MADHUP NATH JHA v. RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT SANSTHAN & ORS

6. Aggrieved by the decision of the EC not to recommend his appointment as lecturer, Respondent No. 5 approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing W. P. (C) No. 43882 of 1998. Respondent No. 3 contested this writ petition and filed an affidavit stating that Respondent No. 5 in fact had much less marks in his post graduate degree in comparison to the Petitioner and therefore, was found unsuitable for the post of lecturer in history. However, the said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn and Respondent No. 5 was appointed as lecturer in history. The case of the Petitioner is that his reversion to a non-existent post of PGT was stigmatic and punitive, and in any event violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, the Petitioner‟s salary has also not been paid by Respondent No. 1.

7. Respondent No. 5 in his reply to the present writ petition has pointed out that he was appointed initially as a lecturer in history on ad hoc basis in Respondent No. 3 with effect from 4th August 1992. At the time of such appointment he had a postgraduate degree in history. He had passed the B. Ed. examination in 1992. He also had an M. Phil. degree. He had enrolled for a Ph.D. from the Banaras Hindu University and a provisional Ph.D. degree was awarded to him on 4th December 2000. Respondent No. 5 states that in 1993 the requisite qualifications for being appointed as a lecturer was an MA in 2nd class in the subject concerned, a B. Ed. degree and at least 3 years‟ teaching experience. He states that by the time the EC was constituted by Respondent No. 1 visited Respondent No. 3 on 14th April 1997 Respondent No. 5 had 4 years and 8 months‟ teaching experience as lecturer in history. At the time when Respondent No. 5 joined as lecturer in history the Petitioner only had a BA degree and was appointed, therefore, only as a TGT. He did not possess even a B. Ed. degree. It is pointed out that the Petitioner qualified in MA in 1993 with 58.5% marks but was wrongly promoted from TGT to PGT without the approval of a duly constituted expert committee. When the second expert committee visited the college it was realised that the Petitioner was not even qualified to be appointed as a TGT in history. Respondent No. 5 further states that as per the norms of the University Grants Commission („UGC‟) he is fully qualified as he had in 1990 itself a master‟s degree in History with W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000

52.5%. This was above the requirement of 50% as mentioned in the UGC Guidelines. On the other hand, the Petitioner did not fulfill the UGC norms.

8. The stand of Respondent No. 5 has been fully supported by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is contended that apart from the fact that the Petitioner was not qualified to be appointed to the post of even a TGT as he did not have a B. Ed. degree, his promotion to the post of PGT was illegal. The inclusion of the Petitioner‟s name in the circular dated 17th November, 1998 showing him to be a lecturer in history is stated to be a mistake. Further, the letter appointing him as lecturer dated 2nd December 1998 made it clear that he was to be on probation for a period of two years. Consequently the Petitioner could not claim any right to hold the post.

9. The stand of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that Respondent No. 3 has to abide by the norms laid down by Respondent No. 1. This includes strict application of the UGC norms in the matter of recruitment of teaching staff. It is reiterated that the Petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of PGT in history as he did not possess the B. Ed. degree.

10. The principal issue to be decided in the present case is whether the reversion of the Petitioner from the post of lecturer in history to a PGT in history is justified in law? The comparative merits of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 for being appointed as lecturers in history is an incidental issue.

11. The Petitioner states that he has a postgraduate degree in history with 58.5% marks. It is not in dispute that for appointment as a lecturer in history a candidate should possess a second class postgraduate degree, i.e., MA, a B. Ed. degree and at least three years‟ teaching experience. It is further not in dispute that the UGC norms required the candidate to have a masters degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade. This according to Respondent No.5 is relaxable up to 50%. However, as further clarified by the Respondents 1 to 4 the norms stipulated for the 95% grant-in-aid required the candidate to have a B. Ed and a Ph.D. degree or to have qualified the NET. Respondent No.5 had a Ph.D at the time of his appointment as ad hoc lecturer. However the Petitioner did not possess a B. Ed. on the date that he was promoted as a PGT in the Department of History. He was not a Ph.D at the time W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000 of his appointment as Lecturer. The Petitioner has not been able to deny that Respondent No. 5 possessed a higher qualification. Apart from an M.A. and a B. Ed. degree, he also had an M. Phil. and 4 years and 8 months of teaching experience. In the circumstances, the stand taken by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 about the Petitioner having been promoted as a PGT in History by mistake and further not being qualified to be appointed as a lecturer in history appears to be justified. In terms of seniority Respondent No. 5 was appointed as an ad hoc lecturer in 1992 itself and on a regular basis with effect from 1993, whereas the Petitioner was only appointed as a TGT in 1992 for which again he was not qualified as he did not possess a B. Ed. degree. In the circumstances the decision of Respondent No. 3 to not continue the Petitioner in the post of lecturer history cannot be held to be illegal.

12. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on 17th April 2001 by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that since the Petitioner was not qualified he was not fit to be retained. However, the impugned order does revert the Petitioner to the post of PGT in history. During the course of submissions it was stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been paid the salary as TGT from 12th January 2007 onwards. A copy of a letter dated 12th January 2007 addressed by the Principal of Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner was, pursuant to a letter dated 18th December 2006 of Respondent No. 1 and the decision dated 16th December 2006 of the Managing Committee of Respondent No. 3, appointed as PGT History on temporary basis for a period of two years. However, the said letter asks the Petitioner to withdraw the present petition. Considering that the impugned order already reverted the Petitioner to the post of PGT History with effect from 10th July 2000, the further decision ten years later to appoint him to the said post on temporary basis appears to be intriguing. The Petitioner ought to be paid the salary as PGT History for the entire period he has worked on the said post. Accordingly it is directed that the Petitioner should within a period of eight weeks be paid by the Respondents his salary as PGT History for the entire period that he has served on the said post after adjusting the amount already paid to him. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. AUGUST 04, 2011 W.P. (C) No. 3918 of 2000 S. MURALIDHAR, J