SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL, JJ.
Dr. Balwant - Petitioner
Versus
The Hon’ble Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 82 of 2021
Decided On : 14-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui and Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Subhang Dobhal, learned counsel, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel.

Headnote:(A) Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University Act, 1958 - Section 23 - Challenging appointment of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) based on qualifications - Appointment of candidate lacking essential qualifications is illegal; equivalence of degrees must be certified by the University’s Academic Council as per statutory provisions. (Paras 1, 36, 58)

(B) Academic Qualifications - The qualifications of M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) cannot be equated with M.Sc. (Chemistry) without proper academic council approval; the Deputy Registrar's certificate of equivalence is not sufficient or competent to establish eligibility for the post. (Paras 4, 34, 50)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of a respondent who lacked the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry). The petitioner argued a denial of merit based on unfair scoring and improper equivalency determinations in prior examinations. (Paras 1, 5, 7)

Findings of Court:
The court determined the appointment of the respondent was illegal, reaffirming that only the Academic Council had the authority to issue certification of equivalency between degrees. (Paras 36, 59)

Issues: The central issues included whether the qualifications of M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) and M.Sc. (Chemistry) were equivalent and whether the selection process adhered to the statutory requirements mandated by the University Act. (Paras 1, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the necessity of qualifications must align with the standards dictated by the governing university statute, and any deviation from this constitutes a severe breach of academic integrity. (Paras 35, 57)

Result: The writ petition was allowed, the Chancellor's order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be appointed to the Assistant Professor post. (Paras 59)

Table of Content
1. challenge to appointment based on qualifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. rejection of respondent no. 4's candidature due to qualifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. comparison of qualifications and scores in the selection process. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. issues surrounding equivalence of degrees challenged. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. representation and complaints made to the university authorities. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. university's stance and justification regarding qualifications and appointment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. legal framework governing university's powers and academic decisions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
8. academic council's authority over qualification equivalence decisions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
9. determination that respondent no. 4's qualifications were not equivalent. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
10. final judgment quashing the appointment of respondent no. 4. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)

JUDGMENT :

By the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who also participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in the Department of Chemistry, pursuant to Employment Notice No. A-20/2015, is challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the ground that respondent No. 4 is not having the essential qualification, as required for the post as per the advertisement. In addition to challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4, the petitioner is also challenging the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Chancellor, whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University, Pantnagar, Act, 1958 (The Act)-against the appointment of respondent No. 4, stood rejected. The petitioner is further seeking a direction that he may be given appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Chemistry (SC) in the Department of Chemistry w.e.f. 21.09.2015 i.e. the date when the recommendation was made for appointment of respondent No. 4 by the Selection Committee.

2. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent-University’) has been constituted under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Agriculture and Technology) Universities Act, 1958.

The brief facts relevant for our purpose may now be noticed. In the year 2011, the respondent-University advertised one post of Assistant Professor, meant for SC category candidate, in the Department of Chemistry vide Employment Notice No. A-18/2011, and the essential qualification, as prescribed in the advertisement, was Master’s Degree in the concerned discipline, i.e. Chemistry and a PhD Degree. The said post was mentioned at Serial No. 28 of the Advertisement, in the College of Basic Sciences & Humanities, and the qualification, as prescribed for the post-in-question, is also mentioned in the advertisement, which reads as under:-

“For the posts at Sl. No. 27 to 34 & 71: Essential: 1. Ph.D./Doctorate Degree in the subject concerned or related field. 2. Master’s degree in the concerned discipline with at least 60% marks or equivalent in the point scale system. A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Master’s level for the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Differently-abled (Physically and visually differently-abled). 3. (1) The NET/SLET will be an essential qualification for the recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor or equivalent in the discipline where NET / SLET is conducted by the ICAR / UGC/ CSIR or any other Central / State Govt. Agency. (2). The NET / SLET will not be an essential qualification in the discipline in which NET / SLET is not conducted.”

3. On 15.01.2012, respondent No. 4 applied for the said post pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice No. A-18/2011, despite the fact that he was not having the Degree of M.Sc. (Chemistry). Respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top