Point in Issue :
Whether fraction of marks obtained in written competitive examination enables a candidate for bringing him in the field of choice of appointment to the post of Lecturer in Law?

K.S. Radhakrishnan, CJ.—The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether Ordinance 164-A framed under the Saurashtra University Act, 1965, would enable a candidate to round off fraction of marks obtained in a written competitive examination for bringing him in the field of choice for appointment to the post of Lecturer in law

2. University Grants Commission has framed Regulation dated 2.4.2000 laying down minimum qualifications for the post of Professors, Principals, Readers or Lectures in subjects other than Fine Arts, Management, Engineering and Technology in Universities and Colleges. For the post of Lecturer, the minimum qualification prescribed by the University is as under:—

“1.3.3 Lecturer:

Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master’s degree level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from a foreign University.

Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.

Note: NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D degree. However, the candidate who have completed M.Phil degree or have submitted Ph.D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st December, 1993 are exempted from appearing the NET examination.”

3. Saurashtra University invited applications for filling up various teaching positions in the University Departments sanctioned under UGC Xth Plan (2003 to 2007) on contract basis in pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-275-13,500. Notification stipulated the qualification for the post of Lecturer as good academic record with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Master’s degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Further, it was also stated that besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared eligibility test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR, or similar test accredited by the University Grants Commission. NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D degree.

4. Fourth respondent applied in response to the above Notification. He had secured 439 marks in the LL.M Examination, which was held in April, 1999. He was therefore, short of 1 mark for reaching at 55% at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1999. University followed Ordinance No. 164-A and gave one grace mark to the fourth respondent. On that basis mark-sheet was issued on 19.8.1999.

5. The question that is germane for consideration in this case is whether Ordinance 164-A would come to the rescue of the fourth respondent when he applies for a post of Lecturer, the qualification of which is laid down by the University Grants Commission. Minimum eligibility criteria stipulated in the UGC Regulation as well as the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer Law stated that the candidate should have good academic record with at least 55% marks.

6. Petitioner states that he was not duly qualified for the post and hence, he did not apply for the post of Lecturer, so also fourth respondent, but he applied for the post and University applied Ordinance 164-A and entertained his application though he did not meet with the minimum qualification laid down by the UGC and was selected and appointed. The contract period for which fourth respondent was appointed expired on 30.3.2007 and therefore, fourth respondent as such is not directly affected by the outcome of this petition. However, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel appearing for the University Grants Commission submitted that this Court should finally decide the legal issu