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) 575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL, JJ.
Ghan Shyam Pal – Petitioner
Versus
Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna University and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 204 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhijay Negi.
For the Respondents: K.H. Gupta, Shobhit Saharia, Anjali Bhargava.

Headnote:(A) Central University Act, 2009 - Section 19 - University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2018 - Assistant Professor appointment - Challenge to appointment based on alleged disqualification due to differing academic backgrounds - Court quashes appointment, ruling that authority to determine equivalence of qualifications lies solely with the Academic Council - Furthermore, respondent's qualifications did not meet the standards stipulated for the position, leading to a directive for reassessment. (Paras 35, 44, 66)

(B) Legitimacy of Selection Process - The court underscored that the selection committee should not have deviated from academic protocols and must adhere strictly to guidelines set forth by the Academic Council. (Para 60)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the second respondent as Assistant Professor for lacking the relevant qualifications in the subject of English; it was argued that her qualifications in Linguistics do not qualify as equivalent to English as per UGC regulation and academic determinations were not followed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Academic Council did not approve or evaluate the equivalence of the subjects despite the university's assertion, which was deemed improper and unsubstantiated.

Issues: The primary issue was whether qualifications in Linguistics could be deemed equivalent to English for the purpose of appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Academic Council possesses exclusive authority to determine qualifications regarding equivalency, reinforcing that shortcutting this process undermines academic integrity and procedural justice.

Result: Writ petition allowed, appointment quashed, and directions issued to re-evaluate qualifications.

Table of Content
1. challenge to appointment based on qualifications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. minimum qualifications outlined by the ugc regulations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. difference between linguistics and english qualifications. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. dissent from committee members regarding selection. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. academic governance and powers of university bodies. (Para 26 , 27)
6. court's findings on qualifications not aligned with standards. (Para 39 , 43)
7. court ruling on appointment and direction to review qualifications. (Para 66 , 67)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of appointment of respondent no. 2-Ms. Arushi Uniyal, as Assistant Professor (English), Department of English, in HNB Garhwal University (a Central University) dated 13.03.2021 on the ground that she is not having requisite qualifications, as required for the said post. In addition to this, a further relief is being sought that respondent no. 1 be directed to appoint an eligible candidate on the post of Assistant Professor (English) in the Department of English, under the OBC category.

2. The facts of the present case are that an advertisement dated 22.08.2019 No. HNBGU/ Admin (T)/2019/02 was issued by the Registrar of the HNB Garhwal University (a Central University), whereby 7 vacancies of Assistant Professor in the Department of English were advertised. The breakup of 7 vacancies of Assistant Professor in English is as follows: Unreserved-2, SC-1, ST-2, OBC-2, total 7. The general instructions for the applicants in respect of the advertisement dated 22.08.2019 are brought on record by respondent no. 2-a selected candidate, by way of supplementary counter affidavit appended as Annexure SCA 1. Certain Clauses of the aforesaid general instructions are necessary to be extracted, which are quoted herein-below:

“2. Applicants should possess the prescribed qualifications and experience as on the closing date of application, as prescribed by the University from time to time for the respective posts. The posts advertised carry UGC pay scales plus admissible allowances. The posts are being advertised keeping in view the broad areas of specialization in subjects. However, the Department concerned may have specific requirement of specialization.

3. The applications received shall be screened as per screening guidelines of the MHRD/UGC Regulation for short listing and recommending the applicants to be called for interview.

Mere fulfillment of the qualification or the eligibility criteria does not entitle an applicant to be necessarily considered or called for interview.

Publications ‘under submission’ or submitted to referees will not be considered towards calculation of marks for publication criteria. Further, all the items for which marks are claimed should be strictly in accordance with the screening guidelines attached with the advertisement.

8. The Shortlisted candidates called for interview should report along with all the testimonials/certificates in original along with valid photo ID (Aadhaar/Voter Id/Driving License/Passport). A set of self-attested photocopy of certificates/testimonials with respect to the qualifications, experience and category as applicable, indicated in the online application form, duly certified by the applicant should be submitted at the time of interview.

11. Applications which do not meet the eligibility criteria given in this advertisement and/or are incomplete in any respect shall be summarily rejected. Before applying online, applicants are advised to go through detailed notice available on the website of the University.”

3. The minimum qualifications, as required for appointment, are not mentioned in the advertisement. However, as per the contention of respondent no. 1, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the minimum qualifications for appointment of T

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