Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1488 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal Sukhadiya University v. Bheem Raj Patel

2021-08-13

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Challenge has been made in the present special appeals to the orders dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7673/2021 and 7671/2021, which are reasoned interim orders, by which the Hon'ble Single Judge admitted the writ petitions filed by the private respondents-writ petitioners and directed the stay of the operation of the orders dated 02.06.2021(Annexure 34&35) i.e. orders of discharge. (since the private respondents-writ petitioners were under probation) The issue involved in the present case has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Single Judge in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned orders, which are quoted herein below:- "13. Be that as it may. In the prima facie opinion of this court upon perusal of minutes of the meeting dated 16.03.2017 and 01.12.2016, it cannot be said with certitude that the Academic Council had adopted requisite qualification in relation to Assistant Director (Physical Education) as were applicable in the University of Rajasthan. 14. The argument of the University that the resolution adopted by the Academic Council was to prescribe qualification similar to Rajasthan University or at least 50% marks in graduation even for the Assistant Director (Physical Education) thus, does not appear to be correct, if the record is seen. Even if it is accepted that there was manipulation, the fault lies at the end of the University or its Administration. The petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat and scooped out of the job, after four years of the selection/appointment." 2. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants University contended that no interim order ought to have been passed against the order of discharge and the learned Single Judge erred in passing the interim direction. In this respect, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki and ors. ( 2009 (17) SCC 555 ) in order to support his contention that the High Court ought not to have granted interim order because if such a relief is granted at interim stage, writ petition shall stand automatically allowed without permitting the parties to place their respective cases at the time of final hearing of writ petition. 3. ( 2009 (17) SCC 555 ) in order to support his contention that the High Court ought not to have granted interim order because if such a relief is granted at interim stage, writ petition shall stand automatically allowed without permitting the parties to place their respective cases at the time of final hearing of writ petition. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the order impugned as well as the documents appended to the writ appeal, we are of the considered view that admittedly the order impugned before us was passed after filing of counter affidavit by the appellant University. So on the factual basis the Hon'ble Single Judge passed the order purportedly after perusing the stand taken by the appellant University in the proceedings before him. Even apart from this, we are prima facie in agreement with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the order impugned to the extent that the advertisement issued by the appellant University stipulated at least second division in graduation. Sub-para (1) of para VI of Rules of 2017 prescribes the following educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director:- "VI. Physical Education & Sports 1. Assistant Director (i) XXXXXX "Good academic record, wherever occurring in these provisions means an average of at least 55% marks in these examinations preceding to Masters' Degree with at least second division* in graduation and any one of Secondary/High School, Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary or equivalent grades in the point scale wherever grading system is followed without including any grace marks and/or rounding off to make it 55% or 50% as the case may be." 4. Admittedly, the writ petitioners possess the necessary qualifications as found by the learned Single Judge although disputed by Mr. Singhvi on behalf of the appellant University. 5. We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge not only considered the stand taken by the University but also came to the prima facie finding that the stand of the University or the resolution adopted by the Academic Council requiring the prescribed qualification similar to Rajasthan University or at least 50% marks in graduation even for the post of Assistant Director (Physical Education) does not appear to be correct. On perusal of the Academic Council Resolution at Annexure-R/4 dated 01.12.2016 at running page 274, the following is found:- "It was therefore, resolved that a committee of the following may be constitute to examine the proposal of the University of Rajasthan for Good Academic Record for Assistant Director of Physical Education and the same will be decided on consideration of the recommendation of the committee by the Academic Council in its next meeting." (underlined for emphasis) 6. In other words, from the above, it is apparent that no decision had yet been taken by the Academic Council on the issues regarding fixation of any percentage and we do not find anywhere in the record produced in this appeal that any conclusion has been reached by the Committee, purportedly to be created by the University for adjudicating regarding what should be requisite minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Director (Physical Education). 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 8. However, keeping in view the nature of the challenge made and keeping in view the fact that counter affidavit has already been filed by the University, we request the Hon'ble Single Judge to take up the matter pending before him and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.