Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Micky Verma vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 26 February, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.385/2019
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
(Reserved on 14.02.2024)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Micky Verma, aged about 37 years daughter of Sh. Krishan
Kumar Verma, resident of Saraswati Niwas, Dhingra Estate,
Boileauganj, Shimla-5, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh). PIN 171005
(Group-A).
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajnish K. Gupta).
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commissioner through its Secretary,
UPSC Bhawan, Shahjahan Road, UPSC Man Singh Road Area,
New Delhi-110069.
2. Union Territory, Education Department, Chandigarh through its
Secretary.Sector-9, Chandigarh PIN 160009.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. B.B. Sharma for R. No.1, None for R. No.2).
2
ORDER
PER: RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
"the candidature of the applicant for the post of Assistant Professor (Dance) pursuant to the advertisement No. 08/2013 (Annexure A-4), in Government Arts and Science College, Chandigarh, Education Department, Chandigarh may kindly be considered by quashing the impugned order of rejection and with a further prayer that the respondents may kindly be directed to interviewed the applicant provisionally and during the pendency of the present OA, respondents be further restrained from issuing any appointment letter to the post of Assistant Professor (Dance) for Government Arts and Science College, Chandigarh in pursuance to advertisement No.08/2013 (Annexure A-4), in the interest of justice.
AND/OR To issue any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice."
2. Facts of the case are as follows. The applicant did her matriculation as well as 10+2 examination from Punjab School Education Board, Mohali. Thereafter, the applicant did her B.A. in Music from Panjabi University, Patiala, M.A. in Dance during the duration of July, 2001 to April, 2003 and M.A. Music in November, 2008 to June, 2010. Applicant also did her Ph.D. in Dance specialization 'Kathak' in April, 2006 to March, 2008. The copies of the certificates in this regard 3 are appended herewith as Annexure A-1 to A-3.
3. The nomenclature used for doctor of philosophy in the Faculty of Visual Arts and Performing Arts was further clarified vide Annexure A-3 to the effect that the research work of the applicant is unique work in Kathak and Dance and Kathak is related to traditional Indian Music. Rasa and Bhawa is style of Vocal Music and thus, the applicant became eligible for applying under Union Public Service Commission i.e. respondent No.1 for the post of Assistant Professor.
4. That the respondent No.1 i.e. Union Public Service Commission issued advertisement No.08/2013 (Annexure A-
4) in which vacancy at serial No.21 i.e. vacancy No. 13060821308 was for filling up two posts of Assistant Professor (Dance) in Government Arts and Science College, Chandigarh, Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, out of which one post was reserved for scheduled caste candidate and another was unreserved. The essential qualification was prescribed as under:-
"Essential qualification: Good Academic record with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades system of O.A.B.C.D.E. and F at the Master's Degree level in Dance from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University ("Good Academic Record means at least second class with fifty percent marks in a Graduation Degree").
5. As per qualification stipulated in the advertisement, the 4 applicant was eligible in all respects and accordingly, submitted her application to the post of Assistant Professor (Dance) in the prescribed format vide Annexure A-5 dated 25.06.2013. Besides the required qualifications, even the applicant is having various awards to her credit. The applicant is winner of 16 gold medals and 2 silver medals at National and International Level and she performed at Switzerland, Geneva, Singapore and Dubai etc. Pursuant to the aforesaid application (Ann.A-5), the applicant was issued Roll No.9. In total 21 candidates have applied (Annexure A-
6). Applicant was issued letter twice. First letter was issued with respect to the fact that the applicant should get the certificate from the concerned university that is Ph.D. in accordance with UGC Regulation 2009. This letter was issued on 22.11.2016. Accordingly, the certificate was obtained from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar vide Annexure A-7, wherein it was clarified that the Ph.D. degree is as per Regulation-2009. Thus, there was no disqualification attached to the applicant. The applicant was assured that her candidature shall be considered, but vide Annexure A-8 issued somewhere in March, 2019, which was never communicated to the applicant, the candidature of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that the applicant is lacking educational qualification because the Ph.D. degree 5 of the applicant is considered as Master Degree in Music whereas that is in Dance. The nomenclature has been misconstrued and that is why, the applicant was not called for interview. The interview has been started from 08.04.2019, but the applicant has not been considered for the reasons best known. In this way, the substantive right of the applicant has been jeopardized without any basis.
6. Apart from this, applicant submitted on 29.11.2018, the required information, but the same was not considered for the reason best known. The claim of the applicant has been rejected without any justification, whereas eligible in all respects. There exist no justification to discard the claim of the applicant because the applicant did her Μ.Α. Dance and Music separately and did her Ph.D. in Dance. As per required norms of the eligibility, the applicant is eligible in all respects and there was no disqualification attached to the educational qualification of the applicant. In this way, the substantive rights of the applicant have been taken away without any basis. The right of the applicant cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. In any case, the interviews are going on and the applicant has legitimate expectation of her selection and appointment. The applicant was never conveyed any rejection and it was only when the applicant downloaded some documents on 6 06.04.2019, the entire thing was highlighted and came to the notice of the applicant. There exists no justification to discard the claim of the applicant and the qualification of the applicant has been misconstrued by the respondent No.1. Hence this O.A.
