Uttarakhand High Court
Ghan Shyam Pal vs Hnb Garhwal University And Another on 27 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
27TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
Writ Petition (S/B) No.204 of 2021
Ghan Shyam Pal ......Petitioner
Vs.
HNB Garhwal University and Another ......Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Abhijay Negi and Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Dr. K.H. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Mr. Rafat Munir Ali and Ms. Irum Zeba,
learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the U.G.C.
Order: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
We have been hearing this writ-petition for
some time now. The petitioner is qualified in English
language having obtained the masters degree in English
and also cleared NET in English language. The petitioner
has been serving in the respondent-HNB Garhwal
University, Srinagar. He offered his candidature in
response to the advertisement issued by the
respondent-university on 22.08.2019 for the post of
Assistant Professor in English. He was called for
interview. Apart from the petitioner, respondent no.2
was also called for interview and eventually selected.
2. The qualification of respondent no.2 is in
linguistic. She obtained her M.Phil in linguistic and also
cleared NET exam in linguistic.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the
respondent no.2 was not qualified to offer her
candidature for the post of Assistant Professor in English
under the UGC regulations for minimum qualifications for
appointment of teachers and other academic staff in
universities and colleges and measures for the
maintenance of standard in higher education, 2018 (the
2018 regulations). The eligibility prescribed for direct
recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor, inter alia,
in languages - which would also cover the English
language is, inter alia, prescribed to be as follows:-
"A (i) Master's degree with 55% marks (or an
equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading
system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied
subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent
degree from an accredited foreign university.
(ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the
candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility
Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a
similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or
who are or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in
accordance with the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of
M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and
their amendments from time to time as the case may
be exempted from NET/SLET/SET:................"
4. Pleadings in the matter have been completed
prior to hearing of the matter and even during the
hearing supplementary affidavits have been filed. What
emerges from the record is that the respondent-
university constituted a Screening-cum-Scrutiny
Committee consisting of the following persons:-
"i)The Respective Dean of School shall be the
2
Chairperson of the Committee of that School.
ii) The Respective Head of the Department. In case,
Head of the Department is not Professor, Professor
from Allied Subject nominated by Vice Chancellor for
scrutiny of the post Professor/ Associate Professor.
iii) One Senior Professor from the Department to be
nominated by the Vice Chancellor. In case, there is no
professor in the department, Professor from Allied
Subject to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor.
iv) One External Expert in the subject concerned.
v) Professor/ Associate Professor belonging to the SC/
ST/OBC/Minority/Women/ Differently-abled categories,
if any of candidates belonging to these categories is an
applicant, to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, and
if any of the above members of the scrutiny
committee does not belong to that category.
Four members, including External subject experts, shall
constitute the quorum."
5. The applications received by the University for
the Post in-question were placed before the Screening-
cum-Scrutiny Committee which screened and scrutinized
the applications, inter alia, of the petitioner and the
respondent no.2.
6. The Screening Committee awarded 70 marks
to the petitioner and 72 marks to the respondent no.2.
Thereafter, the Selection Committee consisting of three
external members, the visitor nominee, the Dean of
school, the Head of the Department of English, one
special invitee and one academician represented the
SC/ST/OBC/Minority/ Women/ Differently-Abled
Categories nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-
Chancellor himself as the Chairperson, interviewed the
3
candidates including petitioner and respondent no.2.
7. Marks were awarded out of 50 by the three
experts. Though the Dean and Head of the Department
also awarded the marks out of 50 each, in the
compilation of final result, the weightage given to their
marks was reduced to half, and their marks were
computed out of 50 jointly. Respondent no.2 was
selected since she secured 154.5 marks, as opposed to
the petitioner's 154 marks.
8. However, if the marks awarded by the Dean
and the HoD were given equal weightage, the petitioner
would have outscored the respondent no.2 by 6.5
marks.
9. In the entire process undertaken, there is no
express consideration of the issue whether the linguistic
could be considered as connected/relevant/allied subject
to the subject of English from an Indian University.
10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the said exercise - to determine as to
which subject could be considered as
"concerned/relevant/allied subject" vis-à-vis the subject
of English, should have been undertaken before the
initiation of the selection process, as done by BHU.
According to the petitioner, this exercise was not
conducted at any stage by the respondent-university.
11. On the other hand, the submission of the
learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 is that the
Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee, which consists of
host of members did the said exercise, and it is only
because they found the respondent no.2 to have
4
qualification in "concerned/relevant/allied subject" to the
subject of English from an Indian University, that her
application was placed before the Selection Committee.
The minutes of the meeting of the Screening-cum-
Scrutiny Committee, however, do not betray any
express consideration of the issue of equivalence of the
subject of linguistics with English language on the
parameters of "concerned/relevant/allied subject".
12. The queries raised by the petitioner to the
U.G.C. before filing this petition, has been placed on
record by the petitioner. The queries raised and the
response given to the said queries by the U.G.C. on
29.06.2021 are being reproduced herein below:-
"Point No. Question of the Applicant UGC Reply
1. Which agency does it decide Central University Section
the main subjects and its allied of UGC does not maintain
subjects in the University? If such type of data
UGC decides, provide the list of concerned to Central
main subjects with its allied Universities.
subjects.
2. Can Linguistic become an allied
However, the Central
subject of English where a Universities are
Central University does not autonomous institutions
have Linguistic as a subject in governed under the
the department of English? provisions of their Act and
Statutes and Ordinances
frame thereunder. The
Statutory bodies of the
Central Universities are
competent/ empowered to
deal with various academic
matters from time to time
with the approval of their
Statutory Bodies.
Further, these information
5
can be collected from the
concerned University as
they are also covered
under the RTI Act, 2005.
3. How many Central Universities The Central Universities of
are there in the country where UGC do not maintain such
no teaching, no Degree, no type information.
Diploma and no Certificates
However, such type of
courses are offered in
information may be
Linguistic but Linguistic is an
obtained from the
allied subject of English? If
concerned Central
there is any University, provide
Universities, in pursuant to
the list of those Universities.
the DoPT O.M.
No.10/2/2008-IR dated
24th September, 2010.
4. What is the definition of an The requested information
allied subject and main is in the nature of
subject? clarification of information
which is not covered under
the RTI Act. The public
authority under section
2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI
Act, 2005 is required to
furnish information
available any material
form. It is not required to
either interpret or draw
conclusion from the
material in its possession,
or to solve the problems
raised by the applicant or
to furnish replies to
hypothetical questions."
13. In the aforesaid background, we have
considered it necessary to have the presence of U.G.C.
before us. Accordingly, we sent for the standing counsel
6
for the U.G.C. who is now present before us. We have
apprised him of the dispute /controversy arising in the
present petition and this order has also been dictated in
his presence.
14. We direct the U.G.C. to file an affidavit clearly
stating whether the methodology adopted by the
respondent-university in the matter of selection of
Assistant Profession (English) in its entirety accorded
with the requirements of 2018, or not?
15. The affidavit be filed within three weeks.
16. List the matter on 02.11.2022.
17. The complete paper book shall be provided to
the learned counsel for the U.G.C. by the learned
counsel for the petitioner within two days.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
\ ________________________ RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J. AK/SS 7