Uttarakhand High Court
Madhu Bahuguna vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ... on 25 February, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2019
Madhu Bahuguna ...Petitioner
Vs.
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others ...Respondents
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Verma, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commisison/respondent no. 1 and 3.
Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Pursuant to the advertisement issued on 04.08.2017, the petitioner participated in the selection process and, on the results of the selection process being declared on 04.01.2019 recommending the names of the unofficial respondents for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting) in various Government colleges of the State of Uttarakhand, she has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the said advertisement, issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, is contrary to the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teacher and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010; Clause 6.00 thereof stipulates the selection procedure; Clause 6.0.1 stipulates that the overall selection procedure shall incorporate a transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the 2 Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in these Regulations in Tables I to IX of Appendix III; Clause 6.0.2 stipulates that the Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees, and selection procedures, through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments, and their Constituent colleges/ affiliated colleges (Government/Government- aided/Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes; an indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS), based on API based PBAS, shall also be sent separately by the UGC to the universities; and the Universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to the API criteria based PBAS prescribed in these Regulations. Appendix - III of the 2010 Regulations prescribes the minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment of teachers in Universities departments/Colleges. The minimum API score for an Assistant Professor is the minimum qualifications as is stipulated in the Regulations. The Selection Committee criteria/weightages for the total marks of 100 is (a) Academic Record and Research Performance (50%); (b) Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (30%); (c) Interview Performance (20%).
3. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that, instead of following the aforementioned criteria stipulated in the 2010 Regulations, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission had chosen to give 10% weightage for experience, without making any distinction between a candidate, who has long years of experience and those who just have an experience of a few months; the rest of the marks were awarded only for interview; no marks were awarded, as is required in Appendix-III, for academic record and research performance, assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills 3 etc.; and the recruitment of Assistant Professors, which is based on a criteria not stipulated in the UGC Regulations, is illegal. Learned Senior Counsel would rely on Ashish Kumar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. : (2018) 1 Supreme 605 in this regard.
4. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, would submit that the UGC Regulations do not automatically apply to Universities under the control of the State Government; they automatically apply only to Central Universities; the State Governments are required to adopt the 2010 Regulations, and prescribe separate Rules/Regulations for appointment to posts in State-wide Universities; the Government of Uttarakhand had adopted the 2010 Regulations by way of a Government Order; the Uttarakhand Higher Education Service Rules, 2003 have been made applicable for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Colleges affiliated to State Universities; and the petitioner, having participated in the process of selection, cannot now turn around, and question the very advertisement based on which he had participated in the selection process.
5. The advertisement, a copy of which is filed along with the writ petition, prescribes weightage for a maximum of 10% for teaching experience. It does not specify the mode and manner in which the selection process would be undertaken nor as to whether the criteria stipulated in the 2010 Regulations is applicable. Since the claim of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is that the entire process of selection is in accordance with the statutory Rules i.e. the Uttarakhand Higher Education Service Rules, 2003, and the relevant Government Orders in force, it is necessary for us to examine the said Rules and the Government Orders.
6. While Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the Uttarakhand Higher Education Service Rules, 2003 are 4 non-existent, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, would submit that a copy thereof would be placed before this Court by the next date of hearing.
7. Since the contentions now advanced on behalf of the petitioner, as well as by the respondents, are based only on the Rules in force and there does not appear to be any dispute on facts, we consider it appropriate to examine the applicability of the Uttarakhand Higher Education Service Rules, 2003, and the relevant Government Orders adopting the 2010 UGC Regulations to the subject process of selection.
8. Post this case for admission in the daily list on 05.03.2019 immediately after fresh cases. A copy of the 2003 Rules and the Government Orders adopting the 2010 Regulations shall be placed for the perusal of this Court on that date.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
25.02.2019 25.02.2019
Rahul