SPUR v. Guru Ghasi Das Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, fhrough Regtetrar

Judgment

3. Guru Ghasi Das Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, fhrough Regtetrar. ChanceUor, Ouru Ghasi Das Vishwavidyalaya, Rajbhavan, BhopaL Ku. AnupaiaaSinha, D/o Meghnath Sinlia, Lecturer, Political Science, Guru Gbasi Das Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur. .

Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for fh.e petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastav, counsel for the respondeuts No. 1 and 2. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shn Amit Verma, Advocate for fhe respondent No.3. ORDER (^Pebruaiy, 2006) The foUowiag order offhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agaihotri, J. The present petition seeks for quashing of the appoiatment order of the Rcspondent No.3 aad furfher direction against fhe Respondent No.l to appoint the petitioner as per the advertisement dated 15A May, 1986 (Annexure P/5). According to fhe petitioncr, the petitioner along wifh fhe Respondent No.3 and othera appUed for appointment to the post of Lccturer ia Political Science in the Respondent No.l Unjversity, pursuant to fhe advertisement dated 15th May, 1986 (Annexure P/5). TheRespondent No.3 was selected fi?r appoin.taient wifhoyt having the requisite qualificdtion as prescribed in fhe said advertisement dated lSth Msy, 198& -It was further stated by the petitioner^that the petitioner was •-v.^ .. -^- ^- '^ ^. 'A^i&iaATiifi luqsM ^BpBvpaaasf 'Suopqg '^TSjSAian ]J(H lus^seg TB-IOM £[3vca3ai ssptsisAiafi snoueA jo (9g/g-y aiTixairov) s^u3Tii3Si(J3ApB SBq e'o^ ^uapuodsay aq^ jq: issanoo p3a.rey[ "8861 '6'ee ao aaiSsp INd "W paatE^qo £-ON ^uapnodsay aqt pire 886T"9"8S "o aaiSsp -a'qd paure^qo jauoppad stp ptre 8861'S'^, SBA 8HopBOi(ddB 8up[Bi[i jcg syap i.SBi sqj, 'aoaaiog ^Bopi(0j iti -lain^oyijo ^sod aip o}. ^usuqaioddB loj vo'tfeaicfddv 8np[Bui jo aiiip axp ya saiSap 3fBiayx>p pBq £•0^; ^uapuodsay sq^ JOK janoppad aq^ jaippa SSBO i.aasajd sip ai •piooai oimapBOB poo8 pue ^uaiBAinbs ptie sspBm %ss ^SBSI IB ipiA ^oaCqns yiBA3[ai 3iy. tn aauSap s^iafSBvi SBA OOOIT-OOSS 'sa J0 SIBOS Aad aq^ Ut .I3JT40y[ JO 1.80d 3Ip o^ fciavsvxiodSB joj aop.Bogt(Bnb Luitiuiutiu aiff. 'Ati&isAtan ^uspaodsai'aip pue qjegsp^Eqqo jo apx^s 3V Siitpiipai '^AOQ 31^ .(Cq patdsooe 's^asiinuaAOQ a^B^g sip. sBAiqoiqA '33nTlIIDI03 a4atII3W 3VS° STSEq 3IO Tto aiBas .&d pasiASii 'g-oy ^aapaodesy aip JQJ psanoo paiUBSi A»a jo uoponpOL4ui av^. acy. o^ Smpiooov "sssocud aopoaps jadaid Situaojjoj jayB ssnroiiaoo pve Bipai jo •ye s> uoy).o3[3s stp ^Cq patuiodffe SBA E'ON ^aapaodsay aq}. puB apem '(l/g-y amxsiniv) 886T'S'8 ai3M SuoptBoiiddB 'qoiqM o^ ^iren&nid 'Seyi ipSI p31BP ^oti SBA tU3TB3sp,j3Ape ^T(BAa{a.i psfBp ^nq 9861 3t{^ tBip pa^Kts £'o(d i.aapuodsay aip. jcg SuueaddB issnnoo paiuBsi 'UBAUJ, aipusfey uqs 'BTDU3A ^roiy uqg IBTA I38 100 -lopiss psicreai ~-> '£"°N^Hapaodsay aipjo j3uopi).ad aiy, SOOA13} ui passBd ^nsnri.aioddB jo japio aq^ jo SuiqsBnb jcg papua^uoo 'p3S3{[i SEA £•0^ 'aiojaxav^ 'soaauadxs Suiqaeat ^aapaodsay aip jo ^aani^uioddB wy. pue jBpi8aui •Aio^Bunuuosip SaiABq OSIB SBA pire ^uam ni jouadns qontti SBA jsuopp.ad aip ysq^ paysis jaipjig SBA ^{ 'prepaB^s pres sip. jo aaigap ^lre SABq i.on FTp e'oti ^uspaodssa aip pite aousiog iB3pT[Oij TII aaigap 'a'qd 8uuu3q New DeUu, Maaipiur University Canchipur, Iinphal etc. appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistaat Professor. AU the Universities adopted the csseatial qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission for appointinent to the post of Lecturer. As per fhe Uiuversity Graats Commission, qualification for appointment of 'Lecturer' is "Consistently the essential academic record with at least S5% marks and Master's degree in the relevaat subject or its eqiuvalent grade and fhe preference woidd be given to the candidates who are M.Phil/Ph.D." It fherefore establislied that fhe nunimum qualification was good acadenuc record wifh at least 55% inarks ui the master's degree in the relevaat subject or its eqiiivalent grade. The reseaR:h degree like M.Phil/Ph-D. was desirable qualification for the purpose ofgiviag appointmeats. Guru Ghashi Das Vsiversity revised Orduiaace also prescribes for qualification, which reads as under:- "C. LECTURER: (1) Master's Degree in the subject with at least 55% as the Post Graduate Exainination together wifh at least 50% Diarks in Gradiiate Exainination wifh the subject applied for fioia a recognized Univereity. (2) A Doctoral Degree/M.Phy in fhe subject. Provided fhat fhe Executive Councfl on fhe recdmmendations of the Selection Coinniittee shaB have the power to relax any or aU the conditions laid dowa in para-I ABC except for the minumun required percentage in the Post-Graduate and Under-Graduate Examinations in fhe interest of TeacIung/Research in cases of scholars haviag extra-ordinaiy repute the fields of the subject concenicd."