7. Respondent No.1 UPSC has filed written statement dated 12.07.2019 stating therein that the O.A. which is signed by applicant and his counsel is dated 18.4.2019, was filed on or around 21.4.2019, inter-alia, for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider her candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Dance) pursuant to the advertisement No. 08/2013, in Government Arts and Science College, Chandigarh, Education Department, Chandigarh and quash impugned order whereby her candidature was cancelled. The applicant had also prayed for, as an interim relief, in para 9 of the O.A., inter-alia, for issuance of direction to the respondents to interview her provisionally and restrain them from issuing any appointment letter to the post in question.
8. This Tribunal was pleased to issue notice on 22.4.2019 and case was listed for hearing on 24.4.2019. The Panel Counsel for UPSC informed about this to the UPSC. Request was also made by him to intimate latest development in the matter on or before 23.4.2019. The counsel was asked to intimate the Tribunal about the essential qualifications for the post, as 7 under :-
"the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Dance) has already been held on 08.04.2019. The candidature of Ms. Mickey Verma, the petitioner, was rejected under Lacking Educational Qualification (LEQ). The following criterion was adopted to shortlist the candidates for the interview:
"EQs (Good Academic Record + Relevant Master degree NET or Ph.D)". The applicant had claimed Ph.D Degree in Dance subject in Online Recruitment Application. However while scrutinizing her documents, it was found that her Ph.D. is not in the relevant subject of Dance instead it is in Music. A copy of Ph.D. Degree is Annexure MA-1. When case came up for hearing on 25.4.2019, this Tribunal directed the respondent UPSC to provisionally interview the applicant for the post in question and result be kept in sealed cover. Apparently, the interim order was granted under an impression that the interview was yet to be conducted after 25.4.2019, whereas the fact is that the interview in this case had already been held on 8.4.2019 and as such interim order is liable to be vacated or modified to secure ends of justice. Copy of order is enclosed as Annexure R-2 to this reply. Further, Union Public Service Commission has filed a Misc. Application (Diary No. 1893/2019) on 05.07.2019 in present OA against the order dated 25.04.2019 as the candidate does not possess Ph.D. 8 Degree in Dance subject which is one of the essential qualifications for the post. The interviews in the recruitment case in question were held on 8th April, 2019 and result is yet to be declared. Further, it is mentioned that the candidates should have 55% marks in relevant Master's Degree + NET in the relevant subject / or / if a candidate does not possess NET, he/she should possess Ph.D. in the relevant subject viz. Dance). Copy of Recruitment Rules is enclosed and marked as Annexure R-3.
9. The applicant had Master's Degree in relevant subject but she did not possess NET and possessed Ph.D. but her Ph.D. was in Music which was not the relevant subject for the said recruitment case and as such her candidature was rejected under Lacking Educational Qualification (LEQ).
10. Respondent No.2, Chandigarh Administration has filed a short reply on 18.07.2019 stating therein that it had sent the requisition for filling up 39 post of Assistant Professor to UPSC in the year 2013 in various subjects in Government Arts & Science College, U.T., Chandigarh. UPSC had published an advertised 8-14 June, 2013 for filling up the 39 posts of Assistant Professors in Government Art and Science College out of which two posts were of Assistant Professor (Dance) in which one post is reserved for Scheduled Castes and one for General Category. The applicant has filed the present OA with 9 regard to rejection of candidature of the applicant by the UPSC (Respondent No. 1) for the post of Assistant Professor (Dance) in pursuance to the advertisement No. 08/2013 as mentioned above. As such, the relief has been claimed from the respondent No. 1 i.e. UPSC. As such, the respondent No. 2 has been unnecessarily arrayed in the list of respondents. UPSC is the nodal agency for recruitment of Group 'A' posts in the Central Government/UTS. The answering respondent had sent the requisition to UPSC to fill up certain posts of Assistant Professors in the Chandigarh Administration. However, till date the answering respondent has not received any recommendation from the Union Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Professor in Dance.
11. The applicant has filed replication dated 16.09.2019, stating that final result has not been declared and applicant has not been called for interview and Tribunal order does not deserve to be vacated or modified.
12. The applicant has sought relief that her candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Dance) pursuant to Advertisement No.8/2013 (Annexure A-4) in Government Arts and Science College, Chandigarh be considered by quashing the impugned objection.
