[ad_1]
A petition has been moved in the Delhi High Court difficult the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee to appoint the Vice Chancellor for the National Law University, Delhi.
The petition was filed by Dr Prasannanshu, one of many candidates for the mentioned put up, by way of advocate Karan Suneja searching for instructions to quash the choice of the Chancellor National Law University, Delhi dated June 25, 2020, rejecting his candidature for violating the basic proper of the petitioner underneath Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
He additionally sought instructions for quashing the choice of the Selection Committee taken on February 5 to conduct proceedings for the appointment to the put up of Vice Chancellor on February 25 as additionally to quash the choice made by the Committee to nominate any candidates to the governing council for violating the basic rights of the petitioner.
The plea sought instructions to the respondents to take efficient steps with a view to instantly name upon the petitioner for his interview/interactive session for the put up of vice-chancellor as per the procedure as established.
On October 11, 2019, a notification was issued by the convener of the Selection Committee of the National Law University, Delhi inviting nominations for the put up of Vice-Chancellor (VC), National Law University, Delhi (NLUD).
“The petitioner had applied for the post on November 11, 2019, in the prescribed format, within the time period prescribed, after duly verifying the requirements as prescribed in the official notification. It came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the Selection Committee met on February 5 and decided to call the applicants for interaction on February 25,” the plea mentioned.
The petitioner submitted that he believes that he fulfils the minimal eligibility standards talked about in the official notification dated October 11, 2019, and he ought to have been referred to as by the Selection Committee for an interview/interplay assembly, his counsel mentioned.
The counsel added that the petitioner had neither obtained any communication to be current in this interplay assembly nor did he get any letter/communication highlighting any grounds or causes for rejection of his candidature.
“The petitioner was not called, despite fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria, by the selection committee whereby other candidates were duly called for the said post and hence the petitioner was not treated at par with the other candidates,” the plea mentioned.
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink