Back
1990 Supreme(Gau) 93
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S. K. HOMCHAUDHURI AND Mrs. M. SARNIA, J.
Biswajit Sinha and another -Appellant
Versus
Dibrugarh University and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No.247 of 1989
Decided On : 23-05-1990
B.K.Das, B. Banerjee and D. Majumdar, P.G.Baruah, R. Baruah, B.C.Das and A.K.Purkayasth
The court held that the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry in the advertisement were inconsistent with and contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed by the statutory rules, and that respondents 6 and 7 did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the posts of Reader and Lecturer, respectively.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENT - QUALIFICATION - MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - SELECTION COMMITTEE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - LOCUS STANDI - ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT, 1987.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student union, challenged the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 as Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Microbiology/Bio Chemistry, respectively, on the ground that they lacked the requisite qualifications and were appointed in violation of the statutory rules and norms. The petitioners also challenged the advertisements issued by the Registrar of Dibrugarh University for the posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry in the advertisement were inconsistent with and contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed by the statutory rules. The court also found that respondent 6 did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry and that respondent 7 did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the post of Lecturer. The court further found that the recommendations of the All India Council for Technical Education regarding the qualifications for the posts in question were not met by respondents 6 and 7.
Issues: 1. Whether the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry in the advertisement were inconsistent with and contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed by the statutory rules? 2. Whether respondent 6 possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry? 3. Whether respondent 7 possessed the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the post of Lecturer? 4. Whether the recommendations of the All India Council for Technical Education regarding the qualifications for the posts in question were met by respondents 6 and 7?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry in the advertisement were inconsistent with and contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed by the statutory rules. The court reasoned that the provisions of the Ordinance were mandatory and statutory and binding on the University and its Executive Council, and that any deviation therefrom would be violative of the mandate of the Rules and would be illegal. 2. The court held that respondent 6 did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry. The court reasoned that respondent 6 did not have a doctorate degree or equivalent published work or equivalent research work in the subject, and that he did not have the required teaching experience. 3. The court held that respondent 7 did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the post of Lecturer. The court reasoned that respondent 7 did not have a uniformly good academic record, and that he did not have the required teaching or research experience. 4. The court held that the recommendations of the All India Council for Technical Education regarding the qualifications for the posts in question were not met by respondents 6 and 7.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the appointments of respondents 6 and 7 as Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Microbiology/Bio Chemistry, respectively.
HOMCHAUDHURI, J.:- In this writ petition, the petitioner Shri Biswajit Sinha, President of Dibrugarh University Pharmaceutical Sciences Student Union has challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 in the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Dibrugarh University and appointment of respondent No.7 in the post of Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Microbiology/ Bio Chemistry on the ground that none of them possess the requisite qualification prescribed by the staturoty Rules for the post of Reader and Lecturer of the subject and also their appointment in the posts have been made ignoring the qualified eligible candidates who applied for the post in response to the advertisements. The petitioner has also impugned the advertisement No.9/ 27 and No.3/88 issued by the Registrar, Dibrugarn University for appointment to the posts of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Micro-biology respectively.
2. The petitioners have filed the petition on behalf of the Union as a sort of public interest litigation for upholding the cause of proper teaching in public health science by meritorious, experienced and eligible qualified teaching staff, and that according to the petitioners appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been made by the Dibrugarh University in complete disregard to the Rules, norms and standard. Inasmuch as, none of them was qualified for the post to which they are appointed.
3. The Executive Council of the Dibrugarh University in the exercise of power under S.18(g) of the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965, framed "the Dibrugarh University Teachers Service Condition Ordinance, 1974", hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, with effect from 1st July, 1974. Art.4 of the Ordinance provides that there shall be following teachers in the University :-
(a) Professor;
(b) Reader;
(c) Lecturer, and
(d) Such other grades as the University may create from time to time.
Art.5 amongst others, provides that no one shall be eligible for appointment as teacher, unless he possesses the minimum academic qualifications for respective posts as mentioned in the said Article. Art.5(4)(b) prescribed the minimum academic qualification for the post of Reader, while Art.5(4)(b)(i) prescribed the minimum qualification for the post of lecturer. The ordinance having been framed in the exercise of power conferred under S.18(g) of the Dibrugarh University Act, provisions of the Ordinance are set of statutory rules and are mandatory and are binding on the University and its Executive Council.
4. In the Advertisement No.9/87 applications were invited for various posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer including the post of Reader in Pharmaceutical Chemistry. In the advertisement No.3/88 applications were invited for the post of Lecturer is Pharmaceutical Chemistry. The respondents Nos.6 and 7 in response to the Advertisement applied for the post of Reader and Lecturer respectively along with other candidate and were appointed to the posts of Reader And Lecturer respectively in preference to the other qualified candidates for the post.
5. We have heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Das has drawn our attention to the essential minimum qualification for the post of Reader as prescribed by Art.5(4)(b) of the Ordinance and the essential qualification required for the post as per Advertisement No.9/87 and has submitted that the essential qualification as published in the Advertisement for the post of Reader of Pharmaceutical Chemistry is all together different than those prescribed by the mandatory provisions of Art.5(4)(b) and are inconsistent with and lower than the minimum qualification prescribed by the statutory Rules namely, Art, 5(4)(b) of the Ordinance.
6. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner, we consider it necessary to have a look into the essential qualifications of Reader of the University as prescribed by Art.5(4)(b) of the Ordinance and the essential qualification as published in the adv
