IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
A.A. SAYED, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JJ.
State of H.P. and Others - Appellants
Versus
Pooja and Another - Respondents
LPA No. 195 of 2015
Decided On : 25-11-2022
Employment and Service matter - Appointed as Lecturer - Cadre - Writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) (College Cadre) in Maharaja Sansar Chand Memorial (MSCM) College Thural, District Kangra. Vide notification issued on college was taken over by the State Government. Services of its teaching and nonteaching staff were also taken over under a separate notification issued - Writ petitioner’s services were not taken over - Aggrieved against non-taking over of her services, writ petitioner filed Original Application No.149/2007 in the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal- Original application was disposed of as CWP(T) No.14639 of 2008 with a direction to respondents to decide petitioner’s representation in light of certain notifications/office communications, whereby similarly situated persons were given relaxation in educational qualifications while taking over their services as Lecturer (College Cadre) - Whether the writ petitioner possessed requisite educational qualification or not was an aspect to be determined by the Appellate Court.
Finding of Court : Writ petitioner, satisfied criteria for taking over of her services as Lecturer (College Cadre) - Even otherwise, State had granted relaxation from possessing the required educational qualifications while taking over services of unqualified lecturers employed in National College Amb, District Una and Pt. Amarnath Samarak Mahavidalaya, Jogindernagar, District - Services of unqualified lecturers working in DAV College were taken over by State on condition that they will have to acquire NET qualification as prescribed in R&P Rules within a period of three years, failing which their increments were to be withheld – Court have already held that writ petitioner was qualified in terms of applicable R&P Rules read with UGC guidelines. - Documents placed on record of writ petition, more specifically alongwith rejoinder, are pointer to the fact that appointment of writ petitioner in college was approved - There is no rebuttal to rejoinder - Appellant has not demonstrated that appointment of writ petitioner was not approved.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Writ petitioner was a left out Lecturer (College Cadre) in a private college, whose service was not taken over by the State. The State contended that the writ petitioner did not satisfy educational criteria required for taking over her services. Learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the State to take over petitioner’s services from due date (09.11.2005) alongwith seniority, but without back wages. The judgment was not interfered by the Division Bench in the appeal filed by the State. However, review petition filed by the State was allowed on the ground that whether the writ petitioner possessed requisite educational qualification or not was an aspect to be determined by the Appellate Court. The appeal, restored to its original number, has been taken up for hearing.
2. Facts:-
2(i). Writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) (College Cadre) in Maharaja Sansar Chand Memorial (MSCM) College Thural, District Kangra. Vide notification issued on 09.11.2005, the college was taken over by the State Government. Services of its teaching and nonteaching staff were also taken over under a separate notification issued on 18.10.2006. Writ petitioner’s services were not taken over.
2(ii). Aggrieved against non-taking over of her services, the writ petitioner filed Original Application No.149/2007 in the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal. This original application was disposed of on 21.05.2010 as CWP(T) No.14639 of 2008 with a direction to the respondents to decide petitioner’s representation in light of certain notifications/office communications, whereby similarly situated persons were given relaxation in educational qualifications while taking over their services as Lecturer (College Cadre).
2(iii). The State Government vide order dated 31.07.2010, rejected writ petitioner’s case. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed CWP No.7951 of 2010, praying for quashing of order dated 31.07.2010 and for directing the respondents to take over her services as Lecturer (College Cadre) from the due date.
2(iv). Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 23.07.2014. The respondents were directed to take over writ petitioner’s services w.e.f. 09.11.2005, i.e. the date of taking over of the college in accordance with law alongwith continuity of service and seniority, but without any back wages.
2(v). The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.07.2014 was challenged by the State Government in LPA No.195 of 2015. This letters patent appeal was initially disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.10.2018 alongwith eleven other connected appeals. The findings of the learned Single Judge were upheld with some modifications regarding payment of arrears to the writ petitioners in some of the connected appeals. It is an admitted position that the judgment dated 30.10.2018 has attained finality vis-à-vis eight connected letters patent appeals involving similar questions and stands implemented qua the writ petitioners therein. Regarding the present writ petitioner, the State filed Review Petition No.99 of 2019 on the ground that the writ petitioner lacked qualifications required for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre). The review petition was allowed on 20.08.2021. It was observed that whether the writ petitioner was qualified or not is a matter to be decided by the Appellate Court. The appeal was accordingly restored to its original number.
3. Contentions:-
3(i). Learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the writ petitioner did not possess the qualifications required for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre). The writ petitioner had not qualified NET/SET examinations. The writ petitioner also did not possess minimum 55% marks in her Post Graduation/M.Phil degree. It was submitted that the writ petitioner was required to satisfy the above two conditions in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2004 for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre). Appointment of writ petit
Point of Law : As per Notification issued in 1994 and as per subsequent Notification in 2007, the candidates having Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level.
After the amendment of R & P Rules prescribing minimum marks in Masters Degree with NET/SET qualification, petitioner was never asked to improve his qualification in terms of amended R & P Rules and ....
Qualifications for lecturer appointments must be met at the time of appointment, and later-acquired qualifications do not retroactively qualify an individual.
The court emphasized that a litigant cannot be permitted to take inconsistent, contradictory & shifting stands in the same case at his whims & fancies and cannot file successive review petitions for ....
The judgment emphasizes the significance of possessing the minimum educational qualification for appointment on a government post and upholds the binding nature of Regulations framed by the Medical C....
Point of law: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rationa....
Judgment affirms the necessity of due process in employment, emphasizing that failure to provide a hearing before termination violates natural justice. UGC regulations' retrospective application prot....
Eligibility for regularization and pension is contingent upon meeting the prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment and undergoing a selection process.
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.