Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 223 (ALL)

Prof. Rakesh Kumar Trivedi v. State of U. P.

2014-01-17

ARUN TANDON, SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT Arun Tandon & Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ.: - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These four writ petitions have been filed in respect of selection on the post of Director, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur(hereinafter referred to as 'HBTI, Kanpur') as well as for the post of Director, Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jhansi (hereinafter referred as to as 'BIET, Jhansi'). These writ petitions raise common questions of law and have been clubbed together and are being decided by means of this common judgment. 3. The facts in short are as follows : "An advertisement was published under the signature of Principal Secretary Technical Education, Government of U.P. on 22.7.2012 inviting applications for the post of Director, HBTI, Kanpur and Director, BIET, Jhansi. There is no dispute with regard to the post of Director, Uttar Pradesh Textile Technology Institute, Kanpur and therefore, no reference is being made herein under with regard to the said post." 4. Under the advertisement the minimum qualifications to be possessed by the prospective candidates for his claim is to be considered for the post of Director were : - "Qualification and experience will be same as prescribed by AICTE for the post of Director in the Notification dated 5th March 2010." 5. Notification of AICTE dated 5th March, 2010 published in the official gazette called the All India Council for Technical Education (New Delhi, Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree) Regulations, 2010) (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations-2010') provides for minimum qualifications to be possessed for various faculty posts in Technical Institutes. 6. For the post of Director the qualification prescribed under the Regulation-2010 are as follows : Principal / Director Qualification as above that is for the post of Professor, as applicable. Post PhD publications and guiding PhD students is highly desirable. Minimum of 10 years experience in teaching / Research/ Industry out of which at least 3 years shall be at the level of Professor. 7. Besides the academic qualification, as quoted above, teaching experience has also been provided which is not necessary to be quoted in view of the controversy involved. 8. Minimum of 10 years experience in teaching / Research/ Industry out of which at least 3 years shall be at the level of Professor. 7. Besides the academic qualification, as quoted above, teaching experience has also been provided which is not necessary to be quoted in view of the controversy involved. 8. Since, the academic qualifications for the post of Director refer back to the post of Professor, we may reproduce the academic qualification provided for the post of professor under the Regulation-2010 which reads as follows : "Professor : Qualification as above that is for the post of Associate Professor, applicable post of PhD publications and guiding PhD students is highly desirable." 9. The academic qualification for the post of Associate professor relate back to the post of Assistant Professor which read as follows : "Associate Professor- Qualification as above that is for the post of Assistant Professor, as applicable and Ph.D. Or equivalent, in appropriate discipline." 10. The qualification for the post of Asstt. Professor are as follows : - "Asstt. Professor - BE/B.Tech and ME/M.Tech in relevant branch with First Class or equivalent either in BE/ B.Tech or ME/M.Tech.." 11. Petitioners R.K. Trivedi, Pramod Kumar and Anil Kumar submitted their applications in response to the advertisement recorded above. The last date for making of the application was notified as 14.8.2012. After short listing of the eligible candidates interview took place on 21.1.2013. Sri Anil Kumar was not called for interview for want of academic qualification. He, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 3252 of 2013. 12. It is his case that M.Sc (Statistics) and Ph.D. ( Computer Science & Engg.) states by this prescribed academic qualifications. In the writ petition an interim order was passed on 18.1.2013 requiring the respondents authorities to consider the case of Anil Kumar and to invite his for interview. It is not in dispute that Anil Kumar appeared in the interview before the Selection Board on 21.1.2013. 