2016 Supreme(P&H) 2320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Panjab University Staff (Non-Teaching) Association and another - Petitioners
Versus
Panjab University, Chandigarh and another - Respondents
CWP No. 15771, 19003 of 2015
Decided On : 23-11-2016

Headnote:

The corrigendum issued by the respondent Panjab University (hereinafter referred to as the University), on 19.02.2013, in respect of an advertisement issued on 21.01.2013, by which applications for filling up 6 posts of Deputy Registrars in the University had been invited, from candidates eligible to be appointed to the said post, was challenged by the petitioners. The challenge was to the changed qualifications which, as per the petitioners, had been done without proper procedure and without the approval of the competent authority. The University had issued Advertisement no.1/2010 inviting applications for filling in six posts of Deputy Registrars, with the aforesaid requisite qualifications. A note was added in the advertisement, to the effect that those who had already applied for the posts in response to Advertisement no.4/2011, need not apply again, though they could send any additional information regarding educational qualifications, experience etc., so as to update their bio-data. Soon after the aforesaid advertisement was issued, a member of the Syndicate raised an issue on the qualifications for the post of Deputy Registrar, in a meeting of the Syndicate held on 27.01.2013, and as per the minutes of meeting, the discussion is reproduced as follows: “Shri Ashok Goyal pointed out that the qualifications prescribed in the recently given advertisement for the post of Deputy Registrar are vague. A Committee should be constituted to recommend the modifications in the qualifications and the Vice-Chancellor be authorised to take a decision, on behalf of the Syndicate. A corrigendum needs to be given regarding this.” A copy of the proceedings of the meeting has been annexed with the petition, which shows that no approval was given, of the recommendation made by the member as regards the change in qualifications for the post of Deputy Registrar. Yet, it is further contended, that the Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee headed by the Dean University Instructions, to discuss and modify the existing qualifications for the post of Deputy Registrar, and the committee headed by the Dean held its meeting in the Committee Room of the Vice-Chancellors' office on 06.02.2013, and recommended that a corrigendum be issued, superseding Advertisement no.1/2013. The following recommendations are stated to have been made by the committee, for the post of Deputy Registrar: 1.(a) Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (50% marks in case of SC/ST candidates) or equivalent grade thereof from a recognised University; and 1.(b) Nine years as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.6000/- and above in Educational / Research Institution having experience in Educational Administration. OR 2. Graduate with CA/ICWA with at least 55% (50% marks in case of SC/ST candidates) in graduation with at least eight years' or working experience in case of CA/ICWA OR 3. A candidate having Master's Degree of LL.B. degree with not less than 20 years' of service in a University out of which he/she must have worked as Assistant Registrar/Superintendent/P.A./ASO/ASO (Stenography) for a period of not less than 4 years, shall also be eligible irrespective of qualification prescribed above at 1(a) & (b). Accordingly, the impugned corrigendum (Annexure P11) was issued, partly superseding Advertisement no.1/2013 and prescribing the qualifications recommended by the committee now formed by the Vice-Chancellor.

Fact of the Case:

The corrigendum issued by the respondent Panjab University (hereinafter referred to as the University), on 19.02.2013, in respect of an advertisement issued on 21.01.2013, by which applications for filling up 6 posts of Deputy Registrars in the University had been invited, from candidates eligible to be appointed to the said post, was challenged by the petitioners. The challenge was to the changed qualifications which, as per the petitioners, had been done without proper procedure and without the approval of the competent authority.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the revised qualifications were not valid at the time when candidates were called for interviews conducted in August 2015, and secondly, the process of calling candidates who had not applied pursuant to the corrigendum also having been found to be not valid by the Court hereinabove, w.e.f. 27.02.2016, i.e. when a resolution approving them was passed by the Syndicate, but the new qualifications having been held to be valid, it is directed that if the University still wishes to fill up the posts advertised vide Advertisement no.1/2013, it would issue a fresh advertisement, inviting fresh applications (free of cost from those who had applied earlier) and thereafter, issue interview calls to eligible candidates and make a selection out of such eligible candidates, for appointment to the posts of Deputy Registrar. The impugned corrigendum is, therefore, hereby quashed.

Issues: 1. Whether the qualifications / eligibility conditions prescribed in the impugned corrigendum were also validly issued or not. 2. Whether the number of candidates (87) called for the interview, for selection to six posts, is highly excessive, and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that regard. 3. Whether the University, however, actually called such persons for interview as had never applied afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The competent authority under Section 20(5) of the Act 1947, i.e. the Syndicate, not having been given any authority to the Vice Chancellor to further amend the rules or change the qualifications after the resolution passed on 06.09.2009, the Vice Chancellor could not have suo motu assumed such authority to change the qualifications, or propose to change the qualifications as and when he deemed it proper, without even a reference to the competent authority, i.e. the Syndicate. 2. The number of candidates to be called for interview, for filling in six posts of Deputy Registrar, is to be restricted, even in the absence of any written test, if the number of applications received for the six posts in question is found to be highly excessive. 3. The University was within its right to restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview, even in the absence of any written test, if the number of applications received for the six posts in question is found to be highly excessive.

Final Decision: CWP No. 15771 of 2015 is dismissed, whereas CWP No. 19003 of 2015 is partly allowed, with no order as to costs.