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
| 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
Dalpat Abasaheb vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others
Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar
Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi
Sajeesh Babu K. vs. N.K. Santosh and Others
AI
Appointment – Parameters to be applied to a case where an incumbent to a post does not fulfil qualifications prescribed for a post, are different from parameters to be applied to a case where no spec....
Employment and Service matter - Appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University - Selection committee – Qualiification - Absence of post doctor....
There is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisiti....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the UGC Regulation, 2018, particularly regarding the eligibility criteria for the post of Associate Profes....
The court upheld the Selection Committee's decision insisting that qualifications for academic posts must be evaluated by experts, and judicial interference is warranted only under extreme circumstan....
Public Service Commission has authority to determine candidate eligibility including qualification relevance with expert aid; higher qualifications given weightage only after minimum met; below-bench....
The court emphasized that the equivalence of qualifications is in the exclusive domain of the recruiting authority and cannot be determined through judicial review.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.