Allahabad University & Ors. vs. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors.
Background
Respondent No. 1 (referred to in the judgment as Gitanjali Pandey, listed in the digest as Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey)) had worked for years as contractual and guest faculty at colleges affiliated with Allahabad University before applying for advertised Assistant Professor posts in 2021. After she was not selected, she challenged the selection process before the Allahabad High Court, which by a common judgment ruled substantially in her favour on issues concerning how marks for "post-doctoral experience" and other criteria were awarded in the selection process, prompting Allahabad University and an affiliated college to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, special appeal, and review petition (along with a connected writ petition of another individual). It held that the Division Bench of the High Court had overstepped by speculating about a supposed "grey area" or "perceived anomaly" in how post-doctoral experience marks should be awarded, a term nowhere defined in the applicable UGC regulations and not even pleaded by the parties, instead of simply seeking clarification from UGC or the university if such ambiguity genuinely existed. Because the High Court substituted its own conjecture for the record and pleadings actually before it, its interference with the university's selection process was found legally unsustainable, and all the connected appeals by the universities/colleges were allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Courts reviewing academic recruitment and selection processes should not create or resolve "anomalies" in evaluation criteria based on their own speculation when the issue was never properly pleaded or explained by the parties. If genuine ambiguity exists in a regulation, the right course is to seek clarification from the regulatory body (like UGC), not to decide the case on judicial guesswork.