# B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors v. Dr. Alok Kumar

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 1030
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 17 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/b-h-u-varanasi-ors-v-dr-alok-kumar-49694
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Sri Pawan Kumar
Singh, Sri V.K. Ojha, Sri N.K. Ojha, Sri
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.)

A.
Education
Law
-
Selection/Appointment
-
UGC
Regulations on Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in the Universities and
Colleges
and
Measures
for
the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education, 2010 - It is well settled that
any clause in a document or a statute is
not to be read in isolation as to find its
true meaning. In the advertisement it has
been specifically provided that "Mere eligibility
will not entitle any candidate for being called
for interview. More stringent criteria may be
applied for short-listing the candidates to be
called for interview. Applicants having higher
qualification
and
merit
will
be
given
preference. For teaching positions shortlisting shall be done as per guidelines
approved
by
Executive
Council
of
the
University."(Para 21)
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision in the
advertisement would reflect that there could be
more
stringent
criteria
for
short-listing
candidates and for teaching positions shortlisting would be done as per the guidelines
approved by Executive Council of the University.
The word approved in the statement "as per
guidelines approved by the Executive Council of
the University" is not qualified by use of the
word "already". It simply states that short-listing
is to be done as per the guidelines approved by
Executive Council of the University. This enables
the University to apply those guidelines for
short-listing as are approved by Executive
Council of the University. In the instant case,
the short-listing exercise was carried out on
11.01.2011 on basis of revised guidelines
approved by resolution of Executive Council
dated 2.11.2010. (Para 22)

The University had already taken a decision to
make changes in the short-listing guidelines
before the last date of receipt of application
forms, pursuant to the advertisement. This
decision was taken by the University on account
of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Pursuant to the
resolution of Executive Council, the guidelines
for short-listing applicants to be called for
interview for teaching positions in the University
became effective. (Para 23, 26)

B.
The
general
principle
prohibiting
changing the rules of the game midway
would have no application when the
change is w.r.t. selection process and not
to the qualification or eligibility. (Para 31)

General
Instruction
No.
2
of
the
advertisement: "Eligibility of a candidate
and satisfaction of any other short-listing
criteria shall be considered as on the last
date of the receipt for application", would
mean:-

(a) that the eligibility of a candidate is to
be considered with reference to the last
date for receipt of the application, i.e. any
eligibility qualification obtained subsequent to
the last date for receipt of application will not be
taken into consideration; and
(b) that whether a candidate had satisfied
the
short-listing
criteria
would
be
determined

## Text

_Characters 0–39,255 of 49,804. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39255 for what follows._

1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 2 ILRA 1030
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 17 of 2023
Connected with
Special Appeal. No. 18 of 2023
Connected with
Special Appeal. No. 19 of 2023

B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Dr. Alok Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Gyanendra Pratap Singh, Sri Hem
Pratap Singh (Sr. Adv.), Sri Ajeet Singh
Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Sri Pawan Kumar
Singh, Sri V.K. Ojha, Sri N.K. Ojha, Sri
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.)

A.
Education
Law
-
Selection/Appointment
-
UGC
Regulations on Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in the Universities and
Colleges
and
Measures
for
the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education, 2010 - It is well settled that
any clause in a document or a statute is
not to be read in isolation as to find its
true meaning. In the advertisement it has
been specifically provided that "Mere eligibility
will not entitle any candidate for being called
for interview. More stringent criteria may be
applied for short-listing the candidates to be
called for interview. Applicants having higher
qualification
and
merit
will
be
given
preference. For teaching positions shortlisting shall be done as per guidelines
approved
by
Executive
Council
of
the
University."(Para 21)
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision in the
advertisement would reflect that there could be
more
stringent
criteria
for
short-listing
candidates and for teaching positions shortlisting would be done as per the guidelines
approved by Executive Council of the University.
The word approved in the statement "as per
guidelines approved by the Executive Council of
the University" is not qualified by use of the
word "already". It simply states that short-listing
is to be done as per the guidelines approved by
Executive Council of the University. This enables
the University to apply those guidelines for
short-listing as are approved by Executive
Council of the University. In the instant case,
the short-listing exercise was carried out on
11.01.2011 on basis of revised guidelines
approved by resolution of Executive Council
dated 2.11.2010. (Para 22)

