Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Dr. Pravir Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Technological University & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2239 of 2016 & CM APPL. 9671 of 2016 and W.P.(C) 2650 of 2016
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Appointment - Essential Qualifications - Special Note (ix) - Ph.D. in the relevant area along with 1st class in B.Tech./B.E. and M.Tech./M.E. degrees - Master of Science in Applied Biological Sciences/Zoology/Botany/Microbiology/Genetics and Ph.D. in Applied Biological Sciences - [W.P.(C) 2239/2016, W.P.(C) 2650/2016] - [First Statutes, 2009] - The Court held that the appointments of the Petitioners are legal and valid as they fulfilled the essential qualifications prescribed in Special Note (ix) of the Advertisement dated 03.12.2011. The impugned orders declaring the appointments void ab initio were set aside, and the Petitioners were entitled to all consequential benefits, including continuity of service. The Court also allowed the writ petitions with a cost of Rs.25,000/- each payable to the Petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners applied for the post of Associate Professors in Bio-Technology pursuant to an Advertisement dated 03.12.2011. The essential qualifications prescribed were Ph.D. in the relevant area along with 1st class in B.Tech./B.E. and M.Tech./M.E. degrees. However, the Advertisement contained a Special Note (ix) which made candidates possessing Master of Science in Applied Biological Sciences/Zoology/Botany/Microbiology/Genetics and Ph.D. in Applied Biological Sciences eligible. The Petitioners were recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee and their appointments were approved by the Board of Management. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued to the Petitioners stating that they did not possess the prescribed qualifications, and their services were terminated. The Petitioners challenged the termination orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioners fulfilled the essential qualifications prescribed in Special Note (ix) of the Advertisement dated 03.12.2011. The impugned orders declaring the appointments void ab initio were set aside, and the Petitioners were entitled to all consequential benefits, including continuity of service. The Court also allowed the writ petitions with a cost of Rs.25,000/- each payable to the Petitioners.
Issues: The main issue before the Court was whether the Petitioners fulfilled the educational qualifications required for the post of Associate Professor in Bio-Technology as prescribed in the Advertisement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioners fulfilled the essential qualifications prescribed in Special Note (ix) of the Advertisement dated 03.12.2011. The Court also found that the impugned orders were passed entirely on the basis of an erroneous Inquiry Report, and the matter was not independently examined by the University. The Court further noted that the Petitioners were doing well in their respective jobs when they were offered appointments by the University, and they were overage for seeking employment elsewhere. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions with a cost of Rs.25,000/- each payable to the Petitioners.
Special Note (ix) was an exception to the essential qualifications column, enlarging eligibility to include M.Sc. in biological sciences and Ph.D. in Applied Biological Sciences without requiring 1st class UG degree. The Note cannot be read to import qualifications not prescribed. (Para 11000762920017 , 11000762920032 , 11000762920033 , 11000762920034 )
Essential qualifications for appointments and recruitments must be explicitly stipulated in Advertisements and cannot be implied or left to imagination. Eligibility conditions cannot be read into Advertisements by way of implication or conjecture. (Para 11000762920034 , 11000762920036 , 11000762920037 , 11000762920047 )
The Inquiry Committee committed a grave error by reading into the Advertisement a requirement of 1st class UG degree which does not exist in Special Note (ix). The Committee posed a wrong question and reached a wrong conclusion, rendering its findings erroneous. (Para 11000762920038 , 11000762920039 , 11000762920040 )
The Committee constituted for personal hearing included members who were signatories to the Resolution against the Vice Chancellor and had vested interests in quashing the appointments. Propriety demanded the Committee be free from such bias. (Para 11000762920020 , 11000762920044 )
The Selection Committee was constituted in consonance with the First Statutes, comprised of eminent experts from renowned institutions, and the Board of Management unanimously approved recommendations. The appointments followed due process and warrant no interference. (Para 11000762920041 , 11000762920042 )
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. W.P.(C) 2239/2016 is filed by Dr. Pravir Kumar seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 29.02.2016 whereby his appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Delhi Technological University/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the `University') has been declared void ab initio. Writ of mandamus is sought to grant all consequential reliefs arising out of quashing of the impugned order. W.P.(C) 2650/2016 has been filed by Dr. Jai Gopal Sharma for setting aside order dated 04.03.2016 whereby his appointment as Associate Professor has been declared void ab initio. Quashing of inquiry proceedings and the show-cause notice is also sought with a further direction to the University to treat the Petitioner as a confirmed employee on completion of probation period of one year, which expired on 15.06.2013. Since the two writ petitions arise out of the same Inquiry Committee's Report and reasons of termination are identical as also the fact that the legal issues are common, with the consent of the parties, the petitions were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. Facts to the extent they are different in the two petitions are adverted to hereinafter.
