Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Umesh Chandra Deshmukh S/o Shri Narendra Kumar Deshmukh – Petitioner
Versus
Chhatisgarh Public Service Commission – Respondent
W.P. (S) Nos. 3433, 3469, 3572, 3606, 3616, 3714, 3722, 3766, 3785, 3788, 3789, 3842, 3845, 3855, 3859, 3862, 3872, 3884, 3901, 3940, 3946, 3952, 3959, 3960, 3962, 3966, 3968, 4004, 4026, 4096, 4153, 4157, 4173 of 2021, W.P. (S) Nos. 3898, 3906, 3909, 3976, 5865 of 2022
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Equivalence of Subject - Appointment of Assistant Professors - [Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission] - [W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022, W.P. (S) No. 5865/2022] - The court allowed the petitions of certain candidates and directed the State to issue appointment orders to them, while dismissing the remaining petitions challenging the equivalence of subjects determined by the expert committee.
Fact of the Case:
The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Professors in various subjects. Several candidates filed petitions challenging the rejection of their candidature based on the equivalence of their qualifications to the required subject.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitions of certain candidates and directed the State to issue appointment orders to them, while dismissing the remaining petitions challenging the equivalence of subjects determined by the expert committee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court, exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can decide the equivalence of the subject despite the committee of experts having already decided this issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in academic matters, the courts have a very limited role and cannot act as an appellate authority over the decisions of expert bodies. It emphasized that unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide, the decisions of expert committees should be respected.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions of certain candidates and directed the State to issue appointment orders to them, while dismissing the remaining petitions challenging the equivalence of subjects determined by the expert committee.
ORDER :
1. Since, an identical issue and common facts are involved in the bunch of the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common order.
2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Professor in various subjects in the Department of Higher Education, State of Chhattisgarh on 23.01.2019. After issuance of advertisement the State Government on 13.02.2019 issued a list of allied subjects for the various main subjects. Thereafter, on 23.02.2019 The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued a corrigendum. The examination was conducted on 05-06/11/2020 and result thereof was declared on 19.01.2021. Call letters were issued on 24.06.2021 to the successful candidates including petitioners for appearing in the interview and the petitioners were directed to get the documents verified one day before the date of interview. The petitioners appeared for verification of documents and were found to be disqualified.
3. The petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the action of the respondents by which they have found the petitioners ineligible for appointment whereas in W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022 and W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022 the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appointment order as they were eligible and placed in higher rank in the final merit list.
The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022
4. The case of the petitioners Ranjana Singh, Raghvendra Kumar Dewangan, Dileshwar Prasad, Vijay Shankar Patre, in brief, is that the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) pursuance to the advertisement No. 02/2019/Exam notification dated 18/01/2019 issued on 23/01/2019 by the Respondent No. 02 & 03. Admit cards have been issued to the petitioners to participate in the written examination and after qualifying the written examination the petitioners were called for interview. In the said interview process wherein they were selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) and were placed at Serial Nos. 50, 68, 75, and 98 respectively in the result dated 14/07/2021, but till date the appointment letter/joining letter of the petitioners in the post of Assistant Professor have not been issued without any rhyme and reason. It has also been contended that inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is totally illegal, arbitrary and mala-fide. It is also pertinent to mention here that the State Government vide its order dated 16/02/2023 (Annexure P/3) has issued the appointment letter to one Deepika Tripathi, who is not a party to the instant petitions and have not issued the appointment letter to the present petitioners even after they have qualified & have successfully passed the examination for the post of Assistant Professor. Thus, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to issue appointment order to the petitioners.
The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3722/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3606/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3572/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3714/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3469/2021
5. The case of other petitioners namely Anand Lakra, Umesh Chandra Deshmukh, Komal Nandanwar, Jayant Kumar Rajwade, Dilruba A. Bano, Anurag Soni, Suman Rawte, Naveen Kumar Markam, Tulesh Kumar Gendley, Mukesh Kumar Sahu, Nilesh Kumar Rajwade, Nishat Parveen, Namrata Dhirhi, Namita Singh, Amrita Giri, Richa Sao, Tarun Sigh Patel, Hemant Sahu and Hem Lal Chandrakar is that they have been found ineligible on the count that their qualification possessed by them is not as per the requirement for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany). The details of qualification possessed by them are as under:
Courts have a limited role in academic matters and cannot act as an appellate authority over the decisions of expert bodies unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide.
The court affirmed that specific subject qualifications are essential for teaching positions, and equivalence determinations are within the purview of expert bodies.
The court emphasized the principle of not interfering with the opinion given by the experts and upheld the constitution of the Equivalence Committee and the prescribed qualifications.
a candidate for recruitment to any post must possess the requisite qualification statutorily prescribed and the Court exercising the power of judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of prescribe....
Post of Assistant Manager and Assistant Accountant - Power of Judicial Review on issue of equivalence of Degree - Court directs Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limi....
The court emphasized the relevance and equivalence of the qualification possessed by the petitioners, as opined by the University of Jammu and University of Kashmir, and highlighted the importance of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