The University had already taken a decision to
make changes in the short-listing guidelines
before the last date of receipt of application
forms, pursuant to the advertisement. This
decision was taken by the University on account
of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Pursuant to the
resolution of Executive Council, the guidelines
for short-listing applicants to be called for
interview for teaching positions in the University
became effective. (Para 23, 26)

B.
The
general
principle
prohibiting
changing the rules of the game midway
would have no application when the
change is w.r.t. selection process and not
to the qualification or eligibility. (Para 31)

General
Instruction
No.
2
of
the
advertisement: "Eligibility of a candidate
and satisfaction of any other short-listing
criteria shall be considered as on the last
date of the receipt for application", would
mean:-

(a) that the eligibility of a candidate is to
be considered with reference to the last
date for receipt of the application, i.e. any
eligibility qualification obtained subsequent to
the last date for receipt of application will not be
taken into consideration; and
(b) that whether a candidate had satisfied
the
short-listing
criteria
would
be
determined on the basis of his credentials
2 All. B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar
1031
(i.e. qualifications, etc) as on the last date
for receipt of the application. This implies
that if weightage is to be accorded to the
credentials of a candidate for determining
whether he has satisfied the shortlisting criteria,
no weightage shall be accorded to such
credentials which he did not possess on the last
date for receipt of the application. (Para 3, 30)

C. Short-listing criteria may be made
stringent depending on the number of
applicants as to make it convenient for the
Selection Body to effectively interview the
short-listed candidates. (Para 31)

Where selection is to be made only on the
basis of interview, the Commission or the
Selection Board can adopt any rational
procedure to fix the number of candidates
who should be called for interview. As the
short-listing exercise is to be conducted only
after receipt of applications, the short-listing
criteria may be fixed after the last date for
receipt of application forms, keeping in mind the
number of applications received. Even if there is
no rule providing for short-listing nor any
mention of it in the advertisement calling for
applications for the post, the Selection Body can
resort to a short-listing procedure if there are a
large number of eligible candidates who apply
and it is not possible for the authority to
interview all of them. (Para 27)

Therefore, by revising the guidelines for
short-listing the candidates for interview,
the University had not changed the rules
of the game midway after the selection
process had started.

In the instant case, there were about 200 odd
applicants against a solitary post of Assistant
Professor for Sociology. According to the shortlisting guidelines, 10 candidates were to be
called for interview as against one post. As 3
candidates had obtained equal marks on the
basis of short-listing criteria adopted, as many
as 12 candidates were short-listed by the
University for interview. Notably, the writ
petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) was not one of the
12 candidates short-listed. (Para 28)

In the writ petition it is stated that the revised
guidelines should not have been applied for
short-listing but there is no statement that
under the old guidelines he would have
obtained marks higher than the other 10 shortlisted candidates. That apart, what is interesting
is that the learned Single Judge has declined the
first prayer of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok
Kumar) which challenged the short-listing done
by the University by applying the short-listing
guidelines. Once that is the position, the writ
petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) having been
screened out was not entitled to any relief as
was accorded to him. (Para 29)

Special Appeal Nos. 17 of 2023 and 18 of
2023 are allowed. (E-4)
Special Appeal No. 19 of 2023 is partly allowed
and Writ-A No. 45120 of 2013 is disposed off by
giving liberty to the University to complete the
selection/appointment process on the basis of
interview marks awarded to the candidates who
were short-listed for interview on the basis of
revised short-listing guidelines.

Precedent followed:

1. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission
Vs Navnit Kumar Potdar & anr., (1994) 6 SCC
293 (Para 16(a))
2. B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi Vs U.O.I. &
ors., (2008) 1 SCC 362 (Para 16(b))

3. The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh
Kumar & ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of
2022 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10386-10387
of 2020 (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706)), dated
December 12, 2022 (Para 16(c))

4. Shankarshan Dash Vs U.O.I., (1991) 3 SCC
47 (Para 18)

Present
special
appeal
assails
the
judgment and order dated 02.09.2022,
passed by Hon'ble Single Judge.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)

1. Special Appeal No. 17 of 2023 and
Special Appeal No. 18 of 2023 are against
the judgment and order dated 02.09.2022 of
the learned Single Judge allowing Writ
Petition No. 4963 of 2011 filed by Dr. Alok
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kumar whereas Special Appeal No. 19 of
2023 is against the judgment and order of
the same date in Writ A No. 45120 of 2013
dismissing the writ petition filed by Dr.
Rashmi Ranjan as infructuous in light of
the judgment and order in Writ A No. 4963
of 2011. As common questions of law and
facts arise for consideration in these three
appeals, with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties they were heard
together and are being decided by a
common judgment and order.

