Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 568 (UTT)

Narendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-10-27

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. Petitioner no. 1 belongs to Scheduled Caste community; petitioner no. 2 belongs to Scheduled Tribe community; and petitioner no. 3 belongs to Other Backward Class. All the petitioners have obtained less than 44.5% marks in graduation. The complaint of the petitioners is that their applications for selection as Assistant Professors, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 04.08.2017, have not been accepted. They seek the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Govt. Order dated 30th September 2011 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand, whereby it has fixed the standard for Academic Record for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Govt. Degree Colleges. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing Advertisement dated 18th August 2017 issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on the basis of Govt. Order dated 30th September 2011. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Professor, Govt. Degree College, Uttarakhand Examination-2017 pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.08.2017 issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.” 2. We have heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission and also Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would, undoubtedly, point out that prescription of 50% marks at the graduate level for being considered is arbitrary, as it ignores the performance of the student at the higher levels. According to the petitioners, they have further academic attainments. The petitioners were enrolled for Ph.D. and they have passed the State Eligibility Test and NET also. He would further contend that the Court may notice that the Public Service Commission holds a screening test followed by an interview. He submits that the object of having a good academic record will be established by the process of screening, because screening will eliminate candidates based on their performance in the examination and only those candidates will be called for interview, as who satisfies the requirement of merit. Therefore, having regard to the procedure adopted by the Commission also in the selection process, there is no warrant for insisting on 50% marks at the graduate level. 4. Therefore, having regard to the procedure adopted by the Commission also in the selection process, there is no warrant for insisting on 50% marks at the graduate level. 4. This is countered by the learned counsel for the Commission and also by the learned Deputy Advocate General. They relied on the Government order dated 30.09.2011, as per which 50% marks has been defined as good academic record within the meaning of the Regulation issued by the University Grants Commission in 2010. 5. We do not agree with the contention of Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that they have obtained post graduation with the requisite marks and they have also got other academic attainments and, therefore, the requirement of good academic record, as prescribed by the University Grants Commission and as defined by the Government, can be dispensed with. We would think that the possession of a good academic record is a mandate of the University Grants Commission and this mandate is to be fulfilled at the under graduate level. It has been defined as 50%. In no way, we can even consider for prescription of 50% at the graduate level as irrational or arbitrary, as it is not fulfilling the object sought to be achieved. We must remind ourselves that the selection is being done for a teaching position at the level of higher education and good academic record being insisted at the relevant point of time in their career, namely, at the under graduate level and, no doubt, followed by 55% at the post graduate level, cannot be considered in any way irrelevant or irrational or not facilitating the fulfillment of the purpose sought to be achieved. The fact also that, in the selection process, there is a process of weeding out in the screening test and the merit will be reflected and good academic record, therefore, at the graduate level, 50% is not necessary, is clearly unacceptable to us. The argument of the petitioners in a way amounts to putting the cart before the horse. It is only the eligible person, who can be considered for selection. The acceptance of the argument of the petitioners would amount to nullifying the eligibility conditions by referring to the selection process for arriving at the same result. The argument of the petitioners in a way amounts to putting the cart before the horse. It is only the eligible person, who can be considered for selection. The acceptance of the argument of the petitioners would amount to nullifying the eligibility conditions by referring to the selection process for arriving at the same result. We would think that any such action on the part of the recruiting body or on the part of the Government would be contrary to the mandate of the U.G.C. and of the Government Order, which adopted the U.G.C. Regulations. 6. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in repelling the arguments of the petitioners. Petition will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.