Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 618 (MP)

SOURABH SHARMA v. STATE OF M. P.

2021-08-26

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2021
ORDER/JUDGMENT (Heard through Video Conferencing) VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. – Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Shri Vikash Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Sourabh Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the selection of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as Guest Faculty in Shashkiye Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Narsinghgarh and also sought a direction that the petitioner be appointed on the said post for the academic session 2020-21 in place of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that apart from the degree qualification, two years teaching experience is mandatory but the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are freshers and are not having teaching experience and therefore, they were not eligible to be appointed on the said post. 4. The facts of the case are that after completion of the degree, the petitioner has joined Government Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Narsinghgarh as Guest Professor in singing. The petitioner was appointed on the honorarium basis. The petitioner has continuously worked on the said post from 10-10-2016 till 30-6-2020. For academic session 2020-21, the respondents issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Guest Professor. In the advertisement, the qualification for the appointment on the said post was mentioned as under : – (i) M.A. (Music) degree with minimum 55% or graduation/B.Mus with minimum 55%. (ii) Experience of minimum 2 years in teaching. 5. The petitioner also applied for the said post. Respondents have appointed respondent Nos. 5 and 6, though, they were not having experience of minimum two years teaching and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list. It is submitted that as per the advertisement, the candidate is required to have working experience. The petitioner was working since 4 years on the said post, as he was working with the Government Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Narsinghgarh since 2016. The petitioner was also claiming 04 marks additional per year. If the petitioner would have been given these additional marks then the petitioner would have got much more marks than the selected candidates. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been appointed on the post of Guest Professor for the academic session 2020-21. The petitioner was also claiming 04 marks additional per year. If the petitioner would have been given these additional marks then the petitioner would have got much more marks than the selected candidates. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been appointed on the post of Guest Professor for the academic session 2020-21. The petitioner has filed an application on 11-1-2021 under Right to Information Act for getting the information of marks allotted for the appointment. 6. Notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have also raised preliminary objection on the ground that the present petition has rendered infructuous as the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed as Guest Lecturer for the academic session 2020-21 and the said academic session is already over and in the new academic session 2021-22, fresh appointment of Guest Faculty shall be made. It is also submitted that the advertisement was issued by Directorate of Culture but the petitioner has not impleaded the said authority in the array of respondents. It is submitted that the appointment of Atithi Vidwan (Guest Faculty) is to be made on contract basis for a period of 11 months. As per the advertisement, as many as 30 candidates applied for the post of Atithi Vidwan (Guest Faculty), Music for the academic session 2020-21. The department has constituted a Scrutiny Committee to examine the applications and eligibility of all the candidates in accordance with the circular dated 19-9-2021. The said Committee submitted its report on 6-11-2020. On perusal of the said report would show that the petitioner has got 57.8 marks, whereas respondent No. 5 has got 64.5 marks and respondent No. 6 has got 60.23 marks. As the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have secured more marks, they were found to be more meritorious than petitioner, therefore, they were given preference over petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the report of Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has been granted 40 marks for the work experience as per the circular of the Government. There was no reply by the respondents in respect of the experience of two years of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 7. It is further submitted that as per the report of Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has been granted 40 marks for the work experience as per the circular of the Government. There was no reply by the respondents in respect of the experience of two years of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 7. On 5-8-2021, this Court granted time to the learned Additional Advocate General to file additional affidavit as to whether the experience of two years would be required even when the candidate is possessing the degree in M.A. in first class in Singing and playing Tabla and how have the respondents interpreted in the past the stipulations contained in the Circular of the Sanskriti Vibhag Mantralaya, Bhopal, Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 19-9-2017. 8. The respondents filed additional reply and submitted that for the post of Guest Lecturer the minimum educational qualification required is M.A. Music in the concerned subject with a minimum of 55% marks along with experience of minimum two years teaching in the concerned subject. As such, even when a candidate is possessing degree in M.A. in First Class in Singing and playing Tabla he/she is mandatorily required to have experience of a minimum two years of teaching in the concerned subject. It is further submitted that since the issuance of the aforesaid circular dated 19-9-2017, twice recruitment processes have been conducted and each time the same interpretation was given to the aforesaid provision/circular. Thus, the requirement of experience of minimum two years teaching in the concerned subject was considered as mandatory along with the requirement of M.A. Music degree with minimum 55% marks and B.Mus with minimum 55% marks. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 do not possess the experience of minimum two years in teaching which was mandatory requirement as per the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and the circular. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the academic session 2020-21 is over, therefore, no relief can be granted. However, when a query has been made to the learned counsel for the State that whether the requirement of work experience in the preceding academic session would be necessary to apply for the current academic session, he stated that the said condition would also be an essential condition for an applicant for current academic session. 10. However, when a query has been made to the learned counsel for the State that whether the requirement of work experience in the preceding academic session would be necessary to apply for the current academic session, he stated that the said condition would also be an essential condition for an applicant for current academic session. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner is deprived from appointment for the academic session 2020-21 and his experience is not counted, he would be further deprived from applying for the current academic session 2021-22 and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who were not qualified and were not possessing the minimum experience of two years of teaching, would get the benefit of working in the preceding academic session i.e. 2020-21. 11. Considering the aforesaid submissions and in the light of the above discussion, we are persuaded to allow the writ petition by quashing the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Guest Faculty, Music for the academic session 2020-21 and direct that the petitioner shall be appointed on the said post in the academic session 2020-21. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for pecuniary benefits and no recovery of payment shall be made from the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for the said period. However, the petitioner would be deemed to have acquired teaching experience for academic session 2020-21 and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 will not get any benefit of experience of academic session 2020-21. 12. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the above directions.