FACTS

2. Writ A No. 4963 of 2011 was filed
by Dr. Alok Kumar (the respondent)
seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
certiorari
after
calling
the
relevant
records
from
the
Banaras
Hindu
University, Varanasi quashing the entire
short listing qua petitioner's post which
has
been
done
by
applying
the
shortlisting guidelines which became
effective from 02.11.2010.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus
directing
the
respondentUniversity and its authorities to conduct
the entire selection as per the University
Grants Commission guidelines, regulations
and the eligibility qualifications mentioned
in the advertisement for the purpose of
short-listing.

(iii) Pass such other and further
order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

(iv) Award cost"

3. The case of the writ petitioner (Dr.
Alok Kumar) in a nutshell was that the
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (for
short 'University') issued an advertisement
inviting applications for various posts
including that of Assistant Professor in
Sociology (Post Code 3712). The last date
for
receipt
of
application
form
to
participate in the selection process was
21.09.2010. The advertisement specified
that:

"Mere eligibility will not entitle
any
candidate
for being
called
for
interview. More stringent criteria may be
applied for short-listing the candidates to
be called for interview. Applicants having
higher qualification and merit will be given
preference. For teaching positions shortlisting shall be done as per guidelines
approved by Executive Council of the
University."

General Instruction No. 2 of the
advertisement stated as follows:-

"Eligibility of a candidate and
satisfaction of any other short-listing
criteria shall be considered as on the last
date of the receipt for application"

4. According to the writ petitioner
(Dr.
Alok
Kumar)
a
short-listing
guidelines, dated 10.04.2010, approved by
Executive Council of the University existed
but, instead of applying those guidelines,
revised guidelines framed pursuant to the
resolution
dated
02.11.2010
of
the
Executive Council, made effective from
02.11.2010, were used to shortlist 12 out of
more than 200 applicants to be called for
interview
for
the
post
of
Assistant
Professor in Sociology. As the writ
petitioner was not among those shortlisted,
Writ A No. 4963 of 2011 was filed. The
2 All. B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar
1033
grievance of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok
Kumar) was that the short-listing guidelines
made applicable from 02.11.2010 should
not have been pressed into service as the
last date for receipt of the application, as
per the advertisement, was 21.09.2010,
whereas the revised shortlisting guidelines
became
effective
from
02.11.2010,
therefore, in view of General Instruction
No.2, any shortlisting criteria adopted later,
could not have been applied.

5. In Writ A No.4963 of 2011 on
28.01.2011 an interim order was passed,
which is reproduced below:-

"Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Awasthi
appearing for the petitioner submit that
though the petitioner is eligible with Ph.D
as essential qualification, the additional
qualifications of NET/SLET have been
given 20 marks in the guidelines for
shortlisting made effective from 2.11.2010,
whereas the last date of receipt of
applications in the advertisement was
21.9.2010. He states that under the General
Instructions to the Candidates: (item no.2)
eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of
any other shortlisting criteria was required
to be considered as on the last date of the
receipt of the application. The requirement
of NET/SLET has been thus impliedly
introduced
subsequently
causing
discrimination
between
the
eligible
candidates.
The
candidates
having
Ph.D/D.Phil along with NET/SLET will be
given 20 additional marks in shortlisting,
whereas a candidate fully eligible such as
petitioner having Ph.D degree will be
deprived of additional marks.

An objection has been taken by
Shri K.S. Chauhan appearing for the
University that the same advertisement
provides that mere eligibility will not
entitle any candidate for being called for
interview and that more stringent criteria
may be applied for shortlisting. The
applicants having higher qualification and
merit were to be given preference. Shri
Chauhan is not in a position to state
whether the guidelines dated 2.11.2010,
have been approved by the Executive
Council of the University.

The
matter
requires
consideration.

As an interim measure, we
provide that if the interview for the post of
Assistant Professor (Sociology) in the
category of the petitioner have not been
held so far, the petitioner will be
provisionally allowed to appear in the
interview. The result of the selection for the
post, however, shall not be declared until
further orders of the Court.

