Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 23 (JK)

Tariq Saleem Khan (Dr. ) v. University Of Jammu

2003-02-26

R.C.GANDHI

body2003
Per : R.C. Gandhi, J. 1. Petitioner seeks to quash Order No. Estab/02/7692 dated 9.11.2002 and Order No. Estab/02/8322 dated 30.11.2002 whereby two representations of the petitioner have been rejected and also Advertisement Notice No. Adm., TW.2002/10461-560 dated 1.6.2002 whereby the post of Assistant Registrar has been advertised by the respondent-University for selection of suitable candidates. The petitioner is working as Head Assistant in the University. He is P.hd. in Urdu. He has secured 55.25 marks in M.A Urdu. He applied to the University against Advertisement Notice seeking selection to the post of Assistant Registrar. The University-Respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 1.6.2002 on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible to seek selection being bereft of the eligibility criteria. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner being in service candidate is eligible to the relaxation of qualifying marks to the extent of 5% as provided under the instructions issued by the University Grants Commission. 3. The respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the said relaxation as it has been made applicable by the University only to the teaching staff. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The question only to be addressed is as to whether the petitioner is eligible to seek selection for the post of Assistant Registrar. The eligibility criteria advertised under the impugned Advertisement Notice is reproduced as under:-- Assistant Registrar� Good academic record plus Masters degree with at least 55% (50% in the case of SC/ST category) marks or its equivalent grade of B in the seven point scale with the letter grade O, A, B, C, D, E & F." 6. Petitioner admittedly has secured 54.25 marks in M.A Urdu, therefore, he does not fall within the cut of marks prescribed to determine the eligibility 7. Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para 3.50 of the Guidelines of U.G.C which provide for relaxation of 5% (i.e from 55% to 50%) of the marks to the P.hD Degree holders who have passed their Masters degree prior to 19th Sept. 1991. These guidelines have been considered by the respondent-University, but not adopted to provide this relaxation. 1991. These guidelines have been considered by the respondent-University, but not adopted to provide this relaxation. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the guidelines are binding upon the University and that the Univeristy is applying these guidelines for providing relaxation in some cases. Mr. J.P Singh has submitted that the relaxation is made available to the teaching staff and not to the non-teaching staff. It is within the province of the University to consider and apply the guidelines as are suited. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that these guidelines are being made available by the University to other employees i.e. to the non-teaching service employees. This argument being without any evidence is rejected. 8. So far as the plea that the guidelines are binding in nature and character is required to be rejected as it is not res-integra and has been settled by the Supreme Court in case titled State of Maharashtra v. Association of Maharashtra Education Service, AIR 1974 SC 2184. This Court also while examining the legal aspect and relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court delivered in case Y.N Gupta & Ors. v. State, 1994 KLJ 611 has observed as under:-- As I have already noticed, recommendations of the U.G.C do not have any force of law and are not binding upon the State Government. Reference to section 12 of the U.G.C Act was, therefore, totally extraneous because, whereas Section 12 of the Act prescribed some laudable objectives to be achieved by the U.G.C it could not by even the wildest stretch of imagination be ever construed to mean that the recommendation of the U.G.C were binding on any State Government in any manner� 9. For the aforesaid reasons, no case for admission of the petition is made out. The petition is dismissed.