Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Arun Mishra and Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Sumana Dey - Petitioner
Versus
State Of West Bengal and Others - Respondents
M. A. T. 1197 OF 2012, C. A. N. 7672 OF 2012, M. A. T. 1124 OF 2012, C. A. N. 6960 OF 2012, F. M. A. 1018 OF 2012, C. A. N. 6959 OF 2012, M. A. T. 1178 OF 2012, C. A. N. 7033 OF 2012, F. M. A. 1021 OF 2012, C. A. N. 7140 OF 2012, F. M. A. 1028 OF 2012,C. A. N. 7162 OF 2012
Decided on : 18-09-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Bidhan Biswas, Anindya Bhattacharya, Raghunath Chakraborty, Samim UI Bari, Advocates.
For the U.G.C. :Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For the College Service Commission :Pulak Ranjan Mondal, Bandana Das, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sadananda Ganguly, Advocate.
For the State :Joytosh Majumdar, Debjani Roy, Sakaya Sen, Manoranjan Jana, Pinaki Dhole, Debangshu Basak , Amitesh Banerjee, Advocates.

The Court emphasized the need to maintain high academic standards and the importance of ensuring quality education by not recognizing substandard educational qualifications, particularly in the context of Distance Education Programmes.

Headnote:
EDUCATION - ELIGIBILITY FOR LECTURESHIP - Ph.D. QUALIFICATION OBTAINED THROUGH DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMME: Whether holders of Ph.D. qualifications by way of Distance Education Programme have been wrongly deprived from taking their claim to Lectureship under the College Service Commission.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, holders of Ph.D. or M. Phil degrees obtained through Distance Education Programme or from Open Universities, were denied selection for the post of Lecturer by the West Bengal College Service Commission on the ground that such qualifications were not recognized for the purpose of appointment.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the decision of the College Service Commission was justified and in consonance with the UGC Minimum Standard Regulation, 2009, which imposed a total embargo on awarding Ph.D./M.Phil degrees via distance education.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' Ph.D./M.Phil degrees obtained through Distance Education Programme were equivalent to regular degrees for the purpose of appointment as lecturers? 2. Whether the College Service Commission's decision not to recognize such degrees was arbitrary or discriminatory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court distinguished between regular courses and distance education programmes, highlighting the difference in the mode and manner of education imparted. 2. It emphasized the importance of maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour for the progress of the country. 3. The Court held that the UGC Minimum Standard Regulation, 2009, which imposed a total embargo on awarding Ph.D./M.Phil degrees via distance education, was a reasonable measure to ensure quality education.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the appeals and applications, upholding the decision of the College Service Commission and refusing to recognize Ph.D./M.Phil degrees obtained through Distance Education Programme for the purpose of appointment as lecturers.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Mishra, J.

The appeals have been preferred by the appellants aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated 18.6.2012 dismissing several writ applications. The question involved is singular, whether holders of Ph.D. qualifications by way of Distance Education Programme have been wrongly deprived from taking their claim to Lectureship under the College Service Commission.

2. For the purpose of eligibility for the post of Lecturer, qualification, which was prescribed for Degree Colleges was consistant of academic record with at least 55% marks in the master's degree preceded by a 3 year- Hons. Degree in the concerned subject with at least 2nd class marks. Certain relaxations were available to SC/ST/Physically Handicapped category candidates, to which we are not concerned in the present matters. It is also necessary to possess qualifications of passing National Eligibility Test for JRF/Lectureship conducted by UGC/CSIR (NET) or UGC accredited State Eligibility Test (SET) or possessing of Ph.D. or M. Phil. Degree in the concerned subject. Besides this, good power of expression (speaking, reading and writing) in Bengali/Nepali was also a requirement.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had to their credit either degrees in Ph.D. or M. Phil from various Universities through Distance Education Programme or from Open Universities.

4. The College Service Commission did not select the writ petitioners because they had obtained their respective Ph.D. or M. Phil Degree either from Open University or through Distance Education Programme. Therefore, the writ petitions were preferred.

5. The case of the writ petitioners is that one of the petitioners, namely Sumana De, was placed at serial no.4 of the panel for English subject from general category scoring 61.47 marks. Thereafter she was called for counselling. Counselling was not allowed on the plea that she obtained Ph.D. degree from Netaji Subhas Open University by way of Distance Education Programme in 2008. It is contended by the appellants/petitioners that the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. degree) Regulation, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulation of 2009') is not applicable to them. Representation was filed before the Chairman, West Bengal College Service Commission. However, no relief had been granted. It is further submitted that vide Memo dated 21.3.2000 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Netaji Subhas Open University had been recognised by the State Government. Indira Gandhi National Open University issued a letter on 11.11.2009 in the matter of post facto recognition of qualification given by Netaji Subhas Open University, Kolkata, West Bengal. In respect of those who had completed the course in between 1997 to 2008, expost facto recognition was granted, vide the said communication dated 11.11.2009. Thus, the degree obtained for Ph.D./M.Phil was from a recognised institution. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 590 is not applicable. The action of ousting the appellants from the fray of the post of lecturer is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, as for the post of principal a person having Ph.D. degree through the Distance Education Programme has been recommended. There are instances that prior to 2009 certain incumbents having similar qualification have also been appointed as against the other posts also. Thus, the petitioners could not have been discriminated with.

6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 stand taken that the Secretary and the Chairman of the West Bengal College Service Commission have been impleaded and not the West Bengal College Service Commission, which is a statutory body and as such the petitions are not maintainable. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W. P. No. 6327 (W) of 2010, the same has been placed on re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

The Court emphasized the need to maintain high academic standards and the importance of ensuring quality education by not recognizing substandard educational qualifications, particularly in the context of Distance Education Programmes.

Cases Referred (2)