Put up this matter on 14th
February, 2011. In addition to the order to
be filed by the petitioner in the University,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
University will also inform the University
today about this order. Copy of the order
be given to learned counsel for the parties
today."

6. Pursuant to the interim order,
interviews were held of the shortlisted
candidates as well as the writ petitioner
(Dr. Alok Kumar) and the result of the
interview was produced before the writ
court in a sealed cover. On 28.02.2013, the
writ court opened the sealed cover and
found that in the interview Dr. Alok Kumar
had secured highest 85 marks. The next top
three were Dr. Rashmi Ranjan (83 marks)
(writ petitioner in Writ A No.45120 of
2013); Dr. Manish Tiwari (81 marks); and
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dr. Siya Saran Pandey (80 marks). After
noticing the result so produced, on
28.02.2013 following order was passed:-

"In compliance of this Court's
order dated 6.2.2013 the result of the
interview, in which the petitioner was
provisionally permitted to appear vide this
Court's order dated 28.1.2011, has been
produced before us in sealed cover. The
result in sealed cover has been opened by
the Court and perused. According to the
same the Committee has recommended for
the appointment of the petitioner who has
been placed at Serial No. 1 having
obtained 85 marks. A waiting list of three
candidates has been prepared which is as
follows :

1. Dr. Rashmi Ranjan (83 marks)

2. Dr. Manish Tiwari (81 marks)

3. Dr. Siya Saran Pandey (80
marks)

The said result as has been
produced before this Court is being
returned to Shri V.K. Singh, learned senior
advocate appearing

for respondent-University.

List on 13.3.2013. "

7. While Writ A No. 4963 of 2011
was pending, Dr. Rashmi Ranjan, who had
secured 83 marks in the interview and was
among the twelve candidates shortlisted,
filed Writ A No. 45120 of 2013,
impleading Dr. Alok Kumar as respondent
no.4, seeking following reliefs:-

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the interview letter issued in
favour of the respondent no.4 and also the
recommendation
of
the
Selection
Committee in so far it relates to respondent
no.4 for appointment on the post of
Assistant Professor (Sociology) in Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi;

(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint
the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Professor (Sociology) in Banaras Hindu
University,
Varanasi
by
issuing
appointment letter in her favour.

(c) Issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.

(d) Award the cost of the writ
petition in favour of the petitioner.

8. In Writ A No. 45120 of 2013, the
case taken by Dr. Rashmi Ranjan was that
there could be no vested right in respect of
the procedure for short-listing therefore,
when the University framed guidelines for
short-listing
and
by
applying
those
guidelines
shortlisted
12
candidates
including her for the interview, Dr. Alok
Kumar, who was screened out, had no right
to appear in the interview hence his
interview letter was liable to be quashed
and as she was placed at the top of the list
of
shortlisted
candidates
who
were
interviewed, she was entitled to be
appointed.

9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the
University, the stand taken was that the
University Grants Commission (UGC) had
promulgated
UGC
Regulations
on
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
2 All. B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar
1035
of Teachers and other Academic Staff in
the Universities and Colleges and Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education,
2010
(for
short
UGC
Regulations
2010),
effective
from
30.06.2010, which were adopted by the
Executive Council of the University vide
ECR No. 200, dated August 31, 2010,
therefore, by Corrigendum No. 1, the
revised qualifications as prescribed by
UGC Regulations, 2010 were notified and
the last date of receipt of applications was
extended from 20.06.2010 to 21.09.2010.
The University stated in the counter
affidavit that while adopting the UGC
Regulations, 2010, the Executive Council,
vide ECR No. 200, dated August 31, 2010,
inter-alia, resolved as under:-

"RESOLVED STILL FURTHER
that the Vice Chancellor be authorized to
make the required changes in the shortlisting guidelines for faculty position in the
University as approved by Executive
Council, in the light of the provisions of the
new UGC Regulations, 2010."

