Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 9
S.P. Srivastava, J.
Rajendra Kumar Sharma
Vs
Jiwaji University And Ors.
DECIDED ON : 6 January, 1999
The court clarified that the expression "subjects" in Section 49(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 has to be read together with the regulations framed by the University Grants Commission under Section 26 read with Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, whereunder while laying down the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment to a post of Lecturer it stands indicated that the candidate must possess a Doctorate degree or Research work of equally high standard and good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Master's degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University, clarifying that having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary programmes, the Doctorate degree or the Master's degree may be in the relevant subject.
Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADHINIYAM, 1973 - SECTION 49(2)(II), (III), (IV) - UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REGULATIONS - MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR LECTURERS - APPOINTMENT OF LECTURER IN BIO-CHEMISTRY - EXPERTISE IN RELEVANT SUBJECT - JURISDICTION OF SELECTION COMMITTEE - CURATIVE CLAUSE - SECTION 58 - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Lecturer in Bio-Chemistry at Jiwaji University, Gwalior, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the grounds of ineligibility and bias in the selection process. The petitioner had a Master's degree in Bio-Chemistry with 65.5% marks, while respondent No. 2 had a Master's degree in Zoology with 64.6% marks and a Ph.D. degree awarded in 1988. The petitioner alleged that the selection committee was illegally constituted and that Professor M.S. Kanungo, a member of the committee, was biased in favor of respondent No. 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the selection committee was properly constituted and that Professor Kanungo was an expert in the relevant subject, as the curriculam of studies for post-graduate courses in Zoology and Bio-Chemistry overlapped. The court also held that the respondent No. 2 had the requisite educational qualifications, as the University Grants Commission regulations allowed for relaxation of the minimum eligibility criteria in cases where the candidate's research work was of a very high standard. The court further held that any defects in the constitution of the selection committee or irregularities in the procedure were cured by Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
Issues: 1. Whether the selection committee was illegally constituted. 2. Whether Professor M.S. Kanungo was biased in favor of respondent No. 2. 3. Whether respondent No. 2 had the requisite educational qualifications. 4. Whether any defects in the constitution of the selection committee or irregularities in the procedure were cured by Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the selection committee was properly constituted, as it included experts in the relevant subject and satisfied the quorum requirement. 2. The court held that there was no evidence to support the allegation of bias against Professor Kanungo. 3. The court held that respondent No. 2 had the requisite educational qualifications, as the University Grants Commission regulations allowed for relaxation of the minimum eligibility criteria in cases where the candidate's research work was of a very high standard. 4. The court held that any defects in the constitution of the selection committee or irregularities in the procedure were cured by Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no justifiable ground for interference in the appointment of respondent No. 2.
S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent- University.
2. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner, who was an aspirant for the appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Jiwaji University, Gwalior, in the subject of Bio-Chemistry, has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by his rejection and the appointment of the respondent No. 2 on the said post on the basis of the recommendations of the Statutory Selection Committee and has prayed for a direction for the quashing of the order of appointment dated 21/23-12-1988, Annexure P-2, whereunder the respondent No. 2, Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal, had been appointed by the Executive Council of the University as Lecturer in the subject of Bio-Chemistry in the time-scale of pay of Rs. 2200-75-2300-100-4000 on a two years period of probation.
4. It may be noticed that the petitioner has impleaded Jiwaji University, Gwalior, through its Vice-Chancellor, as the respondent No. 1 and Shri Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal and Dr. Mrs. Nalini Saxena as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The Statutory Appointing Authority, which had issued the appointment order which is sought to be quashed, has not been impleaded as a respondent.
5. The writ petition had been filed on 12-4-1989. On that date a Division Bench of this Court directed that the writ petition be listed on the question of admission on 1st May, 1989 after providing an opportunity to the learned counsel representing the respondent, University, to file a reply to the petition. Vide the order dated 2-5-1989 the application seeking an ad interim writ directing the University-respondent not to confirm the new appointee in the service pending the disposal of the writ petition, was rejected.
6. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent-University had invited applications on prescribed forms through an advertisement dated 13th November, 1987 published on 25th November, 1987 for appointment on the various posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers indicating that the essential qualifications and the scales of pay shall be as per University Grants Commission Rules. The number of vacancies for the posts of Lecturers so far as the subject of Bio-Chemistry was concerned was disclosed in the advertisement to be two only.
7. In response to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner had submitted an application seeking appointment on the post of Lecturer in the subject of Bio-Chemistry and was called for interview before the Statutory Selection Committee. On 18-9-1991, the respondent-University filed in this Court a list of candidates who had applied for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Bio-Chemistry, who had been called for interview. This list shows that 24 applicants had been called for the interview, which including the petitioner as well as the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In the aforesaid list, so far as the qualifications are concerned, it had been indicated that the petitioner had to his credit a First Division in Higher Secondary School, B.Sc. and M.Sc. So far as Shri Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal, respondent No. 2 was concerned, it had been indicated that he had passed the High School examination in First Division, Intermediate examination in Second Division, B.Sc. and M.Sc. in the First Division. In addition to the above, it had also been indicated that he had done Research work at M.Sc. level and also Research work leading to Ph.D. Degree. So far as Dr. (Miss) Nalini Saxena, respondent No. 3 was concerned, it had been indicated that she had to her credit First Division in High School examination, Intermediate, B.Sc., M.Sc. and had also to her credit a Ph.D. Degree which she had obtained in the year 1985. It was also noted that she had to her credit Awards, Scholarships, Fellow-ships, publication of papers, Research Experience etc.
8. It may further be noticed that