6. Leamed counsel for the Respondent No.3 has relied on the decision of fhe Supreme Court in fhe case of Krishaa Kumar, Assistant Secretary, Market Commlttee, Bhiwaai, (Haryana) Vs. Haryana ' -T^., State A|grIcuM:ural Marketing Board, Pancliknta1 in support ofhis i(1997)--4 S.C.C. 577 ——;———. ' ^•f- •<. -p? 4 contention fhat the crucial date for possession of eligibOity qualification is fhe date of fhe applicatioa for selection. In fhe present case the petitioner as wetl as the Respondent No.3 bofh had the essential quaUfication i.e. M.A. wifh S9% marks in relevant subject but did not possess fhe research degree i.e. M.PhiI/Ph.D. Leamed counscl subnutted that the acadeiaic record of the Respondent No.3 was inuch superior in PoUtical Science as coiapared with fhe petitioner aad fhe einphasis on essential qualification is good academic record. Leamed counsel has produced a chart uidK-ating coinparative academic qualtfications and aGadeinic records of the petitioner as weU as that offhe respondent No.3 in Annexure R-3/23 which is quoted as under:- Srl. Level Respondent No.3 Petition.er No.

1. Higher 78% Tofal, 18t Class firsts in Below 50% with Secondaiy MP State in fhe merit Ust of I Science Subjects Arts Faculty, with 82.3% inarks ia fhe coucemed subject-'Civics'

2. Graduation 65.3% wifh first class Third 57% passed wifh inerit Ust University, wifh 70% marks iu fhe conceraed subject - supplementaiy with Science subjects PoUtical Science

3. Post

65.3% wifh first class Third 62% with firat class Graduation in the inerit Ust of the teafh iu Uruversily university merit Ust

4. Research (i)MA Lagfxa Shodh Prabhaadha (ii)During M.Phil Undertook research in fhe desirable Could undertake research graduate area, i.e. wcaker sections of lcvcl as onJy society specially the •^. ta-ibal. Later on, on fhe basis studente securing at research work, published/presented coiniuunicated papers research pubUcation withia one year ofcoiapletmg M.FhU During M.Phffl, offered least 60% inarks in M.A. Previous Were aUowed to uadertake secure 52% Tribal Developiaent as a marks. Awarded Ph.D. on

26.8.88 not ia the desirable adverdseinents. spccial paper and in the advertiseiaent preference was for those who had done studtes ia the areas related to the weaker sections of the sodety, specially tribal. (As a Rclevaace, Ph.D. also awarded June 1993 ia fhe areas related studies Tribals). vf:

7. Leamed counsel further contended fhat fhere was uaexplained and delay ia filing this petition as such fhis petition deserves to be dismissed on fhe ground of latches. The counsel has relied on decisions ofSupreine Court iu. Jagdish Naraln Mattiar Vs. The State ofBihar and others2, and P. 8. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State ofT.K.3.

8. Sfari Ashish Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for Respondents No. l and 2 adopted fhe submissions made by learaed counsel for the Respondent No.3.

9. "''^.••, I have heard leamed counsel for the parties aad perused the records appended to fhe pleadings. . - 2AIR 1973 SC 1343, 3AIR 1974 S.C. 2271 '^.

