Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
(Dr.Bhanwar Lal Jat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 30 July, 2015
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
***
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.198/2015 (DR.BHANWAR LAL JAT V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.) *** DATE OF ORDER 30.07.2015 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J HON'BLE MISS JAISHREE THAKUR ,J Mr. Mukesh Vyas for the appellant.
Mr.Girish Joshi for UGC.
Mr.Sajjan Singh assistant to Dr.P.S.Bhati, AAG for the State.
This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5378/2014. By the order aforesaid, the learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petition preferred by respondent Dr.Pancha Ram set aside order of appointment of the appellant as substitute teacher being in violation of clause 3.3.1 of the Regulations for Minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in University/ Colleges and measures for maintaining standard in Higher Education, 2010 published in the gazette of India on 18.09.2010.
The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant obtained degree of Ph.D prior to coming into force of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009, therefore, he is eligible to hold the post of substitute teacher and the qualification given under clause 3.3.1 could have not been made applicable for 2 him. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. As per the regulations of 2010, the eligibility for appointment as Assistant Professor in University/ Colleges/ Institutions is that an incumbent must have NET/SLET/SET and only exception to that is having Ph.D degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009. Admittedly, the appellant is not having degree of Ph.D as per the Regulations of 2009, therefore, he is not having the eligibility as required under clause 3.3.1. The learned Single Bench having considered the notification aforesaid rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant-respondent is lacking requisite qualification. The judgment impugned, as such, does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. Anil Singh