LPA No. 389/2006

Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

LPA No. 389 of 2006 & CM No. 11883/06

Reserved on: May 27, 2008

Date of Judgment: August 8, 2008

DR. (MRS.) KUSUM NEHRA ..... Appellant

Through : Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Senior Advocate

with Mr. I.B. Gaur, Mr. S.S. Nehra, Mr. Faizy

Ahmad Syed and Ms. Swati, Advocates

versus

Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR COLLEGE THR.

ITS PRINCIPAL & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through : Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for R-3.

Mr. Arvind Nayar with Mr. Vikas Kumar,

Advocates for R-4/GNCT.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in

Yes

Digest?

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9^th January 2006 passed

by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant‟s Writ Petition (C) No.

4497 of 2004 whereby she had challenged the appointments of the 5^th and 6^th

respondent to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in the Dr. Bhim Ambedkar College

2008:DHC:2300-DB

LPA No. 389/2006

Page 2 of 15

(1^st Respondent) which is affiliated to the University of Delhi (3^rd

Respondent).

2. On 30^th June 2001 the Respondent No.3 notified vacancies in the post of

Lecturer in various subjects including Hindi and invited applications from

eligible candidates. One of the requirements was that the candidate should

shave qualified the National Eligibility Test („NET‟) for Lecturers conducted

by the University Grants Commission (UGC)/Centre for Scientific and

Industrial Research or similar test accredited by the UGC. In a note

appended to the paragraph concerning qualifications it was clarified that “the

candidates who have completed M.Phil degree or have submitted Ph.D thesis

in the concerned subject up to 31^st December 1993 are exempted from

qualifying NET.”

3. In her writ petition, the appellant challenged the appointment of

Respondent No.5 on two grounds. The first was that he had not submitted his

application before the deadline i.e. 15^th July 2001. The second was that he did

not possess the NET qualification as on the last date for the submission of the

application. He also did not submit his Ph.D thesis before 31^st December

1993.

2008:DHC:2300-DB

LPA No. 389/2006

Page 3 of 15

4. The stand taken by the College was that although the Respondent No.5 did

not possess the NET qualification, he had been awarded Ph.D in March 2001,

i.e. prior to the date of the advertisement which was 31^st June 2001. The

College also relied on a notification dated 31^st July 2002 issued by the UGC

whereby the criterion concerning submission of Ph.D. thesis was modified

and those who had submitted Ph.D. thesis on or before 31^st December 2002

were also made eligible for being considered. The interviews for the post

took place thereafter and by that time the UGC notification had been issued.

It was accordingly contended that there was no invalidity attaching to the

selection of Respondent No.5.

5.1 The learned Single Judge did not consider the issue concerning the failure

of Respondent No.5 to submit his application form in time. As regards the

his not possessing the NET qualification, the learned Single Judge in para 17

of the impugned judgment held:

“17. ….The argument of the petitioner seen in the

perspective of the above principle has considerable

force. The 5^th respondent undoubtedly did not

possess NET qualification. He also had not

submitted

the

Ph.D.

thesis

on

or

before

31.12.1993. On a straight-forward application of

the principles evolved by the Supreme Court the

petitioner would have (been) entitled to relief.”

5.2 However, the l