Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 780
High Court of Delhi
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Nandan Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
University of Delhi & Others – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 6320 of 2012
Decided On : 12-05-2015
For the Petitioner:Asmita Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Amit Bansal, Seema Dalo, R4, V. Sudeer, Alvin, Advocates.
The discretion of the University to determine the qualifications required for employment and the reluctance of the courts to intervene in academic matters.
Headnote:
Acharya - Equivalence of Degree - UGC Act, 1956, Regulations for Appointment of Teachers - [Section 2(f) of UGC Act, Section 22(1) and 22(3) of UGC Act, UGC Regulations, 2010] - The judgment discusses the equivalence of the degree of Acharya to MA in Sanskrit for the purpose of employment as an Assistant Professor. It highlights the recognition of Acharya as equivalent to MA by the Central Government and the University Grants Commission. The court emphasizes the discretion of the University to determine the qualifications required for employment and the reluctance of the courts to intervene in academic matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's name was excluded from the ad hoc panel list for the academic session 2012-13 by the University of Delhi due to the contention that the petitioner's qualification of 'Acharya' is not equivalent to Master of Arts (MA) in Sanskrit. The petitioner sought inclusion in the list based on the equivalence of Acharya to MA.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the University of Delhi's decision to not treat the qualification of Acharya as equivalent to MA in Sanskrit and exclude the petitioner's name from the ad hoc panel list was not arbitrary or unreasonable. It dismissed the petition.
Issues: The principal controversy addressed was whether the qualification of Acharya conferred on the petitioner could be considered as equivalent to MA in Sanskrit for the purpose of appointing the petitioner as an Assistant Professor for teaching Sanskrit language.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the recognition of Acharya as equivalent to MA by the Central Government and the University Grants Commission. It highlighted the discretion of the University to determine the qualifications required for employment and the reluctance of the courts to intervene in academic matters.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by his name being excluded from the ad hoc panel list for the academic session 2012-13 prepared by the University of Delhi. This has led the petitioner to file the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the University of Delhi to include the name of the petitioner in the ad hoc panel list for Department of Sanskrit.
2. The petitioner’s name has been excluded from the ad hoc panel list as, according to the University of Delhi, the petitioner’s qualification of “Acharya” is not considered equivalent to Master of Arts (hereafter ‘MA’). This was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 04.09.2012, which is also impugned in this petition.
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for considering the petition are as under:
3.1 The petitioner joined Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga for Graduate Degree Course in Sanskrit and was awarded the degree of “Shastri” on completion of the course in 1985. The petitioner asserts that thereafter, the petitioner undertook the Post Graduate Course in MA Sanskrit from the aforesaid University and was awarded the degree of “Acharya”. A copy of the said degree, filed along with the petition, indicates that the petitioner was awarded the degree of Acharya in Phalit Jyotish. The petitioner persevered further with academics and was awarded the degree of “Vidyavaridhi” by Shri Lal Bahadur ShastriRashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, which is a deemed University.
3.2 The petitioner was appointed as guest faculty in Dayal Singh Evening College, University of Delhi, in January 2011. The University of Delhi also included the name of the petitioner in the ad hoc panel list for the academic session 2011-12, which was issued on 15.06.2011. This list was revised in October 2011 but the petitioner continued to be included in the said list. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as an Assistant Professor in Dayal Singh Evening College w.e.f. 10.04.2012 to 21.05.2012.
3.3 The petitioner’s name was excluded from the ad hoc panel list (Department of Sanskrit, University of Delhi) which was circulated for the academic session 2012-13; according to the University of Delhi, the petitioner did not have the requsite qualification – MA in Sanskrit. The ad hoc panel list assumes importance as the colleges affiliated with the University of Delhi consider the persons empanelled for appointment as their faculty.
4. According to the petitioner, the degree of Acharya is equivalent to a degree of MA in Sanskrit and the Degree of Vidyavaridhi is equivalent to a Doctorate of Philosophy. The petitioner relied upon the following documents in support of this contention:-
(i) Memorandum No. 14021/3/97-Estt. dated 04.05.1998 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training). The said memorandum clearly indicates that the Government of India decided to recognise the examinations conducted by Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, Bihar as equivalent to the educational qualification in the general setup of education for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. The examination of Acharya is being specifically considered to be equivalent to MA and Vidyavaridhi has been considered equivalent to Ph.D.
(ii) A Communication dated 28.08.2012 issued by the University Grants Commission (respondent no.4) clarifying that the degree of “Acharya” is equivalent to MA.
(iii) A communiction from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan which refers to Delhi University’s letter dated 14.11.1984, whereby the degree of Acharya has been equated to MA.
5. The petitioner has further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya and Ors. v. Punjab University, Chandigarh and Anr.: (1976)3 SCC 282 in support of its contention that the degree of Acharya is equivalent to the degree of MA. In addition, the petitioner submitted that by virtue of Regulation
