Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Deepak Gupta, P. Sam Koshy, JJ.
Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Rajmangal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Technical Education and Manpower Planning Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh - Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 5617 of 2014
Decided On : 28-09-2016Text1
For the Petitioner:Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Prafull N Bharat, Additional Advocate General, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate, Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate, Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate, Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate, Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate
Headnote:
Whether one of essential qualifications for being appointed as Principal at Government Polytechnic College is Phd as laid down by All India Council for Technical Education - Volatile of regulations - Posts of Head of Department - At outset court may mention that it is not disputed by any of parties that AICTE regulations will have binding effect because court are dealing with Polytechnic College which awards diplomas - These Polytechnic Colleges impart technical education and therefore regulations framed and guidelines issued by AICTE are binding - This legal position is not disputed before us - Respondents No. 5 to 11 have been appointed as Principal of various Polytechnic Colleges in State - Private Respondents are non-PhD candidates - Petitioner who is serving in Department and has PhD submits that appointment of non-PhD candidates is volatile of AICTE regulations - Intervener has also supported case of Petitioner – Held, Another very disturbing aspect of matter is that Chhattisgarh Rules are stated to have been published - A letter was written by Under Secretary Technical Education to Deputy Director Government Printing Press praying that some notification be published in the Gazette - Rules which have been produced before us ostensibly show that they were published in Gazette – However as pointed out by counsel for Petitioner and Intervener that letter sent by was received in Government Press only - If letter was received it could not have been published - Though this point has been specifically taken by Petitioner and Intervener no reply has been filed by State - From record it is more than apparent that after printing communication of Gazette was sent to Department for first time vide delivery memo - Therefore court fail to understand how could departmental promotion committee which met in May have taken notice of these rules - Rules themselves provide that they will come into force from date of their publication - As pointed out earlier though rules are purported to have been published in Gazette from information received from Government Press it is apparent that these rules were not received in Government Press – Therefore question of rules being published does not arise - Writ petition is allowed
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. The short question which arises for decision in this case is whether one of the essential qualifications for being appointed as Principal at Government Polytechnic College is Ph.D as laid down by All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'the AICTE'). The ancillary question is whether the rules framed by the Chhattisgarh Government wherein Ph.D is not an essential qualification are violative of the regulations laid down by the AICTE.
2. At the outset, we may mention that it is not disputed by any of the parties that the AICTE regulations will have binding effect because we are dealing with Polytechnic College which awards diplomas. These Polytechnic Colleges impart technical education and therefore the regulations framed and the guidelines issued by the AICTE are binding. This legal position is not disputed before us.
3. The Respondents No. 5 to 11 (hereinafter referred to as 'the private Respondents') have been appointed as Principal of various Polytechnic Colleges in the State. The private Respondents are non-Ph.D candidates. The Petitioner who is serving in the Department and has Ph.D submits that the appointment of non-Ph.D candidates is violative of AICTE regulations. The Intervenor has also supported the case of the Petitioner.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnics) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (hereinafter called 'the Chhattisgarh Rules') insofar as they are contrary to the AICTE regulations are illegal and cannot be implemented. It is also contended that the Chhattisgarh Rules were framed by a committee in which Shri Gelus Ram Sahu-Respondent No. 5 who is a beneficiary under the rules was himself a member and therefore, the rules should be held to be invalid. Lastly, it is submitted that these rules though purported to have been issued on 13.05.2014 were never published till 25.06.2014 when the impugned order of promotion was passed.
5. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we may first make reference to the AICTE regulations of the year 2010. We are concerned with the posts of Head of the Department in Engineering/Technology and the post of Principal. The qualifications for these posts read as follows:
"FACULTY NORMS
Minimum Qualification and Experience for appointment of teaching Posts in Diploma Level Technical Institutions
Post
Qualifications
Experience
xxx
xxx
xxx
Head of Department
Engineering/ Technology
Bachelor's and Master's degree of appropriate branch in Engineering / Technology with First Class or equivalent either Bachelor's or Master's
Level
OR
Bachelor's degree and Master's degree of appropriate branch in Engineering / Technology with First Class or equivalent either Bachelor's or Master's
level and Ph.D or equivalent in appropriate discipline in
Engineering / Technology.
Minimum of 10 years relevant
experience in teaching/ research/
industry.
Minimum of 5 years relevant experience in teaching / research / industry.
xxx
Xxx
xxx
Principal
Qualification as above for the post of Head of Department and Ph.D in engineering
OR
Qualification as above for the post of Head of Department.
Minimum of 10 years relevant experience in teaching/ Research / Industry out of which at least 3
years shall be at the level of head of department or equivalent. In case of Architecture, professional practice of 10 years as certified by the Council of Architecture shall also be considered valid."
6. As far as Head of the Department is concerned, the rules provide two essential qualifications. Firstly, that the candidate should have both Bachelor's and Master's degree in the appropriate Branch in Engineering/Technology and sho
