Plea in Delhi High Court against procedure to appoint National Law University VC

A petition has been moved in the Delhi High Court challenging 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 the applicants for the said post, through advocate Karan Suneja seeking directions to quash the decision of the Chancellor National Law University, Delhi dated June 25, 2020, rejecting his candidature for violating the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

He also sought directions for quashing the decision of the Selection Committee taken on February 5 to conduct proceedings for the appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor on February 25 as also to quash the decision made by the Committee to nominate any candidates to the governing council for violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

The plea sought directions to the respondents to take effective steps with a view to immediately call upon the petitioner for his interview/interactive session for the post 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 post 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 said.

The petitioner submitted that he believes that he fulfils the minimum eligibility criteria mentioned in the official notification dated October 11, 2019, and he should have been called by the Selection Committee for an interview/interaction meeting, his counsel said.

The counsel added that the petitioner had neither received any communication to be present in this interaction meeting nor did he get any letter/communication highlighting any grounds or reasons 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 said.