Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Mritunjay Kumar @ Mortyonjoy Kumar S/o Ramayan Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 222 of 2020
Decided On : 05-07-2021
Appointment - Eligibility Criteria - UGC Regulation - [HISTORY] - [UGC Regulation 2010, Clause 4.1] - The court examined the eligibility criteria for the appointment of an Assistant Professor in History. The UGC Regulation 2010, Clause 4.1 stipulates the requirement of a Master’s degree with 55% marks in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. The court held that the Regulation prevails over the advertisement and found the appellant eligible for the appointment as he possessed a post-graduation degree in Ancient History, which was considered an allied subject of History. The court also emphasized the importance of expert opinions and deferred to the UGC's assessment of the appellant's eligibility.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9, with a qualification of Ph.D., M.A. in History, M.A. in Archaeology and Museology, was appointed as Assistant Professor (Contractual) in the Department of History. The appointment of the respondent no. 9/appellant was challenged by the writ petitioner, questioning his eligibility due to not possessing the required educational qualification. The court examined the eligibility criteria and the applicability of a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Court in a similar case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant eligible for the appointment as he possessed a post-graduation degree in Ancient History, which was considered an allied subject of History. The court emphasized the importance of expert opinions and deferred to the UGC's assessment of the appellant's eligibility. The court also highlighted the infirmities in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility criteria for the appointment of an Assistant Professor in History, the applicability of a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Court, and the consideration of the UGC Regulation over the advertisement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the UGC Regulation prevails over the advertisement and found the appellant eligible for the appointment as he possessed a post-graduation degree in Ancient History, which was considered an allied subject of History. The court emphasized the importance of expert opinions and deferred to the UGC's assessment of the appellant's eligibility.
Final Decision: The instant appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed. The impugned judgment was quashed and set aside, and the interim order was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
2. Heard parties.
3. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3604 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the appointment of Respondent No. 9 to the post of Assistant Professor (History) has been held to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly quashed and set aside with a further direction to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner, if found eligible for appointment.
4. The brief facts of the case which are required to be referred, read as under:-
The case of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 along with others, having found eligible, were called to participate in the interview and after scrutiny of the documents and qualification of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9, an appointment letter dated 18.08.2017 was issued and he was appointed as Assistant Professor (Contractual) in the Department of History.
After appointment, the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 started discharging his duty to the satisfaction of all concerned and consequently the services of the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 9 was extended vide letter dated 10.08.2018 for a period of 11 months with effect from 22.07.2018.
In the meantime, the respondent-College issued fresh advertisement dated 24.01.2018 for direct recruitment on the sanctioned post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 being eligible for the post advertised, applied for the same and even though he was found to be qualified, without considering his case, one Mritunjay Kumar (appellant herein) has been shortlisted and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History.
The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 sought information by making an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the entire recruitment process right from issuance of the advertisement and criteria adopted for selection of a candidate and the details of appointment made in the department of history earlier and the existing procedure for appointment in the said department.
The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9, after going across the information furnished, has found that the appellant has passed M.A. in Ancient History and not in History and he is not eligible to be considered for appointment as Assistant Professor in History and as such, writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3609 of 2019 has been filed questioning the appointment of respondent no. 9/appellant by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India agitating therein that the respondent no. 9/appellant ought not to have been appointed due to not possessing the required eligibility condition since as per the advertisement the educational qualification to be possessed by one or the other candidates in the relevant subject and since applications were invited for appointment of Assistant Professor in History, the respondent no. 9/appellant being holder of post-graduation degree in Ancient History, cannot be construed to be subject History being part of history subject and hence, he is not fulfilling the requisite educational criteria but without considering this aspect of the matter, the respondent no. 9/appellant has been appointed.
The writ petitioner has also taken a ground by putting reliance
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