W.P.(C) 2239/2016
2. On 03.12.2011, an Advertisement was published in leading newspapers and on the University website, inviting applications from candidates having strong zeal for teaching, research and innovation for the post of Professor in PB-4 with Academic Grade Pay of Rs.10000/- and Associate Professor with Academic Grade Pay of Rs.9000/-. Applications were invited for 19 disciplines, one of them being Bio-Technology. Two posts of Professors and four of Associate Professors were advertised in the discipline of Bio-Technology.
3. Present petition concerns appointment to the post of Associate Professor. Petitioner applied against the Advertisement, going by the essential educational qualifications, relevant experience and additional desirable qualifications, notified therein. Essential qualifications prescribed were `Ph.D. in the relevant area along with 1st class in B.Tech./B.E. and M.Tech./M.E. degrees'. The Advertisement also contained `Notes' and a `Special Note', which, according to the Petitioner, dispensed the essential qualifications prescribed in the Advertisement. Since this petition concerns the essential qualifications only and Special Note (ix), the same is extracted hereunder, for ready reference:
"For the Discipline of Bio-Technology, candidates possessing B.Tech./BE and M.Tech./ME Degree in Bio-Informatics and Bio-Chemical Engineering are eligible. The candidates possessing Master of Science, in Applied Bio-logical Sciences/Zoology/Botany/Microbiology/Genetics and Ph.D in Applied Biological Sciences are also eligible."
4. Petitioner avers that though he did not possess the essential qualifications mentioned in the Advertisement in the column `essential qualifications', he was possessing the requisite qualifications stipulated in Special Note (ix) i.e. Masters of Science in Zoology and Ph.D. in Applied Biological Sciences and therefore, applied for the post of Associate Professor in the discipline of Bio-Technology. Petitioner was called for interview on 27.04.2012 and was subsequently recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee, duly constituted under Clause 16(2) of the First Statutes of Delhi Technological University (First Statutes), 2009 published in Delhi Gazette dated 13.08.2009 (hereinafter referred to as the `First Statutes').
5. Recommendations of the Selection Committee were sent to the Board of Management, which unanimously approved the recommendation in its meeting convened on 24.05.2012. Pursuant thereto, letters of appointment were issued to 38 selected candidates for the posts of Professor/Associate Professor, out of which 24 joined. Appointment letter dated 31.05.2012 was issued to the Petitioner, placing him on probation for one year, extendable at the discretion of the Appointing Autho
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioners fulfilled the essential qualifications prescribed in Special Note (ix) of the Advertisement dated 03.12.2011, and the impugned....
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.
with the passage of time, continuance of petitioners on the posts to which they were appointed on adhoc basis, has given rise to a legitimate expectation for consideration of their cases for regulari....
Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every State action is to be tested on touchstone of equality.
Termination of educators requires adherence to procedural rules and natural justice; significant delays in actions against previously appointed individuals are not permissible without substantial mis....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the UGC Regulation, 2018, particularly regarding the eligibility criteria for the post of Associate Profes....
The main legal point established is the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing, in termination proceedings, and the applicability....
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