10. It was further the case of the
University that the earlier short-listing
guidelines were revised in consonance with
the qualifications and other eligibility
conditions
for
teaching
positions
as
prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2010
and approved by the Vice-Chancellor,
BHU vide his order dated 29.10.2010,
which was ratified by the Executive
Council
vide
ECR
No.
208,
dated
November 2, 2010. It was the case of the
University that recruitment exercise is a
continuous process and has to be done in
light of the qualifications prescribed by
UGC/MHRD from time to time; and the
short-listing of candidates for interview
was done as per the revised norms of shortlisting approved by the Vice-Chancellor,
BHU, ratified and approved by the
Executive
Council.
The
University
contended that there was a specific clause
in the advertisement that mere eligibility
will not entitle any candidate to be called
for interview and more stringent criteria
may be applied for short-listing the
candidates to be called for interview and in
furtherance
thereof,
the
University
adopted/applied the short-listing guidelines
hence, the petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar)
could have no grievance against his
exclusion from the list of candidates
shortlisted for interview.

11. The learned Single Judge took the
view that since by General Instruction No.2
the eligibility of a candidate had to be
tested as on the last date of receipt of
application which, in the present case, was
21.09.2010, the short-listing guidelines that
came into effect from 02.11.2010 could not
be applied and as there existed no dispute
as regards the eligibility of Dr. Alok Kumar
and that pursuant to the interim order he
participated in the interview and secured
highest marks in the interview, he was
entitled to be appointed. Consequently, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition of Dr. Alok Kumar. The operative
portion of the order passed in Writ A No.
4963 of 2011 filed by Dr. Alok Kumar is
extracted below:-

"In view of the above, there is
no room to allow the University to
apply the new guidelines with respect
to the advertisement in question. As to
the eligibility of the petitioner under
the old guidelines and his suitability
for appointment, there is no dispute.
The petitioner has obtained the highest
marks in the interview conducted by
the University under orders of this
Court.
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The first prayer made by the
petitioner is declined.

In view of the discussion made
above, a mandamus is issued to the
University to issue necessary letter of
appointment to the petitioner within a
period of one month. All consequential
effects shall arise accordingly.

Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. "

12. As the writ petition of Dr. Alok
Kumar was allowed, Writ A No. 45120 of
2013 of Dr. Rashmi Ranjan was dismissed
as infructuous. The order dated 02.09.2022
passed in Writ A No. 45120 of 2013 is
extracted below:-

"In view of the order passed in
Writ No. 4963 of 2011, the petitioner is
worth hearing on the issue of short-listing.
However, since he has been awarded marks
lesser than the Dr. Alok Kumar, the
petitioner, in Writ- 4963 of 2011, no relief
can be granted to the petitioner. Also, the
result of the interview has not been assailed
in this writ petition. The writ petition
appears to have been rendered infructuous.

As such, the writ petition is
dismissed as infructuous."

SUBMISSIONS

13. We have heard Sri Gajendra
Pratap, learned senior counsel, assisted by
Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, for Dr. Rashmi
Ranjan; Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned
senior counsel, assisted by Sri Hem Pratap
Singh, for the University; and Sri Ashok
Khare, learned senior counsel, assisted by
Sri V.K. Ojha, for Dr. Alok Kumar and
have perused the record.

14. Leading the arguments on behalf
of the appellants in these three connected
appeals, Sri Gajendra Pratap submitted that
the
learned
Single
Judge
wrongly
interpreted General Instruction No. 2 of the
advertisement to hold that it places an
embargo on adoption of any new guidelines
for short-listing of candidates for interview.
According to him, the true interpretation of
Instruction No. 2 would be that if any
criteria is adopted for the purposes of shortlisting, whether that criteria has been met
by a candidate would be determined on
basis of his qualifications as on the last date
of receipt of application form. According to
him, Instruction No. 2 would not mean that
there could be no new short-listing
guidelines applied. He submitted that the
purpose of short listing is to reduce the
number of candidates as to effectively
undertake required steps for selection.
More stringent guidelines can therefore be
applied for short-listing depending on the
number
of
applicants.
In
such
circumstances, there could be no vested
right in any candidate with regard to
application of any particular short-listing
guidelines. The learned Single Judge fell in
error while holding that the short-listing
guidelines made effective from 02.11.2010
could not have been applied in a
recruitment exercise wherein the last date
of
receipt
of
application
form
was
21.09.2010. He further submitted that the
short-listing exercise was carried out after
the revised guidelines were adopted and the
list of short-listed candidates was published
on 11.01.2011. He also submitted that from
the counter-affidavit filed by the University
it was established that the new short-listing
guidelines were necessitated consequent to
the UGC Regulations, 2010 which became
effective on 30.06.2010 whereas the old
guidelines for short-listing were dated
10.04.2010
therefore,
the
University
2 All. B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar
1037
deemed it appropriate to revise the shortlisting guidelines as to give appropriate
weightage to the new norms. It was argued
that the eligibility criteria was not changed
by the University, only the weightage
marks for certain qualifications, for the
purpose of shortlisting, was changed.

