Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 790 (CHH)

ARCHANA KHARE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2019-07-09

P.SAM KOSHY

body2019
JUDGMENT P Sam Koshy, J. - The challenge in the aforesaid Writ Petition is to the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 02.06.2016 and subsequently, the petitioner had also sought for a relief of quashment of the impugned order Annexure P-8 dated 04.06.2016 whereby the Respondent No. 4 has been selected and appointed as HOD under the Costume Designing and Dress Making subject. 2. In addition to the aforesaid relief, the petitioner had also sought for a direction to the Respondent No. 03 is to prepare a fresh selection list for the post of HOD in Costume Designing and Dress Making. 3. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present Writ Petition is that, an advertisement was issued on 23.12.2005 (Annexure P-2) for filling up of the various posts by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur. The post involved in the present Writ Petition is that of Head of the Department, polytechnic institution, in Costume Designing and Dress Making. The petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 had applied for the said post along with others. 4. The total number of posts advertised was 1 (one) which too was of the Unreserved Category. As per the advertisement, the essential educational qualification for HOD polytechnic institution for the Costume Designing and Dress Making subject for ready reference is reproduced hereunder: 5. A plain reading of the aforesaid essential qualification prescribed for the post of HOD Costume Designing and Dress Making subject is the requirement of first class at the post graduation level (MHC) from a recognized university/institution in the Textile and Garment Manufacturing along with PHD and with 5 years of teaching experience in relevant subject and out of the total 5 years of experience, minimum 3 years of experience should be in the relevant subject at the degree or diploma level, 3 years of experience in the research work in industry/field/training level in the relevant subject at the degree/diploma level. 6. According to the petitioner, the requirement of PHD is compulsory for appointment to the post of HOD and the Respondent No. 4 does not have PHD. According to the petitioner, she has a PHD in her favour awarded way back in the year 2006. The petitioner has also the teaching experience of more than 9 years after obtaining PhD. 6. According to the petitioner, the requirement of PHD is compulsory for appointment to the post of HOD and the Respondent No. 4 does not have PHD. According to the petitioner, she has a PHD in her favour awarded way back in the year 2006. The petitioner has also the teaching experience of more than 9 years after obtaining PhD. The main contention of the petitioner is that, the Respondent No. 4 does not have a PhD from a recognized institution. In other words, the M.P. Bhoj University (Open), Bhopal is not a recognized institution by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. In addition, the Respondent No. 4 also does not have the requisite teaching experience as is required under the advertisement. In spite of the petitioner raising objection at all level before the respondents, they have ignored all the objections have with malafide intentions. 7. Further, contention of the petitioner is that, the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 was also in violation of the UGC Regulations of 2009. That for all the above reasons, the petitioner has sought for the cancellation of the selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 4 on the post of HOD Costume Designing and Dress Making subject. 8. The counsel appearing for the respondents opposing the petition submits that the entire case of the petitioner is baseless in as much as the respondent No.4 has all requisite eligibility criteria as per the advertisement and that there is no illegality whatsoever in the selection of the respondent No.4. It was the further contention of the respondents that it is a case where the Ph.D. obtained by the petitioner was of a period prior to the Regulations of 2014 of the UGC which had de-recognized the Bhoj University so far as awarding Ph.D. is concerned. According to the respondent No.4, since he had obtained Ph.D. prior to the coming into force of Regulations of 2014, no order detrimental to the interest of the respondent No.4 can be taken. The respondents also had objected to the petition on the ground that since there has been a due proper selection and selection process adopted by the respondents, there is hardly any scope of interference for this Court in the present writ petition. The respondents also had objected to the petition on the ground that since there has been a due proper selection and selection process adopted by the respondents, there is hardly any scope of interference for this Court in the present writ petition. According to the respondents, it is not the PSC, which decides the recognition of the Bhoj University, but it is the UGC which in fact determines the recognition of the various degrees and diplomas given by the different Universities and Institutions and thus prayed for the rejection of the writ petition. 9. From the admitted position as is reflected from the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side as far as the petitioner is concerned, it appears that she has a Ph.D. in her favour awarded to her way back in the year 2006, whereas the respondent No.4 is said to have got herself enrolled for Ph.D. in the year 2009 and she was ultimately awarded the same in the year 2014. The ground of challenge of the appointment of respondent No.4 seems to be primarily on the grounds that the petitioner could not have had an experience certificate of the same period, during which she was undergoing the Ph.D. course. 10. Another aspect which had been questioned by the petitioner is that the teaching experience of the respondent No.4 during the period when the petitioner is said to have got the Ph.D. or was undergoing the Ph.D. cannot be counted as experience for employment purpose. The further contention was that the obtaining of the Ph.D. under the Distance Education Mode was not permissible, as the same was in contravention to the UGC regulations of 2009. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, then either the respondent No.4 does not have the requisite experience or on the other hand, if she has in fact the teaching experience during the intervening period, then the Ph.D. which she has obtained may not be acceptable as per the UGC norms. These two substantive objections which the petitioner has raised is one which needs proper inquiry and it appears that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not taken due care on the said objections which the petitioner has raised. In the opinion of this Court, the contention raised by the petitioner should not be taken lightly. These two substantive objections which the petitioner has raised is one which needs proper inquiry and it appears that the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not taken due care on the said objections which the petitioner has raised. In the opinion of this Court, the contention raised by the petitioner should not be taken lightly. It needs an inquiry which till date has not been conducted. 11. Given the said facts, it is ordered that let the respondents No.1 & 2 conduct an inquiry so far as the credentials of the respondent No.4 in the light of the requirement as per the advertisement dated 23.12.2005 so far as the post of Head of the Department, Polytechnic Institutions in Costume Designing and Dress Making is concerned. While conducting the inquiry, the respondents No.1 & 2 are expected to verify the actual experience, if any, that the respondent No.4 then had as was required under the advertisement and shall also consider whether the Ph.D. that the respondent No.4 has is one which is firstly from a recognized University and secondly whether it is a valid Ph.D. or not. 12. After the inquiry is conducted, the respondents would be free to take an appropriate decision in the light of the findings of the inquiry so far as the respondent No.4 is concerned. Needless to mention that in the inquiry, which would be conducted by the respondents No.1 & 2, the respondent No.4 also would be given a fair opportunity to defend her case justifying her credentials. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.