13. Since, the result of the selection of the eligible candidates was not being declared. This lead to filing of Writ Petition No. 7073/2013 by R.K. Trivedi and Pramod Kumar. They pray for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to declare the result of the selections. 14. 13. Since, the result of the selection of the eligible candidates was not being declared. This lead to filing of Writ Petition No. 7073/2013 by R.K. Trivedi and Pramod Kumar. They pray for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to declare the result of the selections. 14. In these writ petition an order was passed on 18.1.2013 calling upon the Standing Counsel to inform the Court as to how soon the results can be declared. 15. The State Government on 27.9.2013 took a decision to cancell the entire process of selection initiated under advertisement dated 22.7.2012 on the ground that there was a discrepancy in the Hindi version vis-a-vis the English publication of the Regulation-2010, as notified in the official gazette dated 5th March, 2010, and, therefore, the process of selection stood vitiated. After having taken such such decision, the State Government published a fresh advertisement dated 29.9.2013 for the post of Director, HBTI, Kanpur and Director, BIET, Jhansi. The qualification mentioned in the second advertisement are again that same as published in the earlier advertisement dated 22.7.2012. 16. This subsequent advertisement has been challenged by Pramod Kumar by means of Writ Petition No. 62486 of 2013 in which an interim order has been granted by the High Court on 13.12.2013 whereby the proceedings of interview have been stayed until further orders. 17. Sri Anil Kumar has filed Writ Petition No. 69326 of 2013 with reference to the advertisement dated 29.9.2013 with a prayer that he is eligible for the post of Director and may be invited for interview. 18. This completes the narration of facts leading to the four writ petitions which have been filed before this Court. The fact of these petitions is depend upon the legality of the order of the State Government dated 27.9.2013 whereby a decision has been taken to cancel the selection proceeding undertaken under the Advertisement dated 22.7.2012 for the same post of Director. Therefore, we proceed to examine the legality of the order of the State Government dated 27.9.2013 (term). The fact of these petitions is depend upon the legality of the order of the State Government dated 27.9.2013 whereby a decision has been taken to cancel the selection proceeding undertaken under the Advertisement dated 22.7.2012 for the same post of Director. Therefore, we proceed to examine the legality of the order of the State Government dated 27.9.2013 (term). The order is enclosed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the Sate and is reproduced as under : - ^^'kkldh; vuqnkfur Lok;Rr'kklh bathfu;fjax dkyst gjdksVZ cVyj izkS|ksfxd laLFkku] dkuiqj esa funs'kd ds fjDr in ij p;u@ fu;qfDr gsrq foKkiu izdkf'kr djus ds funsZ'k 'kklu ds i= la[;k&2304@lksyg&1&2012&343@90Vh0lh0] fnukad 20 tqykbZ] 2012 }kjk fn, x, Fks] ftlds vuqikyu esa fnukad 22-7-2012 dks lekpkj i= esa foKkiu izdkf'kr gqvk FkkA 2- mDr foKkiuksa esa funs'kd in gsrq vgZrk ,oa vuqHko vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk rduhdh laLFkkvksa ¼fMxzh½ esa f'k{kdksa ,oa vU; 'kS{kf.kd LVkQ ds fy, osrueku] 'krsZa vkSj vgZrk;sa fofu;ekoyh ds lEcU/k esa fuxZr vf/klwpuk fnukad 5-3-2010 ds vuq: i vgZrk;sa fofu;ekoyh ds lEcU/k esa fuxZr vf/klwpuk fnukad 5-3-2010 ds vuq: i fu/kkZfjr dh x;h FkhA vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn dh mDr vf/klwpuk fnukad 5-3-2010 ds vaxzsth otZu esa vgZrk "BE/BTech and ME/MTech in relevant branch with First Class or equivalent either in BE/BTech or ME/MTech" fu/kkZfjr Fkh tcfd blds fgUnh otZu esa vgZrk ^^ch0bZ0@ch0Vsd0 vFkok ,e0bZ0@,e0Vsd0 esa izFke Js.kh vFkok led{k ds lkFk izklafxd 'kk[kk esa ch0bZ0@ch0Vsd vFkok ,e0bZ0@,e0Vsd0** dk mYys[k Fkk] tks vf/klwpuk;sa ijLij fojk/kkHkklh FkhA 3- Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf'kr vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn ds 'kqf)&i=] fnukad 14-5-2010 }kjk fgUnh otZu dh mDr vgZrk dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq;s vf/klwpuk fnukad 5-3-2010 ds vaxzsth otZu ds vuqlkj dj fn;k x;k FkkA funs'kd in gsrq izdkf'kr mDr foKKiu fnukad 22-7-2012 esa vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk fuxZr mDRk 'kqf) i= fnukad 14-5-2010 dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlls mDr foKkiuksa ds vk/kkj ij funs'kd in gsrq viuk;h x;h p;u izfdz;k nwf"kr ,oa =qfViw.kZ FkhA 19. From