Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 516 (HP)

Neelam Mattu v. Himachal Pradesh University

2021-08-06

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner seeks the making of a mandamus, for therethrough, Annexure P-5, of, 30.6.2001, and Annexure P-6, of, 11.7.2001, becoming annulled and set aside. Through the afore made Annexures, respondents No. 2 and 3, were appointed as Lecturers in the respondent University, hence in the faculty of Zoology, in the department of Bio-Sciences, Himachal Pradesh University. The selections of respondent No. 2 (since deleted) and, of, respondent No. 3 to the post concerned, was made in pursuance to both applying against the post of Lecturer, (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, Himachal Pradesh University, after issuance of an advertisement, as, carried in Annexure P-1. The Selection committee concerned recommended the names of respondents No. 2 and 3, for selection to the afore advertised posts, who thereafter became appointed, as, Lecturer(s) (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, Himachal Pradesh University. The writ petitioner challenges the selections and consequent appointment(s) of respondents No. 2 (since deleted) and, of, respondent No. 3, against the advertised posts. His challenge is anvilled upon apposite ordinance 35.54, ordinance whereof stands extracted hereinafter: “35.54 For the existing Sub-Clause (g) of Ordinance 35.54, the following shall be substituted, namely: (g) “Master’s degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and good academic record and having qualified National Education Test conducted by University Grants Commission or test conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University or test conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission.” For determining the “Good Academic Record” the following criteria may be adopted: The average of 50% marks at the two lower examinations means “Good Academic Record” for purpose of recruitment of teachers. “The condition of qualifying National Education Test shall not be applicable to those categories of candidates who are exempted by the University Grants Commission from time to time.” The minimum qualifications will not be relaxed even in respect of candidates who have research degrees like M.Phil/Ph.D.” Ordinances 35.54 was further amended by the University w.e.f. 30.8.1997 and as such clause 35.54(f) now reads as under: The existing sub-clause (f) to Ordinance 35.54 be substituted as under: “The qualification for appointment as Teacher in the University shall be the same as prescribed by the UGC from time to time and notified after adoption by the University. Explanation: for determining “Good Academic Record” the following criterion may be adopted: The average of 50% marks at the two lower examinations means “Good Academic Record” for the purpose of recruitment of Teachers.” The learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended upon anvil of the afore relevant clause, appertaining to the selection and appointments of co-respondents No. 2 and 3, to the advertised posts, that the mandate carried, in clause (a) thereof, being breached, insofar as co-respondent No. 2 is concerned. The breach is argued by him, to become aroused on the ground, that she did not possess the masters degree, in the subject, hence relevant to the post concerned, inasmuch as, vis-à-vis, Lecturer (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, of the Himachal Pradesh University. Consequently, he has argued that her selection and consequent appointment against the post of Lecturer (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Science, Himachal Pradesh University, is hence vitiated. The afore made submission, before this Court, is valid, as a perusal of the affidavit, sworn by the Registrar of Himachal Pradesh University, does mete succor, to the submissions (supra). In sequel, the selection and appointment of co-respondent No. 2 against the advertised post of Lecturer (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, is, quashed and set aside. 2. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the selection and appointment of co-respondent No. 3, against the advertised post of Lecturer (Zoology), in the department of Bio-Science, H.P. University, does not cause any breach, vis-à-vis, the mandate carried in clause (a) of ordinance 35.54 of the H.P. University. However, he further submits that since the writ petitioner was more qualified, and, had higher educational qualification than respondent No. 3, hence perse thereupon, the selection committee concerned was enjoined to rate the writ petitioner, higher than co-respondent No. 3. However, the afore made submission, before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not, hold force, as the selection committee concerned, as became constituted for the relevant purpose, could not, dehors any Rule, regulating the ratings/marks, to be awarded to the purportedly higher educational qualifications, or research papers, made by the aspirants concerned, hence award proportionate marks, qua therewith. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted before this Court, that no Rules, nor any instructions, are in place to regulate the ratings or awarding of marks, vis-à-vis, the aspirants concerned, upon theirs holding higher or better educational qualification, than the selectees concerned, further also he submits that also for any research works, which may bring an inference of superior meritworthiness of the petitioner, vis-à-vis, the selectee, there exist no Rules or instructions, for awarding proportionate therewith marks, to the aspirants concerned. In absence of the afore Rules, rather regulating the awarding of marks towards higher educational qualification, to any aspirant(s) concerned, or for awarding of marks, to the aspirant(s) concerned, on anvil of his/her publishing research material, the counsel for the petitioner cannot hence contend, that the petitioner was unfairly not awarded any proportionate marks, qua therewith, nor also he can contend that selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 becomes flawed and vitiated. 3. Therefore, this Court quashes the selection and appointment of co-respondent No. 2 against the advertised post. However, selection and appointment of co-respondent No. 3, is affirmed. Since, the inevitable sequel of the afore drawn conclusion is that since the writ petitioner approached this Court, immediately subsequent to the selection and appointment of co-respondents No. 2 and 3, and also, when the selection and appointment, of, co-respondent No. 2, against the advertised post, is, concluded to be vitiated and flawed, thereupon, against the vacancy concerned, the respondent-University is directed to, in accordance with Rules, offer a letter of appointment to the writ petitioner, against the post of Lecturer (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, H.P. University concerned, since she applied in pursuance to the apposite advertisement, as, carried in Annexure P-1, and, her candidature became unlawfully rejected. 4. Consequently, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.