Bombay High Court Upholds Dismissal of Review Petition for Goa University Professor Post
The Bombay High Court has firmly dismissed a review petition filed by an individual seeking appointment as an assistant professor in the Department of Biochemistry at Goa University. The court found no substantial grounds to revisit its earlier order from July of last year, thereby upholding the original decision.
Background of the Case and Petitioner's Claims
The petitioner had initially challenged his non-selection for a position advertised by Goa University in 2020. Among the vacancies notified, two were specifically reserved for candidates from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. The petitioner, who secured 40 out of 100 marks in the selection process, fell short of the required cut-off score of 50 and was consequently not selected.
In his review plea, the petitioner advanced several arguments. He contended that a proper computation of his marks would have elevated his score beyond the 50-mark threshold. Additionally, he asserted that he was entitled to a 5% relaxation as an OBC candidate, which he claimed was not granted during the selection process.
The petitioner further raised allegations regarding the eligibility of a candidate appointed in the general category. He claimed that this candidate had failed to submit a residency certificate by the stipulated deadline in 2020 and later produced a forged document. Based on these allegations, he sought legal action against the appointed candidate and argued for a legitimate expectation of appointment, either against the existing vacancies or any future openings.
Court's Reasoning and Final Verdict
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court held that there was no error in its earlier judgment that warranted a review. The court made several key observations in its ruling. It clarified that a candidate appointed against an unreserved vacancy cannot be displaced by an OBC candidate, emphasizing the distinct nature of reserved and unreserved categories in recruitment processes.
The court also noted that the selected candidate had acquired the necessary eligibility within the prescribed cut-off date, thereby validating her appointment. Importantly, the bench stated that even if the appointment of the general category candidate were to be set aside, it would not automatically entitle the petitioner to the position, as his own score did not meet the required standards.
Furthermore, the High Court declined the petitioner's plea for consideration against future vacancies. It reasoned that such a request could not be entertained in a review petition, especially when the original writ petition pertained exclusively to the vacancies advertised on May 11, 2020. The court emphasized that the selection process had concluded with the issuance of appointment orders to the selected candidates.
A division bench comprising Justices Suman Shyam and Amit S Jamsandekar stated, "Upon issuance of the appointment orders to the selected candidates, the said process now came to an end." This statement underscored the finality of the recruitment process and reinforced the court's decision to dismiss the review petition, thereby bringing legal closure to this contentious appointment issue at Goa University.
