Point of Law : Central government had no authority to disagree with the recommendation of UGC.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTH, J.

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsels for the petitioner; Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the Allahabad University and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for University Grants Commission.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for direction to the Allahabad University to grant marks on teaching experience of the petitioner of discharging duty as Lecturer in department of Sanskrit in P.G. College affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur University on contractual basis after following statutory criteria. Further prayer has been made to permit the petitioner to participate in interview for the post of Assistant Professor, department of Sanskrit scheduled to be held from 17.05.2022 to 22.05.2022 in the Allahabad University in pursuance of Advertisement No. 01 of 2021.

3. The petitioner claims that the University is proceeding with the recruitment process in accordance with UGC regulations 2018. Short listing of candidates for interview is to be done as per Apendix II, Table 3-A of the aforesaid regulations subject to fulfilment all essential eligibility criteria, as mentioned, for direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioner is possessing essential academic qualifications as per the regulations. Table 3-A of UGC regulations 2018 provides for two marks for one year each of teaching experience and maximum 10 marks are to be granted for teaching experience. There is no rider that teaching experience of particular nature shall only be considered for granting two marks per year. The petitioner has been getting appointments after passing rigours of statutory provisions of UGC Regulations, 2018 and has imparted teaching in P.G. College affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur University.

4. Learned counsel for the University, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, has stated that no counter affidavit can be filed on behalf of University on account of the insistence of the counsels for the petitioner to permit the petitioner to participate in on going interview for the post in dispute, which is not in accordance with the Regulations.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy in the present case is regarding providing marks for work done as a teacher. Regulation 6 provides for performance of candidates on grading system proforma based on Appendix – II, Table – 1, 2, 3-A, 4 and 5. The experience as mentioned in Regulations is different for the purpose of counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as give in Rule 10, though counting of past services for direct recruitment does not relate with respect to the experience as provided in Regulation 6. Regulation 6 provides for grading for the purpose of short listing in which experience is one of a component for providing certain marks for screening purposes and not for the counting of the services. The petitioner was appointed in the self finance scheme wherein; (a) petitioner had a qualification as provided by UGC (b) petitioner was selected as per procedure provided by the Government Order dated 13.03.2020; (c) Government order has been issued by the State Government under the State Universities Act read with the direction given by the UGC; (d) Payment to the teachers are being given out of total fee realized in which 70% is used for disbursing the salary of the staff. Therefore, as per concurrence of the UGC as well as State of U.P., petitioner has been appointed as a Lecturer in self finance scheme in duly recognized institution by the State of U.P in college affiliated to the University which is also duly recognized under the provision of University Grants Commission, therefore, appointment of the petitioner is absolutely as per rule of UGC, therefore, his experience of working in the self finance scheme should have been considered by the screening committee. The relevant judgments