15. The aforesaid submissions were
adopted by Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned
senior
counsel,
appearing
for
the
University.

16. In support of their submissions,
learned counsel for the appellants cited a
number of authorities, namely:

(a)
Madhya
Pradesh
Public
Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar
Potdar and another, (1994) 6 SCC 293. In
this case it was held that whenever
applications are invited for recruitment to
different posts, certain basic qualifications
and criteria are fixed and the applicants must
possess those basic qualifications and criteria
before their applications can be entertained
for consideration. The Selection Board or the
Commission has to decide as to what
procedure is to be followed for selecting the
best candidates from amongst the applicants.
In most of the services, screening tests or
written tests have been introduced to limit the
number of candidates who have to be called
for interview. Such screening tests or written
tests have been provided in the concerned
statutes or prospectus which govern the
selection of the candidates. But where the
selection is to be made only on basis of
interview, the Commission or the Selection
Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix
the number of candidates who should be
called for interview.

(b)
B.
Ramakichenin
@
Balagandhi vs. Union of India and
others, (2008) 1 SCC 362. In this case,
following the earlier decision in Navnit
Kumar Potdar's case (supra), it was held
that even if there is no rule providing for
short-listing nor any mention of it in the
advertisement calling the applications for
the post, the Selection Body can resort to a
short-listing procedure if there are large
number of eligible candidates, who have
applied, and it is not possible to interview
all of them.

(c) The State of Uttar Pradesh
vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors., dated
December 12, 2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.
8822-8823 of 2022 (arising out of SLP
(C) Nos. 10386-10387 of 2020) (2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1706), wherein, in paragraph
32, in respect of the principle that rules of
the game in respect of a recruitment
exercise must not be changed midway, it
was observed that that principle would
have no application when the change is
with respect to selection process and not to
the qualification or eligibility.

17. By placing reliance on the
aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that there existed a
specific stipulation in the advertisement
that mere eligibility will not entitle any
candidate to be called for interview and a
more stringent criteria may be applied for
short-listing the candidates to be called for
interview therefore, the University had an
unqualified right to adopt any rational
short-listing procedure for short-listing
candidates for the interview; and as there
was no challenge laid to the validity of the
short-listing guidelines adopted and applied
by the University, the writ petition of Dr.
Alok Kumar was liable to be dismissed.

18. In addition to above, an
alternative submission was also advanced
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on behalf of the University, which is, that
the learned Single Judge could not have
issued a direction for appointment of Dr.
Alok Kumar inasmuch as a selected
candidate does not acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed. In support of this
submission, a decision of the Apex Court in
Shankarshan Dash vs. Union of India,
(1991) 3 SCC 47 was cited. It was also
argued that the order impugned passed by
the learned Single Judge is technically
defective inasmuch as the first prayer of the
writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) for
quashing the order of short-listing has been
declined. Having declined the first prayer,
the second prayer could not have been
accepted inasmuch as the petitioner having
been screened out could not have legally
participated
in
interview
and
his
participation in the interview pursuant to an
interim-order would not confer any right of
appointment because such right would
obviously be subject to the final decision of
the writ petition. It was thus argued that as
the first prayer made in the writ petition
was declined, the relief accorded to the writ
petitioner was misconceived and for all the
reasons above, the appeals deserve to be
allowed.

19. Per Contra, Sri Ashok Khare,
learned senior counsel, appearing for the
writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) submitted
that there is no dispute with regard to the
petitioner being eligible and there is also no
dispute that the revised guidelines for
short-listing
were
effective
from
02.11.2010 whereas the last date for receipt
of application was 21.09.2010. Since
Instruction No. 2 clearly specified that
eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of
any other short-listing criteria shall be
considered as on the last date of the receipt
of application, the revised guidelines which
became effective from 02.11.2010 could
not
have
been
applied.
In
such
circumstances, once it is found that Dr.
Alok Kumar had secured highest marks in
the interview, the direction issued by the
learned
Single
Judge
calls
for
no
interference. He, therefore, prayed that all
three appeals be dismissed.

DISCUSSION

20.

