Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1699 (MP)

Shiv Kumar Paroche v. State of M. P.

2014-12-20

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER 1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and being aggrieved by the action of the respondents not allowing the petitioner to participate in interview for the post of Professor (History) conducted by the Public Service Commission, this petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondents to consider petitioner for the post of Professor in the discipline of history as Scheduled Caste candidate and grant him all consequential and all service benefits. (ii) To grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award cost of petition.” 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he belong to Scheduled Caste category possessing necessary qualification and experience in furtherance to the advertisement Annexure P/1. He taught graduate and post graduate students as a Samvida Lecturer since 1994-95 till 2005-06 and also having various certificates of his academic advancement issued by the renowned authorities. But he was denied to participate in the interview for the post of Professor (History) conducted by the Public Service Commission. It is his contention that after filling-up the application form, he was called for interview vide letter dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P/10) but was not permitted to participate therein, and published the list of selectees on 23.9.2011 wherein the post of Scheduled Caste category could not be filled on account of not having any suitable and eligible candidate for appointment. In such circumstances, the action taken by the respondents refusing the petitioner to participate in the interview without any reason or rhyme is unsustainable in law. 3. Respondents No.2 and 3/PSC has filed its reply inter alia contending that an advertisement for the post of Professor (History) was published on 19.1.2009. On submitting the application form by the petitioner, he was called for interview for the said post bringing the experience certificate, arranging it datewise as mentioned in the call letter dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P/10). Petitioner came for interview alongwith the experience certificate but on calculating its period of experience it was found that he had not completed 10 years of teaching experience as required by the UGC and the advertisement. Petitioner came for interview alongwith the experience certificate but on calculating its period of experience it was found that he had not completed 10 years of teaching experience as required by the UGC and the advertisement. On 20.9.2011 on the date of interview, he submitted an application that he is having experience of 6 years of teaching and also of the research work which comes to 10 years 5 months and 10 days, therefore, it ought to be counted. Representation submitted by the petitioner is Annexure R/2-1. As the petitioner was not found eligible for the interview to the post of Professor (History), for want of experience, therefore, he was not permitted to participate in the interview. It is further said that the Corrigendum (Annexure P/12) dated 8.8.2012 does not affect the candidature of the petitioner prejudicing him. It is said that the said Corrigendum was in pursuance of the letter dated 27.10.2009 and 29.4.2010 issued by the State Government, before the said date the applications for the post of Professor was scrutinized in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.1.2009. In addition, the petitioner is not having experience from the grant-in-aid or Government College, therefore, he has rightly been declined to participate in the interview. In such circumstances, the ground as raised indicating the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is unsustainable in law. 4. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties at considerable length and on perusal of the averments made in the return by the Public Service Commission, it is apparent that the teaching experience of the petitioner was from 1994-95 till 2005-06, as Assistant Professor on contract basis for about 6 years and not of 10 years. As per the representation submitted by him (Annexure R/2-1), it is clear that he had asked to add the experience of research to fulfill the eligibility criteria. No averments have been made in the writ petition, in the factual matrix as well as in the grounds, to count the said experience of research for the purpose of completing the teaching experience required in the advertisement. It is not a case of the petitioner that he is an eminent scholar or an outstanding scholar and falls in the category of alternative criteria of qualification prescribed by the UGC. It is not a case of the petitioner that he is an eminent scholar or an outstanding scholar and falls in the category of alternative criteria of qualification prescribed by the UGC. However, requisite qualification to participate in the interview for the post of Professor (History) as required has not been proved by the petitioner. In absence of any material brought on record to show the teaching experience of 10 years, the denial by the Public Service Commission to participate in interview is in accordance with law which do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. In view of the foregoing, this petition is devoid of merits hence dismissed. In the facts parties to bear their own cost. Smt. Shobha Menon with Rahul Choubey for petitioner; R. P. Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State; Prashant Singh and Manas Verma for respondents No.2 and 3/MPPSC.