Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1073 (RAJ)

Hansraj Sharma v. State

2011-05-18

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Hansraj Sharma with the prayer that the respondents be directed not to issue interview letter, select and appoint the respondent no.4 pursuant to the advertisement no.2/2004-05 on the post of Lecturer Jyotish (Ganit) dated 8.6.2004. The writ petition was filed prior to finalisation of selection process. Subsequently, when respondent no.4 Shri Alok Sharma was selected and appointed on the said post, the writ petition was allowed to be amended on petitioner's application to incorporate the prayer seeking quashment of his selection/appointment. Shri R.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appointments were made pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.6.2004, which was although issued under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 for various posts including the post of Lecturer Jyotish (Ganit) but the very fact that respondent no.4 was appointed on the post of Lecturer subsequently and has been posted to teach the undergraduate classes at the Rajkiya Acharya Sanskrit College Manoharpur, Zila Jaipur vide appointment order dated 22.10.2005, indicates that his appointment was essentially for the post of College Lecturer. It was therefore argued that UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for Appointments of Teachers in Universities, Colleges and Other measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998 would be binding even for appointment of this nature. Learned senior counsel referred to the stipulation contained in para 4.4.0 thereof with regard to minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Lecturer mentioned therein and argued that according to the guidelines of UGC for appointment on the post of Lecturer, a candidate is required to have academic record with at least 55% of the marks or equivalent grade of B and in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,D,E & F at the Master's degree level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Besides fulfilling this condition a candidate should also have cleared the eligibility test, which is NET for lecturers by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. It is argued that when the petitioner represented UGC against the illegal action of the respondents, the comments of RPSC were called for and thereafter the UGC forwarded its comments to the petitioner for information vide their communication dated 28.3.2006. It is argued that when the petitioner represented UGC against the illegal action of the respondents, the comments of RPSC were called for and thereafter the UGC forwarded its comments to the petitioner for information vide their communication dated 28.3.2006. The RPSC in its letter dated 17.8.05 addressed to the Secretary of UGC has maintained that the post of Lecturer for which the recruitment was made did not belong to College Education, but it was a post under the Sanskrit School Education and therefore for appointment on such post, NET was not one of the essential eligibility qualifications. Learned counsel submitted that the UGC guidelines are binding even on the university and therefore even if the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1978 provides that the minimum academic qualification for direct recruitment would be as laid down by the University of Rajasthan from time to time, the UGC instructions would be binding even in this case. Learned counsel argued that it is not known whether respondent no.4 does possess NET qualification. It is also not known whether he possessed 55% marks in his post graduation examination, which is one of the essential requirements for appointment. Learned senior counsel further argued that even in the subsequent advertisement for the same post issued by the RPSC, the condition with regard to NET qualification was specifically inserted on 22.6.2006. Per contra, Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the RPSC argued that post to which selection of respondent no.4 has been made is a post covered by Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. This fact is mentioned in the advertisement dated 8.6.2004. This post of Lecturer was in a subordinate service and was not a gazette post whereas the post of Lecturers in other government colleges who teaches Sanskrit as a subject is a gazetted post. It is for this post only that the qualification of NET may be necessary. Learned counsel submitted that the RPSC has clarified this issued in their communication sent to UGC dated 17.8.2005 and also before this Court in their reply that the advertisement dated 8.6.2004 was issued for conducting recruitment to the post of Headmaster, Sr. It is for this post only that the qualification of NET may be necessary. Learned counsel submitted that the RPSC has clarified this issued in their communication sent to UGC dated 17.8.2005 and also before this Court in their reply that the advertisement dated 8.6.2004 was issued for conducting recruitment to the post of Headmaster, Sr. Teachers and Lecturers in various subjects, which include one post of Lecturer, Jyotish (Ganit) and that in their corrigendum dated 4.8.04, it was notified that for appointment on that post, the candidate should possess degree of Acharya in relevant subject with second division. Learned counsel also cited the relevant provision in the UGC Ordinance and argued that according to clause-V of Chapter XX thereof elating to Faculty of Sanskrit Studies it has been provided that for Phalit Jyotisha, at least a second Acharya Degree in the subject of Sanskrit is required. It is argued that subsequent advertisement to which reference has been made by the petitioner is for College Education and not for Sanskrit Education Department. It is argued that respondent possessed above 60% marks and therefore the oral argument raised that respondent no.4 does not possess 55% marks should be rejected. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned senior counsel for respondent-RPSC referred to the communication dated 19.4.2011 sent by Joint Director, Sanskrit Educa-tion, Rajasthan Jaipur at Annexure-R/A/4 to argue that it has been conveyed in that letter that the post of Lecturer of Sanskrit College is presently in the pay scale of Rs.15600-49100 and this post is a non-gazette post and that the notification prescribed for appointment on such post of University of Rajasthan as per the cited provision would be applicable and that the Lecturer appointed in Sanskrit Education Department are not recipient of the UGC pay scale. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on recored. Sheet anchor of the petitioner's arguments is that since the UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for Appointments of Teachers in Universities, Colleges and Other measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998 has provided the post graduation degree with 55% marks and NET as essential eligibility qualification and since respondent no.4 does not possess either of them, his selection should be declared illegal and the appointment order issued to him should be quashed. So far as the question with regard to respondent no.4 not having 55% aggregate marks in his post graduation degree is concerned, this argument has been raised orally but has been refuted orally by respondent no.4 that his marks are above 55%, therefore, that issue need not be gone into. However decision of this matter hinges completely on the question whether NET was a necessary qualification for appointment on the post of Professor pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-RPSC. RPSC has in its reply taken a categorical stand, which has issued a corrigendum with regard to eligibility qualification and had notified that a candidate shall possess degree of Acharya in relevant subject with second division. The Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Rules, 1978 in column 4 of S.No.1 in the schedule appended thereto, provides that minimum academic qualification for direct recruitment for the post of Lecturer would be as laid down by the University of Rajasthan from time to time. The University of Rajasthan in column-V(b)(i) of the Ordinance provides that for ancient subject of Phalit Jyotisha, a candidate should possess at least a second class Acharya degree (Master degree) in the subject concerned. It is not disputed that respondent possess this qualification. The post on which the respondent was appointed is a post under subordinate service and not a gazette post, is a fact, which has been clearly established. The advertisement subsequently issued by RPSC to which reference has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to the post of Lecturers in College Education, which are affiliated to University of Rajasthan and the Lecturers appointed on such posts are recipients of UGC pay scale. If the UGC as per the scheme of the Constitution Entry-66 List-1 of Schedule Seventh to the Constitution is responsible for maintaining standard of Education and for that purpose it can certainly lay down conditions and qualification for appointment etc. and it is on fulfilling of those conditions, that pay scale of UGC is granted to the Lecturers. However, in this case it has not been established and the assertion made by the respondent has not been refuted that holders of the post of Lecturer in the Sanskrit Education Department are not recipient of UGC pay scale and therefore, those conditions can be applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Sanskrit Education Department. However, in this case it has not been established and the assertion made by the respondent has not been refuted that holders of the post of Lecturer in the Sanskrit Education Department are not recipient of UGC pay scale and therefore, those conditions can be applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Sanskrit Education Department. This is because there are specific set of Rues according to which appointments in the Sanskrit Education Department are styled as Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules Rules, 1978 and it has by reference incorporated the prescription with regard to eligibility made by University of Rajasthan in their ordinance which according to clause (V)(b)(i) lays down the condition of second class Acharya degree in the subject concerned as the eligibility qualification for appointment. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.