommended on a contract basis and given appointments. The aggrieved appointees, pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 06.04.2013, challenged the cancellation of appointment.
The Appellant applied in response to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor in the area of Information Security. He was found suitable for consideration, possessing a PhD with a First-Class preceding degree and a good academic record, and was accordingly called for an interview for the post of Assistant Professor by letter dated 18.03.2013.
Shortlisted for Consideration for a Regular Appointment: The Appellant was shortlisted and appeared for the interview held on 18.03.2013 before the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. The selection process was one and the same for all candidates, regular and otherwise, and the Appellant was considered alongside all other candidates who were ultimately appointed on a regular basis.
Recommended for Appointment on a Contract Basis: Despite being found suitable and selected through the same process, the Selection Committee, vide its recommendation dated 06.04.2013, recommended the Appellant for appointment on a contract basis for a period of one year at a fixed pay of Rs. 40,000/- per month, while all other thirteen candidates,
barring the Appellant and Dr. Ranjana Vyas, were recommended for and given regular appointments. No reason was recorded for this differential treatment.
Judge observed that the procedure initiated is for a regular appointment, and the Selection Committee, after perusing the candidates’ applications and credentials, has not given equal or uniform treatment to all candidates invited for an interview. The Appellant, if unsuitable for appointment, could not have been recommended even on a contract basis for a period of twelve months. To justify a singular treatment, at least the record must disclose reasons. The record does not disclose any reason for denying the post for which the Appellant was shortlisted and interviewed. We are aware that in Judicial Review, the court will not sit as a court of appeal on the views recorded by the Selection Committee. The point in the case at hand is not whether the reasons recorded are right or untenable, but whether, even by the most liberal approach to the primacy of appointment, educational institutions have, in
these matters, the denial of regular appointment justified? At this stage, we do not intend to examine the procedure followed by the Selection Committee for making the recommendation dated 06.04.2013 in respect of other appointees. Because there is no challenge to their
appointments and they are not parties before us. The other argument regarding the illegality of the Selection Process is also not considered, as it is not under challenge in the present proceedings. However, we note that denying a regular appointment is patently illegal and unconstitutional.
Having perused the record, court unable to discern a just and real reason for denying the Appellant a regular appointment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, court held that the Appellant is entitled to a Regular Appointment in Respondent No. 2/Institution as Assistant Professor. Further, courte mould the relief by denying other benefits except the Appellant’s entitlement to continuity of service without financial benefit. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue an order of appointment within four weeks from today.
