Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Rajkumar Nagda - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary - Respondent
Civil Writ No. 10506 of 2018
Decided On : 06-08-2018
RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES ACT, 2010 - SECTION 24(3)(A) AND SECTION 49(4) - QUALIFICATIONS FOR VICE-CHANCELLOR - RELAXATION FOR TEACHERS - APPLICABILITY TO OFFICERS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Dean in the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner, applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor in the said University in response to an advertisement dated 10.5.2016. However, he was not eligible for the post as he did not possess the requisite veterinary qualification as prescribed in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, which was a mandatory requirement under Section 24(3)(a) of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010 (the Act of 2010). The petitioner sought relaxation of the qualification requirement based on Section 49(4) of the Act of 2010, which provided relaxation to teachers who were migrated from other Universities to the Veterinary Universities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 49(4) of the Act of 2010, which provided relaxation to teachers, did not apply to officers, including the Vice-Chancellor. The Court interpreted that Section 24(3)(a) and Section 49(4) of the Act of 2010 were distinct provisions, and the relaxation provided to teachers under Section 49(4) could not be extended to officers, including the Vice-Chancellor, who was an officer as per Section 23 of the Act of 2010. The Court further held that the petitioner, not possessing the mandatory qualification under Section 24(3)(a), lacked the locus standi to challenge the constitution of the Search Committee or the appointment of its Convenor.
Issues: 1. Whether the relaxation of qualification requirements provided to teachers under Section 49(4) of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010, could be extended to officers, including the Vice-Chancellor. 2. Whether the petitioner, lacking the mandatory qualification under Section 24(3)(a) of the Act of 2010, had the locus standi to challenge the constitution of the Search Committee or the appointment of its Convenor.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted that Section 24(3)(a) and Section 49(4) of the Act of 2010 were distinct provisions, and the relaxation provided to teachers under Section 49(4) could not be extended to officers, including the Vice-Chancellor, who was an officer as per Section 23 of the Act of 2010. 2. The Court held that the petitioner, not possessing the mandatory qualification under Section 24(3)(a), lacked the locus standi to challenge the constitution of the Search Committee or the appointment of its Convenor.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that he lacked the locus standi to challenge the constitution of the Search Committee or the appointment of its Convenor due to his lack of the mandatory qualification under Section 24(3)(a) of the Act of 2010. The Court also clarified that the petitioner could make a representation to the State Government requesting consideration and contemplation of an amendment in Section 24(3)(a) of the Act of 2010, which would be considered in accordance with the law.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying the following relief’s :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(i) the advertisement notification dated 10.05.2016 (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed and set aside ;
(ii) the respondent University may be directed to comply with the direction issued by the State Government by communication dated 23.02.2017 (Annex.5);
(iii) the State Government may be directed not to act upon the report so submitted by the Search Committee pursuant to the advertisement (Annex.6);
(iv) the respondents be directed to give the benefit of the provisions of Section 49(4) of the Act of 2010 with regard to the qualifications;"
2. The petitioner has prayed for consideration for appointment as Vice Chancellor in pursuance of the notification dated 10.5.2016.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Section 24(3)(a) of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act of 2010') debars the petitioner from consideration for appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor as it requires that a candidate applying for the said post must have recognized veterinary qualification as defined in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. Counsel for the petitioner has sought to make out a case on account of the fact that Section 49 of the Act of 2010 provides some relaxation to the Teachers who are migrated from other Universities to the Veterinary Universities and further that the stand of the State Government vide letter dated 23.2.2017 is to the effect that there is a contemplation of the State for making necessary amendment in the Act of 2010 in regard to Section 24 thereof.
4.4.1 Learned Advocate General, however, has vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioner and has shown the judgment of this Court passed in the matter of the petitioner himself in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2872/2017 (Rajendra Kumar Nagda vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 1.6.2017, which reads as follows :-
"The petitioner is Dean in the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner. He applied for the post of Vice Chancellor in the said University in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.02.2017. As per the Condition No. 2 of the said advertisement, one of the eligibility conditions is that a candidate should possess the requisite veterinary qualification as prescribed in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said condition has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers :-
"(a) Quash the constitution of Search Committee for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner being contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2010;
(b) modify the condition No. 2 prescribed in advertisement (Annx.1) so as to be in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 49 of the Act of 2010 thereby providing relaxation to the in service candidates and the petitioner in particular;
(c) the nomination of Convener be declared illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2010; and"
While praying for the relief claimed in prayer (a), it was contended that the constitution of the Search Committee itself is in conflict as the English version of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2010') provides that one member (out of four) shall be nominated by the Veterinary Council of India, whereas, the Hindi version of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2010 provides that:-
^^,d O;fDr fo|k ifj"kn }kjk funsZ
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
