J. Somanna Vs. Registrar, Osmania University and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that university grants commission had recommended minimum 55% of marks would not help him for the reason that the u.anil r. dave, c.j.1. being aggrieved by the order passed in w.p. no. 1551 of 2000, dated 27-2-2008, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner.2. the appellant-petitioner had applied for the post of assistant professor in physical education. similarly, respondent no. 2 had also applied for the said post. the selection committee selected respondent no. 2 and, therefore, being aggrieved by the said selection, the appellant-petitioner filed the aforestated petition.3. after hearing the concerned advocates and looking at the record of the selection committee, the learned single judge has rejected the petition and, therefore, this appeal has been filed.4. the case of the appellant before the learned single judge and before the appellate court is that the appellant had secured 64.25% marks in post graduation, whereas respondent no. 2 had secured only 54.5% marks. the case of the 2nd respondent was considered, though it was obligatory for a candidate to secure 55% marks at the post graduation level.5. a counter-affidavit was filed by respondent no. 1 before the learned single judge stating that as per the circular dated 25-3-1992, the standing committee of academic senate has decided to round off the marks to 55% if the candidate secured 54.5% or more.6. in view of the above policy which had been framed in 1992 and which is in vogue since then, respondent no. 2 was treated to have secured 55% marks and, therefore, the case of respondent no. 2 was considered for selection to the post in question. a copy of the circular, which was issued by respondent no. 1 in pursuance of the decision taken by the standing committee of academic senate was placed on record before the learned single judge along with the counter-affidavit. it is pertinent to note that the said circular had not been challenged by the appellant-petitioner.7. it is also important to note that the learned single judge had called for the relevant papers pertaining to the record of the selection committee and upon perusal thereof had come to the conclusion that the marks secured by the candidate at post graduation level was not the only criterion for selection to the post in question.8. upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the record, we are also of the view that respondent no. 2 was rightly considered as an eligible candidate in view of the decision taken by respondent no. 1 under its circular dated 25-3-1992, which has been followed since long. it is not the case of the appellant-petitioner that so as to do undue favour to respondent no. 2, the aforestated circular was issued.9. more over, we do not find any mistake or' any wrong committed by respondent no. 1 in adopting the policy with regard to rounding off the marks to 55% if the candidate had secured 54.5% or more at the post graduation level. the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that university grants commission had recommended minimum 55% of marks would not help him for the reason that the u.g.c. had prescribed a guideline for determining eligibility and by virtue of the aforestated circular, respondent no. 1 had taken a decision in 1992 that the candidate who secured 54.5% marks at the post graduation level be treated as having secured 55% marks and, therefore, the aforestated case of respondent no. 2 was rightly considered.10. the learned advocate appearing for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the honourable supreme court in the case of prof. yashpal v. state of chhattisgarh : air2005sc2026 . in our opinion, the said judgment would not render any assistance to the appellant for the reason that respondent no. 1 has tried to follow the standards, which have been laid down by the u.g.c.11. for the aforestated reasons, we do 'not find any substance in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.