Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
Narender Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No.4051 of 2016
Decided On : 12-08-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajender Singh Duggal, Advocate.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Higher qualifications do not guarantee preferential treatment unless stipulated in the advertisement.
Headnote:
Appointment - Extension Lecturers - The court upheld the appointment of private respondents as Resource Persons on extension basis in the subject of English for the academic session 2015-16, emphasizing that higher qualifications do not guarantee preferential treatment unless stipulated in the advertisement. The court also noted that the selection process was through walk-in-interview and the appointments were for filling gaps in manpower deficit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of private respondents as Resource Persons on extension basis in the subject of English for the academic session 2015-16, claiming to be more meritorious and the only Ph.D. Degree holder with teaching experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no mala fides in the selection process and concluded that higher qualifications do not guarantee preferential treatment. It also noted that the appointments were made through walk-in-interview to fill gaps in manpower deficit.
Issues: Challenge to appointment of private respondents as Resource Persons on extension basis in the subject of English for the academic session 2015-16.
Ratio Decidendi: Higher qualifications do not guarantee preferential treatment unless stipulated in the advertisement. The selection process through walk-in-interview was deemed appropriate for filling gaps in manpower deficit.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the appointment of private respondents as Resource Persons on extension basis was upheld.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
1. Challenge in this petition is to the appointment of the private respondents as Resource Persons purely on extension basis in the subject of English for the academic session 2015-16. Four women have been selected on the basis of a panel prepared on merit basis as per the criteria laid down by the College. They are all MA English qualified. One of them has cleared NET while the others are M.Phil. The fourth had teaching experience of one academic session to her credit while another one had experience of four academic sessions Resource Person. The petitioner complains that he has not been selected despite being more meritorious and the only Ph.D. Degree holder with teaching experience. He is also NET qualified. This information, regarding the panel position, the petitioner has received in response to a request made for supply for information under the RTI.
2. No mala fides have been alleged against the recruiting authority or the selection was unfair. Self-serving statements on inter se merit will not establish a claim in a Court of Law. Higher qualifications does not mean preferential treatment unless it is stipulated in the advertisement. In the present case, the appointments was made through process of walk-in-interview. It was not a regular selection. Extension Lecturers only fill gaps of manpower deficit in classrooms where regular teachers may not be available to teach the subjects where regular teachers are in shortfall.
3. I would therefore find no justification or valid reason to interfere with the selection process and engagement of the private respondents as Resource Persons. Strictly speaking, I think it is a misnomer to use the word appointment in case of Extension Lecturers. These are stopgap engagements to tide over teaching work for which strict standards of Articles 14 & 16 may not be applicable or enforceable in law.
4. Thus, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
