GAURAV TRIPATHI vs STATE OF U. P. - 2009 Supreme(All) 1308

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(All) 1308

[2009(4) ADJ 648 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : R.K. AGRAWAL AND S.P. MEHROTRA, JJ.
GAURAV TRIPATHI ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3326 and 6733 of 2009, decided on
10th April, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
P.S. Baghel for the Petitioner; H.N. Singh, S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) Selection—Lecturers, in Degree Colleges and Post-Graduate Colleges, in pursuance of Advertisement No. 41 of 2007—Filing of petitions for quashing Guidelines framed by U.P. Higher Education Services Commission for purposes of said selection of Lecturers—Petitioners also prayed for directing Commission to hold interview of petitioners in said writ petitions for post of Lecturers in Political Science in pursuance of Advertisement No. 41 of 2007—As validity of Guidelines framed by Commission in year 2000 wherein “teaching experience” was provided as one of factors for preliminary screening and short-listing of candidates, to be called for interview—Screening Index Marks were allocated for same, has been upheld by High Court in a series of decisions (as referred in judgment)—And, that Commission has providing screening Index Marks for “teaching experience” in its Guidelines in regard to Advertisement in question (No. 41/2007), and as above question regarding validity of Guidelines of 2000 in context of Regulation 3 of Teachers Selection Regulation, or in context of Clause (i) to proviso to Regulation 6(1) of Teachers Selection Regulations, was not considered in decisions (referred to in judgment)—And, as this Court was setting in a Division Bench, cannot take a different and contrary view—Therefore, matter referred to a larger Bench—Now, whether said decisions (referred in judgment) are binding precedents, or same are per incuriam, as provisions of Regulations 3 and 6 of Teachers Selection Regulations were not noticed, or same are sub-silentio, or as to whether doctrine of stare decisis applied—Held, Court referred question to be decided by larger Bench, requesting papers to be placed before Hon’ble C.J. for appropriate orders—Question whether in view of provisions of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983, particularly Regulations 3 and 6 thereof, Guidelines framed by Commission in year 2008 in regard to selection, pursuant to Ad. 41/07, wherein “teaching experience” has been provided as one of factors for preliminary screening and short-listing of candidates, to be called for interview for post of teachers/Lecturers are valid. [Paras 1, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20]
       (B) Selection—Lecturers—Guidelines framed by Commission in year 2008, in regard to Selection pursuant to advertisement whether valid—Held, Commission could not provide “teaching experience” as a factor for preliminary screening and short-listing of candidates at threshold in order to restrict number of candidates, to be called for interview—Of course, when candidates are called for interview “teaching experience” may be considered as one of relevant factors for selection—Therefore, impugned Guidelines of year 2008 (Ad. 41/07) are invalid, in so far as said Guidelines providing for “teaching experience” as one of factors for preliminary screening and short-listing candidates to be called for interview for teachers/Lecturers, and allocate Screening Index Marks for same. [U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983—Regulations 3 and 6]. [Paras 10 and 12]
       (C) Selection—Lecturers—Guidelines framed by Commission in year 2008, in regard to selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 41 of 2007—Validity of said Guidelines in year 2000 (wherein Screening Index Marks were awarded regarding “teaching experience”—Whether are binding precedents, and impugned Guidelines, should be held in view of decisions (referred in instant case)—Held, Court did not express any opinion on question as to whether decisions (referred to instant judgment) are binding precedents, or same are per incuriam, as provisions of Regulations 3 and 6 of Teachers Selection Regulations were not noticed, or same are sub-silentio, or as to whether doctrine of stare decisis applies. [Paras 13 and 18]

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The above two Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the Guidelines framed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) for the purposes of selection of lecturers in Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges in pursuance of Advertisement No. 41 of 2007, and further, for directing the Commission to hold the interview of the petitioners in the above Writ Petitions for the post of lecturer in Political Science in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 41 of 2007.

2. The facts of the above two Writ Petitions are similar, and the questions of law involved in the said Writ Petitions are also similar, therefore, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2009 will be treated as the leading case.

It may be mentioned at the outset that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2009, the affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. As regards Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6733 of 2009, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the affidavits need not be exchanged between the parties as the facts of the said Writ Petition are similar to those of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2009, and the questions of law involved in the two Writ Petitions are also similar.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner (Gaurav Tripathi), interalia, stating that the Commission issued an Advertisement No. 41 in the year 2007, which was published in the national newspapers; and that a large number of the posts of lecturers in different disciplines were advertised in the said advertisement; and that in Political Science, the total number of 35 posts were advertised, out of which 18 posts were unreserved; and that pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application within time; and that the petitioner got First Division in B.A. Examination with 61.38% and First Division in M.A. Examination with 66.9%; and that the petitioner has cleared his NET Examination conducted by the UGC; and that the petitioner is also enrolled for Ph.D. Degree and is doing Ph.D. It is, inter alia, averred in the Writ Petition that the interview for the post of lecturer in Political Science commenced from 12.1.2009; and that the petitioner came to Allahabad on 19.1.2009 and enquired from the Office of the Commission regarding his interview call letter; and that the petitioner was informed verbally that his name had been screened out.

A supplementary affidavit, sworn on 21.1.2009, has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner annexing thereto a copy of the Brochure issued by the Commission alongwith the application form of the aforesaid advertisement No. 41.

A counter affidavit, sworn on 27.1.2009, has been filed on behalf of the Commission. It is, inter alia, stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner has not been called for interview as he has been short listed inasmuch as his Screening Index Mark is 27.6 whereas the last candidate called for the interview obtained the Screening Index Mark 27.8.

A rejoinder affidavit, sworn on 29.1.2009, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid counter affidavit.

In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6733 of 2009, it is, inter alia, averred by the petitioner (Dr. Abha Pandey) that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 41 of 2007, issued by the Commission, the petitioner made an application for the post of lecturer in Political Science; and that the petitioner obtained 69.4% in her B.A. Examination and 62.6% in her M.A. Examination; and that the petitioner has been awarded Ph.D. Degree; and that the interview for the post of lecturer in Political Science commenced on 12.1.2009 but the petitioner has not been called for interview.

3. During the course of arguments, Shri H.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Commission (respondent No. 2), on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(All) 1308

[2009(4) ADJ 648 (DB)]ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTBEFORE : R.K. AGRAWAL AND S.P. MEHROTRA, JJ.GAURAV TRIPATHI ....PetitionerVersusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER .....Respondents(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3326 and 6733 of 2009, decided on 10th April, 2009)

Cases Referred (22)

[2009(4) ADJ 648 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : R.K. AGRAWAL AND S.P. MEHROTRA, JJ.
GAURAV TRIPATHI ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3326 and 6733 of 2009, decided on
10th April, 2009)