Having
noticed
the
rival
submissions, the relevant pleadings of the
parties including the terms and conditions
of the advertisement, the issue that arises
for our consideration is as to what
interpretation is to be accorded to General
Instruction No.2 of the advertisement,
which reads as follows:-

"Eligibility of a candidate and
satisfaction of any other short-listing
criteria shall be considered as on the last
date of the receipt of application."

21. It is well settled that any clause in
a document or a statute is not to be read in
isolation as to find its true meaning. We
would
have
therefore
to
accord
consideration to other relevant provisions
in the advertisement which enables the
University to adopt short-listing procedure.
In the advertisement it has been specifically
provided that "Mere eligibility will not
entitle any candidate for being called for
interview. More stringent criteria may be
applied for short-listing the candidates to
be called for interview. Applicants having
higher qualification and merit will be given
preference. For teaching positions shortlisting shall be done as per guidelines
approved by Executive Council of the
University."

22. A plain reading of the aforesaid
provision in the advertisement would
2 All. B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar
1039
reflect that there could be more stringent
criteria for short-listing candidates and for
teaching positions short-listing would be
done as per the guidelines approved by
Executive Council of the University. The
word approved in the statement "as per
guidelines approved by the Executive
Council of the University" is not qualified
by use of the word "already". It simply
states that short-listing is to be done as per
the guidelines approved by Executive
Council of the University. This enables the
University to apply those guidelines for
short-listing as are approved by Executive
Council of the University. In the instant
case, the short-listing exercise was carried
out on 11.01.2011 on basis of revised
guidelines approved by resolution of
Executive Council dated 2.11.2010.

23. From the counter-affidavit of the
University, it is clear that the earlier
guidelines framed on 10.04.2010 warranted
a revision consequent to UGC Regulations,
2010
which
came
into
effect
on
30.06.2010. The counter-affidavit of the
University
also
indicates
that
while
adopting the UGC Regulations, 2010, the
Executive Council, vide ECR No. 200,
dated August 31, 2010, had resolved to
authorize the Vice-Chancellor to make
required
changes
in
the
short-listing
guidelines for faculty positions in the
University as approved by Executive
Council. It is therefore clear that the
University had already taken a decision to
make changes in the short-listing guidelines
before the last date of receipt of application
forms, pursuant to the advertisement. This
decision was taken by the University on
account of the UGC Regulations, 2010.

24. ECR No. 200, dated August 31,
2010, annexed along with the counteraffidavit, is extracted below:-

"COPY
OF
ECR
No.200
DATED AUGUST 31, 2010

ITEM 17 CONSIDERED the
orders of the Vice-Chancellor for adoption
of
UGC
Regulations
on
minimum
qualifications for appointment of teachers
and other academic staff in Universities
and Colleges and measures for the
maintenance of standards in Higher
Education, 2010.

The
Executive
Council
was
informed that UGC has promulgated the
UGC
Regulation
on
minimum
qualifications for appointment of teachers
and other academic staff in Universities
and Colleges and measures for the
maintenance of standards in Higher
Education, 2010 that have come into effect
from June 30, 2010. These Regulations
were placed in the meeting of all the
Directors of Institutes, Deans of Faculties
and other Senior Officers of the University
for discussion on their various provisions.
The matter was deliberated at length and it
was found that the UGC Regulations inter
alia provide that for teachers in the
Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary
Science, the norms/Regulations of Indian
Council of Agriculture Research; for
faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and
AYUSH, the norms/Regulations of Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India; shall apply.

Prior to this for the faculty of
medicine in norms of MCI, for Dentistry
the norms of DCI and for Agriculture and
Ayurveda the norms of UGC in the matter
of recruitment were applicable.

Accordingly,
the
Director,
Institute of Medical Science has written to
the Medical Council of India to clarify
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whether the norms of MCI or any other
norms of Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare shall be applicable in recruitment
and promotion of teachers in Medicine. The
MCI has informed that norms of MCI for
recruitment of Faculty in Medicine shall
apply as the MCI gives recognition of
various subjects in Medicine in different
Medical Colleges.

The Executive Council was also
apprised that in the Regulation, 2010 for
appointment
as
Assistant
Professor
exemption from NET has been given to only
those who have done their Ph.D in
accordance with the UGC Regulation 2009
for award of Ph.D Degree.

