IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia, JJ.
Dharam Pal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh University – Respondent
CWP No.722 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2021
Qualification - Eligibility - UGC Regulations, 2018 - [BCA/MCA/PGDCA] - [UGC Regulations, 2018] - The court discussed the eligibility of a candidate based on the last date for filing applications and the representation made by the advertisement. The judgment highlighted the principle that a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The court referred to various judgments to support this principle and emphasized that eligibility must be judged with reference to the last date for receiving the applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science at Himachal Pradesh University. The petitioner obtained a Ph.D. degree after the closing date for applications and sought consideration of the additional qualification, which was rejected by the respondent-University.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that eligibility must be judged with reference to the last date for receiving the applications. The court held that the respondent-University's action was in consonance with the law and found no merit in the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether a qualification acquired by a candidate subsequent to the prescribed date can be taken into consideration for judging eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that eligibility must be judged with reference to the last date for receiving the applications. The judgment referred to various precedents to support this principle.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Whether a qualification acquired by a candidate subsequent to the prescribed date can be taken into consideration to adjudge the eligibility or acquisition of higher qualification is the moot question to be decided in the instant petition?
2. The respondent-University issued an Advertisement No.Rectt.-17/2019 dated 30.12.2019 for filling up various teaching and administrative posts through direct recruitment. In terms of the advertisement, the crucial date i.e. the closing date for determining the eligibility of all candidates in respect of essential qualification(s) and experience, if any, etc. was 30.01.2020; as is evident from important Instruction No.2 appended with the advertisement which reads as under:-
3. The petitioner is an applicant for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science (BCA/MCA/PGDCA) in ICDEOL, Himachal Pradesh University, for which post the minimum qualification is as per the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter to be called as ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’).
4. As per the decision taken in the meetings of the Executive Council held on 10.06.1981 and and 12.06.1981, an advertisement is to be operational upto one year. However, in the instant case, the time limit for the advertisement was extended by another six months upto 30th June, 2021.
5. It is the admitted case of the parties that as on the closing date for determining the eligibility of candidates i.e. 30.01.2020, the petitioner had not been awarded Ph.D. Degree as the same was obtained by him only in the month of December, 2020.
6. However, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent-University to consider the additional higher qualification obtained by him after the closing date as per the advertisement, but the same was rejected vide communication dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure P-5) and aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following relief:-
7. The respondent has filed its reply wherein it is stated that due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic, the State Government imposed lockdown and, therefore, the recruitment process on the basis of the advertisement could not be started till mid August, 2020. Resultantly, the selection process on all the advertised posts could not be completed within the prescribed validity period of advertisemen
A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669
Alka Ojha vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.
Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another (1997) 4 SCC 18
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar
Bhupinderpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262; (AIR 2000 SC 2011: 2000 AIR SCW 1888
Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India and Ors.
M. V. Nair (Dr.) vs. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429 : (1993) AIR SCW 1412)
Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2013 (10) Scale 42
Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others 1993 Supp3 SCC 168
Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Anr.
State of Gujarat v. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari
State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar and Ors.
U.P. Public Service Commission U.P. Allahabad vs. Alpana 1994 AIR(SCW) 2861
U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and Anr. v. Alpana
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.