LI Network
Published on: January 12, 2024 at 11:00 IST
The Punjab & Haryana High Court issued a directive to Panjab University, instructing them to allow a candidate to participate provisionally in the interview for the Assistant Professor position in History.
The Court responded to a writ petition filed by the candidate who, despite meeting eligibility criteria and successfully clearing the NET exam twice, was not called for the interview.
Justice Sanjay Vashishth, considering the presented facts, directed that the petitioner’s name should be regarded as included in the already published list by Sri Guru Gobind Singh College (respondent No.3) or Panjab University (Respondent No.5) for the commencement of the interview process. However, the respective respondent has the option to release a separate or fresh list before the interview begins, provisionally including the petitioner’s name.
The petitioner had sought the court’s intervention against Sri Guru Gobind Singh College, Panjab University, to enable her participation in the interview for the regular Assistant Professor (History) position.
Despite being qualified and holding UGC-NET qualification twice, along with an M.Phil Degree and a pending PhD Degree from JNU New Delhi, the petitioner claimed not to have received an interview call letter as of the scheduled start date of January 11, 2024.
The petitioner, with over 7 years of teaching experience in History, argued her eligibility for the position. With more than 14 publications, 3 books, and participation in over 50 seminars, she asserted that her qualifications should not be in question.
In response, the counsel representing Panjab University informed the court about a committee formed to assess the petitioner’s eligibility. After extensive deliberations, the committee concluded that the petitioner was not eligible for the advertised Assistant Professor position in History.
Acknowledging the submissions, the court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview process.
The Court clarified that any interview conducted would be considered provisional, subject to the final decision on the ongoing plea.
If found suitable for the position, the petitioner’s result should be submitted in a sealed cover before the bench on the next hearing scheduled for February 09.