The Executive Council was also
informed that a number of representations
against this clause have been received from
the candidates who have already done their
Ph.D degree before the UGC Regulation,
2009 came into effect and that they are also
requesting for grant of exemption from
NET. The Vice-Chancellor has written
letters to the UGC and MHRD in this
regard, requesting for consideration of
their cases.

It was also informed that since
these Regulations are mandatory, the
University
has
adopted
these
for
implementation. In view of this and in
view
of
the
urgent
necessity
of
availability of teachers to take up the
increased teaching load due to increase
in
the
student
strength
on
implementation of OBC reservation in
admissions, as a follow up, the posts
that have been advertised earlier have
been re-advertised according to the
provision of the New UGC Regulations,
2010 by issuing corrigendum to the
earlier advertisements with the last date
of submission of up-dated application
as 21.09.2010. Some members pointed
out some discrepancies in the UGC
Regulations such as the exemption from
NET
Clause
for
appointment
as
Assistant Professor and also that NET
is not required for appointment as
Assistant Professor in Management
whereas it is conducted by UGC in
Management subjects, etc.

RESOLVED that the orders of the
Vice-Chancellor
for
adoption
of
UGC
Regulations on minimum qualifications for
appointment of teachers and other academic
staff in Universities and Colleges and measures
for the maintenance of standards in Higher
Education, 2010 and the follow up actions taken
in this regard be approved.

RESOLVED FURTHER that further
follow-up actions as
required
in
these
Regulations be also initiated. RESOLVED
STILL FURTHER that UGC/MHRD may be
informed about discrepancies in qualification for
Assistant Professor in Management where NET
has
not
been
prescribed
as
essential
qualifications notwithstanding the fact that NET
is conducted in Management.

RESOLVED STILL FURTHER
that the Vice-Chancellor be authorized to make
the required changes in the short-listing
guidelines for faculty position in the University
as approved by Executive Council, in the light
of the provisions of the new UGC Regulations,
2010.

 (Emphasis supplied)

25. In furtherance of ECR No. 200,
dated August 31, 2010, the Executive
Council, vide ECR No. 208, dated November
2, 2010, resolved as follows:-

"COPY
OF
ECR
No.208
DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2010
2 All. B.H.U., Varanasi & Ors. Vs. Dr. Alok Kumar
1041

ITEM 2 CONSIDERED the action
taken on the decisions of the Executive
Council meeting held on August 31, 2010.

While considering the Action
Taken Report on the decisions of the
Executive Council meeting held on August
31, 2010, the Executive Council noted that
vide ECR No.200 orders of the ViceChancellor
for
adoption
of
UGC
Regulations on minimum qualifications for
appointment
of
teachers
and
other
academic staff in Universities and Colleges
and measures for the maintenance of
standards in Higher Education, 2010 and
the follow up actions taken in this regard
were approved and the Vice-Chancellor
was authorized to make the required
changes in the short-listing guidelines for
faculty positions in the University as
approved by the Executive Council, in the
light of the provisions of the new UGC
Regulations, 2010. The Vice-Chancellor
constituted
a
Committee
under
the
chairmanship of Rector with Director,
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, the Dean,
Faculty of Arts, Management Studies and
Science as its member to review the
existing
Guidelines
for
Short-listing
applicants to be called for Interview for
teaching positions in the University as per
revised qualifications and other eligibility
conditions
prescribed
under
UGC
Regulations, 2010.

The Executive Council also noted
that the Committee while reviewing the
existing guidelines forshort-listing the
applications for teaching positions in the
University considered the provisions as
prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2010
particularly awarding scores as per API as
prescribed under category-III ''Research
and Academic Contribution' in the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and also the observation
of the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.27647 of 2010 and then
recommended a revised Guidelines for
short-listing of applicants to be called for
interview
for
teaching
posts
in
the
University.

The
Executive
Council
went
through the revised Guidelines and found
that things have been covered in a very
tangible manner.

The
Vice-Chancellor
then
informed the members that in the UGC
Regulation-2010 NET is an essential
requirement for appointment as Assistant
Professor in the disciplines of Arts,
Humanities, Science, Social Sciences, Law,
Commerce and others and exemption from
the requirement of NET shall be given to
only those who have done their Ph.D in
accordance with the provisions of UGC
Regulations 2009 for award of Ph.D
degree.

The UGC promulgated the above
said UGC Regulations 2009 for award of
Ph.D degree, in July 2009.