13. We have perused written statement filed by the respondent No.1 on 12.07.2019 and find that the only reason for 10 rejecting the candidature is on the ground that applicant has only degree of Music (Dance) and not NET qualification. According to respondents the applicant had Masters Degree in relevant subject but she did not possess NET and possessed Ph.D but her Ph.D was in Music which was not relevant subject for the said recruitment case and as such her candidature was rejected under Lacking Essential Qualifications (LEQ). We find that as per advertisement Annexure A-4, the essential qualification is 'Good Academic record with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of 8 in the 7 point scale with letter grades system of O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master's Degree level in Dance from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University. ("Good Academic Record means at least second class with fifty percent marks in a Graduation Degrees)'.
14. We have also perused recruitment rules (Annexure R-3) dated 11.06.2011 wherein in column 8, essential qualification post of Assistant Professor in Government Arts and Science College, in addition to qualification mentioned (above) in the advertisement, there is requirement of candidate clearing NET conducted by UGC and CSIR or similar test accredited agency. Note 1 column 8 states that NET is a compulsory requirement for appointment as Assistant Professor. However, candidates 'who have been awarded Ph.D. Degree, 11 in compliance of University Grant commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET, for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in university/colleges/ institutions". We have also perused Annexure A-11 wherein details of academic performance indicators of the applicant have been considered. We find that the applicant has Masters Degree in Dance from Punjabi University, Patiala (Annexure A-1). The applicant has also been conferred degree of doctorate of Philosophy on 01.03.2008 in the Faculty of Visual Arts and Performing Arts (Music) by the Senate of Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar (Annexure A-2). The citation of Ph.D. thesis submitted in Faculty of Visual Arts and Performing Arts (Music) reads as follows:-
15. The Citation "The research work of Micky Verma is unique work in the field of Kathak Dance. Kathak is directly related with the traditional Indian Music. The Rasa and Bhawa expressed Aesthetically through the style of Vocal Music i.e. Drupad, Dhamar, Thumri, Trana etc. Mickey Verma successfully justified her Topic "Kathak Nritya Main Parbhavotpadak Tatav: Vishleshnatmak Adhyan."
Clearly the doctorate is in the field of dance and the same has been awarded by Faculty of Visual Arts and Performing Arts (Music).
12
16. The claim of the applicant has been rejected on an erroneous interpretation which in our view is totally misconceived. Since the applicant possesses requisite eligibility, she should have been called for the interview which started from 08.04.2019. We find that since her candidature was wrongly rejected that she is entitled to be considered and corrective action needs to be taken by the respondents, hence she should be called for interview. We find that the Tribunal on 24.05.2019 had directed UPSC to provisionally interview the applicant and keep result in sealed cover which was not followed.
17. The respondent-1 vide M.A No.1062/2019 have relied upon the following judgments:-
i. Union of India Vs. A.K. Narula, (2007) 11 SCC 10. ii. Bhushan Uttam Khare versus the Dean, B.J. Medical College and Others iii. State of Rajasthan and others versus Lala Arun (2002 (6) SCC 252) iv. Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P. Versus Rajendra Singh and others (2009 (17) SCC 452) v. A.V. Papayya Sastry & Others vs. Government of A.P. & Others (2007 (2) JLJR (SC) 183 vi. Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre vs. The Principal, V.A.V. College of Arts & Others (2007 (3) JT 403. vii. Tushar H. Shah vs. Manilal Pitambardas & Another. These decisions are not applicable based on facts and circumstances of the case. We are not interfering with the qualifications prescribed but pointing out the erroneous interpretation of prescribed qualifications.
18. Respondent No.1 UPSC have sought early hearing in view of 13 Cocp No.1138/2019 filed before the Hon'ble High Court by Sunita Sharma. Respondent No.1 i.e. UPSC now in MA No.63/116/2023 dated 12.01.2024 has again stated that the interim order was apparently granted under impression that interview is yet to be conducted whereas, the fact is that the interview in this case had already been held on 08.05.2019. Hence interim order is liable to be vacated or modified.
19. This plea in our view is untenable. We find interview was held on 08.05.2019 and reply was filed by respondent No.1 i.e. UPSC on 12.07.2019 after conduct of both interview and issue of Tribunal order on 24.05.2019. We find that not only decision to reject candidature has been taken on wrong facts even interim order has not been complied with. Even if the interview had been completed on 08.05.2019, the applicant could have been subsequently provisionally called for interview but it was not done.
20. In the light of discussion supra and considering facts and circumstances of the case, we direct respondent No.1 UPSC to accept the candidature of the applicant as she does not lack the necessary qualification, we further direct that in accordance with the interim direction of this Tribunal, Respondent No.1 to conduct the interview for appointment to post of Assistant Professor Dance for Govt. Arts and Science College, Chandigarh, within a period of four weeks from the 14 date of this order.
21. The stay on recruitment process will stand vacated from the date after the conduct of the interview of the applicant and result be declared as per merit list.
22. The O.A. is allowed. In light of above discussion, all pending MAs, if any, are considered as disposed of. No order as to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /kr/