IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Dr. Anumita Bose, W/o. Shri Sujit Bose - Petitioner
Versus
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Through Its Registrar and Ors. – Respondents
WPS No. 4448 of 2020
Decided On : 31-07-2024
(A) University Grants Commission Regulation, 2018 - Recruitment Rules, 2009 - Appointment of Assistant Professor - Petition challenging rejection of candidature based on academic qualifications - Court held that the rejection was in accordance with the advertisement and regulations, as the petitioner did not meet the minimum requirement of 55% marks in undergraduate studies - Clarification of good academic record by the University was not a change of rules during the selection process - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 3, 24, 25)
(B) Eligibility Criteria - The criteria for eligibility must be clearly stated in the advertisement and cannot be altered midway through the selection process - The rules governing qualifications take precedence over any conflicting statements in advertisements. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor but was declared ineligible due to not meeting the 55% marks requirement in her undergraduate degree, which was a condition stated in the advertisement and the relevant regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was justified as she did not fulfill the required academic qualifications.
Issues: Whether the clarification of good academic record constituted a change of rules during the selection process and whether the advertisement or the rules governed the eligibility criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the advertisement and the rules were consistent regarding the requirement of good academic record, and the rejection of the petitioner's application was lawful.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2/Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya by which candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Soil Science & Agriculture Chemistry) has been rejected.
2. Brief facts as reflected from record are that an advertisement has been issued by respondent No. 2 on 14.11.2019 for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors for various subjects for Agriculture Colleges of Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. The petitioner applied for the said post by submitting her application through online. In the month of May, 2020, a list of ineligible candidates was published by the respondent wherein name of the petitioner was shown. The petitioner submitted her objection/representation before the respondent authorities against rejection of her candidature along with essential documents to show her eligibility. The objection/representation has been rejected by the respondents and published list of ineligible candidates in the month of July, 2020 wherein name of the petitioner was also included. On 6th July, 2020, the petitioner again submitted objection/ representation for considering case of the petitioner. On 07.09.2020, respondent No. 2 published list of candidates for interview after evaluating their academic qualifications.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 03.09.2020 is contrary to the advertisement dated 14.11.2019 as well as the University Grant Commission Regulation, 2018 (for short “the Regulation, 2018”) as such the same cannot be sustainable. He would further submit that the petitioner is having all the requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, therefore, the action of the respondents is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that rejection of candidature of the petitioner on the count that petitioner having less 55% marks in under graduation programme was not a condition prescribed in the advertisement as well as in the Regulation, 2018, therefore, the ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that three different reasons have been assigned by the respondents while rejecting candidature of the petitioner which shows malafide intention against the petitioner. He would further submit that once the recruitment process has been set on motion, the eligibility conditions cannot be changed midway and no new criteria can be applied for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. He would further submit that the Regulation, 2018 are binding on the respondents and they cannot deviate from it, put a condition which is not mentioned in the advertisement, the Regulation, 2018 and would pray for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2019 (Annexure P/1).
4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 have filed return wherein it has been contended that the University has issued advertisement dated 14.11.2019 for appointment on various posts of Assistant Professors. It has been further contended that the University Grants Commission (UGC) New Delhi has issued Regulation on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and colleges in the year 2010. In the said regulation, Clause 4.4.1 deals with the educational qualification for the post of Assistant Professors. Clause 4.4.1 (1) provides that a candidate should have good academic record as defined by the concerned University with atleast 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale whenever grading system is followed) at the master Degree Level in a relevant subject from any Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. The Regulation 2018 has been endorsed and made applicable to all the State Agricultural Universities by the Indian Council of Agricultural
State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty
Sivanandan C.T. & others Vs. High Court of Kerala
The Employees’ Insurance Corporation Vs. Union of India & Others
The rejection of a candidate's application for Assistant Professor based on academic qualifications was lawful as it adhered to the established criteria and regulations.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment must adhere to regulations in force at the time of advertisement; subsequent amendments cannot be applied retroactively.
Point of law: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rationa....
The employer has the right to prescribe qualifications suitable for the post, and the court cannot go into the issue of correctness of qualifications prescribed.
Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every State action is to be tested on touchstone of equality.
The Selection Committee cannot alter the essential qualifications for a position once the selection process has commenced, and the Chancellor has the authority to terminate appointments that do not c....
Service Matter - The concerned decision taking Authority has power to appoint the candidate for the post of Adhyapak Sahayak by relaxing the condition of NET/SLAT or Ph.D. It also appears that the pr....
The UGC Regulation prevails over the advertisement, and the court emphasized the importance of expert opinions and deferred to the UGC's assessment of the appellant's eligibility.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.