the simple reading of the order of the State Government, it is apparent that the only reason declared for cancellation of the process of selection with regard to the advertisement dated 22.7.2012 is that there was a discrepancy in the Hindi version and English version of the Regulation -2010 as published in the official gazette on 5.3.2010. From the simple reading of the order of the State Government, it is apparent that the only reason declared for cancellation of the process of selection with regard to the advertisement dated 22.7.2012 is that there was a discrepancy in the Hindi version and English version of the Regulation -2010 as published in the official gazette on 5.3.2010. The discrepancy pointed out in Hindi version is that the word 'vkSj' should have been used instead of the word used i.e. ' vFkok ' meaning thereby that a candidate was required to be possessed of both the qualification BE/B.Tch and ME/M.Tech and not any of them which was the affect of the usage of the word ' vFkok ' in the Hindi version. The State Government has also taken note of the fact that a corrigendum was published on 14.5.2010 by the AICTE making necessary correction in the Hindi version of Regulation-2010 as published in the official gazette on 5.3.2010. 20. In our opinion the corrigendum becomes a part of the original regulation and the mistake if any stood corrected as early as on 14.5.2010 while the first advertisement in question was published nearly 2 years thereafter, i.e. 22.7.2012. We are of the opinion that every person applying for the post of director must have read the minimum qualification as prescribed in the Regulation 2010 as per the corrigendum dated 14.5.2010. 21. We find that the State Government has adopted an hyper technical attitude in cancelling the entire process of selection in ignorance of the impact of the publication of the corrigendum dated 14.5.2010. 22. We may also record that neither the State counsel nor the counsel for the Institutes could demonstrate as whether any candidate had complained that because of reading of Regulation 2010 he had been mislead. We feel to understand as to on what material on record the State came to the conclusion that selection were vitiated on the ground stated in the order dated 27.9.2013. The order impugned cancelling the entire selections dated 27.9.2013 cannot be stand and is hereby quashed. 23. The Writ Petition No. 7073 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 62486 of 2013 are allowed. The order impugned cancelling the entire selections dated 27.9.2013 cannot be stand and is hereby quashed. 23. The Writ Petition No. 7073 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 62486 of 2013 are allowed. The State Government is directed to conclude the selection proceedings after considering the recommendations received for the Director, HBTI, Kanpur and Director, BIET, Jhansi with reference to advertisement dated 22.7.2012 preferably within four weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before it. 24. So far as the Writ Petition No. 3252 of 2013 filed by Anil Kumar is concerned, we find that he has participated in the process of selection under the interim order dated 18.1.2013. We deem it fit and proper to provide that the State Government shall also examine the case of Anil Kumar if he has been recommended by the selection committee for the post of Director. The State Government shall decide as to whether he satisfies the essential qualification as per Regulation -2010 or not. Writ Petition no. 3252 of 2013 is disposed of accordingly. 25. So far as the Writ Petition No. 69326 of 2013 is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of Anil Kumar for being considered in response to the advertisement dated 13.12.2012 would only survive, if the State Government refuses to except the recommendation of the selection committee with reference to advertisement dated 22.7.2012. However, in order to settle the controversy which has been raised by Anil Kuamr qua his being qualified for the post of Director or not. We further provide that the State Government may examine by means of separate order as to whether Sri Anil Kumar of the qualification of M.Sc (Statistics) and Ph.D as possessed by Anil Kumar can be said to be equivalent to those prescribed for the post of director under Regulation -2010 or not, within two weeks from the date a certified copy is filed before respondent no.1. 26. Writ petition No. 7073 of 2013 and 62486 of 2013 are allowed. All other petitions are disposed off as subject to the observation made.