Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 38 (RAJ)

Pancha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-06

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2015
ORDER : Reportable The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Substitute Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18.12.2013. The Principal of the respondent college issued an advertisement dated 18.12.2013 inviting applications for the post of College Lecturer (Substitute Teacher) in the subject of Botany against the post of Teacher Research Fellow (vacancy against Leave). The petitioner applied against the said post as he was qualified and fulfilled the minimum eligibility condition as prescribed by the 3rd Amendment, Regulations, 2009 and the Regulations, 2010. However, the respondent No. 5 was selected inspite of the fact that he was not qualified. As per Regulation 3.3.1 of the Regulations for minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in University and Colleges and measures for maintaining of standard in Higher Education, 2010 published in the Gazette of India on dated 18.09.2010, the following minimum qualification are required :- “3.3.1 NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.” Provided however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree)Regulation, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges /Institutions.” It is stated that the respondent No. 5 is neither NET nor SLET nor SET. He does not have the minimum qualification. Although, he has been awarded Ph.D. Degree, however, the said Ph.D. Degree is prior to the Regulations of 2009. Thus, the respondent No. 5 is not covered with the proviso provided to Regulation 3.3.1 reproduced above. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The respondent No. 5 has not put in appearance inspite of service. The respondent No. 2 was granted time to file the reply on the last date of hearing. But the same has not been filed till date. They sought to file reply after all the arguments were over. As per the Sur-Rejoinder supported by affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. The respondent No. 2 was granted time to file the reply on the last date of hearing. But the same has not been filed till date. They sought to file reply after all the arguments were over. As per the Sur-Rejoinder supported by affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, they have admitted in no uncertain terms that even the Commissioner, College Education vide Communication dated 26.06.2014 told the College Principal that the selection was not as per the minimum standard and procedure laid down under Regulation 3.3.1 of the Regulations referred above and that the Ph.D. Degree in possession of the respondent No. 5 did not meet the UGC (minimum standard and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulation of 2009 and the Commissioner had accordingly written to respondent No. 4 to act accordingly. However, before they could take any action, the respondent No. 5 produced the copy of Order dated 29.05.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6031/2014 and 33 other connected matters passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to engage substitute lecturers/teachers for full duration of the research fellowship awarded to substantive Lecturers/ Teachers in whose vacancies they are engaged and it was in these circumstances that no action could be taken against the respondent No. 5. The facts herein are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Regulation 3.3.1 of the Regulations has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Singh Shekhawat Vs. Union of India & ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8582/2011 and 39 other connected matters) decided on 13.09.2012. The said writ petitions were filed by number of petitioners challenging the vires of the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment) Regulations, 2009. The said writ petitions were filed apprehending that since the petitioners in the said writ petitions had acquired M.Phil and Ph.D. Degree prior to 2009 and the same was not as per the minimum standard and procedure laid down under the regulations, their candidature may be rejected. The said writ petitions were filed apprehending that since the petitioners in the said writ petitions had acquired M.Phil and Ph.D. Degree prior to 2009 and the same was not as per the minimum standard and procedure laid down under the regulations, their candidature may be rejected. Vide a detailed judgment, their writ petitions were dismissed and said regulation was upheld by observing as under :- “In view of the discussion made above, in our opinion, there was no justification whatsoever for the UGC to pass resolutions granting exemptions in contravention of the Regulations framed by it; the UGC is bound by the Regulations framed by it and cannot act against the same and spirit of national policy directives. Since the resolutions of UGC are based on ill-founded opinion, wrong interpretation of Regulations, not in conformity and tune with the Regulations and the national policy directives, the same were rightly turned down by the Central Government. The decision of the Central Government cannot in any manner be regarded as suffering from any illegality or vice of arbitrariness, rather appears to be just, proper and reasonable one especially considering the opinion expressed by the Expert Committees making NET/SLET etc. compulsory to raise the quality and standards of higher education." It is not disputed that the respondent No. 5 had neither NET, SLET & SET. Regulation 3.3.1 was upheld as above meaning thereby that the respondent No. 5 also did not have the Ph.D. Degree as per the minimum standard and procedure laid down under the Regulations of 2009. The argument that the respondent No. 5 was allowed to continue in view of the Order dated 29.05.2014 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6031/2014 & 33 other connected matters does not help him in any manner inasmuch as the grievance in the said writ petitions were only to the extent that the respondent-State had not been making payment to them for full duration of their fellowship and they had been deducting the salary for the period of summer vacations. The eligibility of the respondent No. 5 was not in challenge and nor an issue before the coordinate bench. The eligibility of the respondent No. 5 was not in challenge and nor an issue before the coordinate bench. In view of the above admitted position, this Court has no option but to set aside the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Substitute Teacher being in violation of the Regulation 3.3.1 of the Regulations of 2010. It is pointed out that the petitioner was at Serial No. 2 in the merit-list. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the said post and appoint him in case he is otherwise eligible and meets the eligibility criteria. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.