10. The petitioner along with Respoudent No.3 and ofher eUgible candidates liarl appUed purauaat to the advertMement dated 8.2.1988 (Annexure R/l), not fhe advertisement dated 15.5.1986 (Annexure P/5) as stated by the petitioner. The essential quali&catioii prescnbed ia the advertisement dated 8.2. 1988 is as under;- Qualification: a) Essential: As prescribed by the University Grants Conunission, New Delhi for Professor, Reader and Lecturer iu the Universities. b) Desirable: ' i) For Prpfessor and Lecturer in Psvcholoev. Political Science:- Preference shaU be given to candidates specialized in or having experience or research and studies in the field of weaker section of sociely particiilarly tribals, Harijans and womea, and in rural developinent

11. Before the advertiaement dated 8.2.1988 was published, fhe State Goverrunent iacluding the respondent/Uiuversity adopted fhe ifevised pay scale as recortunended by the Mehrotra Conimittee wherein fhe mmimiiTn qualification for apponitment to the post of Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was Master's degree iu fhe relevant subject wittt at least 55% inarks or its equivalent grade aad good academic record. Research degree i.e. Ph.D./M.Phil was desirable quali&cation. It is clear even from. fhe explanation iu the appendix to the letter dated 17.6.1987 (Aiinexure R-3/15) regarding the Scheine of Revision of Pay Scales ofTeachers in Uiiiversities and Colleges- 1986 and ofher Measiires fbr Maiatenance of Slandards in Higher Education, that even Lectiirer will be eligible for placement in senior -^ay scale ofRs. 3000-5000 ifhe/she has: ^ (a) Completed 8 years of service after regular appointment or has reached a basic pay off Rs. 2800/-, whichever is earUer; (b) Obtained a M.Phill or Ph.D. degree as fhe case may be, or has to his/her credit research work of equivalent staadard; (c) Attended two refipesher courses/suauner iustitution each of at least foiu- week's duration aa.d (d) Consistentiy satisfactoiy performance reports. This is furfher evident fi-om fhe advertisements issued by fhe pther Universiti.es. Hence, possessing Ph.D./M.PhU degrce is an cssential qualification for grant of increinents aad better pay scale, not the essential required qtialification for appointracnt to fhe post of Lecturer. Admittedly, fhe pctitioner and fhe Respondent No.3 had essential qualification at the time of makiag appUcation i.e. before

7.3.1988 for appointinent to fhe post of Lecturer but the Respondent No.3 had better acadeinic records as she has 78% niarks in higher secondary school examiaation with 82.5% inarks in the conccmed subject, 63.5% inarks in graduation with 70% inarta in fhe co^.cem.cd subject aD.d 65.3% inarks in. post graduation, when the petitioner had less than. 50 niarks in Science subject in higher secondary sehool examination, 57% inarks in science subject iti graduation aad 62% niarks ui post graduation. The respondent No.3 had better research work fhan the petttioner. The selection comxnittee, it appears, has gone through the entire acadeinic records of bofh the candidates l^it before selecting the Respondent No.3 for fhe post of appoiatment. There is no reason to interfere with the selection process aud tih.e resiilts thereafter inade by fhe experts in fhe field.

12. The Supreine Court in Ramesh Kuinar Choudha SB others Vs. State , - pf M.P. and others4 clearly held fhat fhe qualiflcation obtaiaed after fhe cut oflF date does not entifled the caadidate for consideratiDn on fhe liasis of qualification acquired after the cut oflFdate. ^

13. The Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc. V. Dr. B. 8. Mahajan etc.5 m. paxa -9 held as under:-

9. ........ It is needless to einphasise that it is not the fi.uiction of the Court to hear appeals over fhe decisioas of the Selection Coinnuttees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whefher a candidate is fit for a particiilar post or aot has to be decMed by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on thc subject. The Court has no such experdse. The decision ofthe Selection Committee can be interfered with only on lunited grounds, such as illegality or patent material UTegularity in the constitution of the Coinmittee or its procedure vitiatuig the selection, or prpved .inala fides affecting fhe selection ete. It is not disputed fhat in fhe present case the Universily had constituted the Coinniittee ia due coiapliaace wifh. fhe relevant statutes. The Coininittee consisted ofexperts and it sefccted ttie candidates after going fhrough aU the relevant Diaterial before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so cafled conipaTative inerits of fhe caadidates as assessed by fhe Court, fhe High Court went wroag and exceeded its Jurisdiction."

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons it is not necessaiy to go iuto fhe qiiestion of filing fhis petition after a period of three ycars Iroin ftie date, the cause of action arose.

15. ,H>? / For fhe reasons stated above and authoritative pronouncements of the Supreine Court in the decisions cited above, tbe petition is disinissed. No order as to costs. So'/- Satish K. Aauihotri Judge •»(1996) I'l S.C.C. 242, 5AIR 1990 S.C. 434 in-i&kur 1