Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jagatguru Ramanand Acharya vs Rajeev Kumar Chouhan And Ors on 11 September, 2018
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 267/2009
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1313/2006
Jagatguru Ramanand Acharya Sanskrit University Through Its
Registrar, Village Malao, Bhankrota, Jaipur
----Non-petitioner-Appellant
Versus
1. Rajeev Kumar Chouhan Son Of Shri Ranvir Singh
Chouhan, Plot N. 257, Kushal Nagar, Behind Rajshree
Resort, Sanganer, Jaipur
Petitioner-Respondent
2. State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Sanskrit Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
3. Shri S.k. Agarwal, Director, Sanskrit Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
----Performa Respondents For Appellant(s) : Shri Sandeep Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Smt. Naina Saraf for respondent no.1.
Shri Rajendra Prasad, AAG assisted by Shri Madhusudan Shiromani Sharma for State HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 11/09/2018 (PER HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.) This appeal has been filed by Jagatguru Ramand Acharya Sanskrit University against the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2009 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1-Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was allowed.
(2 of 8) [SAW-267/2009] The case set up by the respondent no.1-Rajeev Kumar Chouhan before the learned Single Judge was that he was substantively appointed by respondent no.2 on the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit) under Directorate, Sanskrit Education. He held academic qualification of Post-Graduation in Sanskrit (Acharya) with Gold Medal and M.A. in Hindi with 2 nd Division. While holding the post of Teacher Gr.II in Department of Sanskrit Education on substantive basis, he worked as Head Master from 10.01.1989. Upon his selection in Lok Jumbish Parishad, he worked as Assistant Project Officer from 12.8.1994 to 17.8.2001. Thereafter, he worked as Sr. Teacher Gr.I in School Teaching College, Mahapur from 18.8.2001 to 5.9.2004. He then worked as Deputy Inspector in Directorate Sanskrit Education from 6.9.2004. A certificate dated 24.10.2005 was produced on record to substantiate this fact. According to the respondents, he being fully qualified and eligible applied for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar with the appellants pursuant to advertisement dated 23.9.2005.
The following was the eligibility qualification for the post of Deputy Registrar:
"2. Deputy Registrar - One -
Essential qualifications:
1. At lest a second class post graduate degree and
2. At lest five years administrative experience in a position involving supervision, control and planning or at lest five years experience of teaching at the University level with some knowledge and experience of education research planning and administration.
3. Working knowledge of English and Hindi;
Desirable Qualifications:
(3 of 8) [SAW-267/2009]
1. Familiarity with the life and working of University or with the educational administration in a college University or an Institute of higher learning or research;
2. Experience of teaching in a College of a University;
3. Working knowledge of Sanskrit;
4. Experience of University Development planning and project work and familiarity with UGC Scheme. Note: Persons who possess a Bachelor's degree and are already working in the University as Assistant Registrar for at least four years possessing minimum total administrative experience of 10 years would be considered eligible for the post Experience in the cadre of Section Officer of equivalent post and above will be counted as administrative experience for this purpose."
A total of 22 applications were received by respondent- university and after scrutiny thereof, nine applicants, including the respondent-writ petitioner, were found eligible and called for interview. The selection committee finally in its meeting held on 10.12.2005 made recommendation wherein name of the respondent-writ petitioner was mentioned at S.No.1 in the order of merit while another applicant Rajendra Kumar Vyas was placed in wait list. When these recommendation were placed before the Syndicate of the University for approval in its meeting held on 20.12.2005, it was apprised that there is a letter dated 12.12.2005 send by Directorate of Sanskrit Education that No Objection Certificate furnished by the respondent-writ petitioner was not issued by the competent authority and that there was a complaint pending against him before Anti Corruption Bureau. The Syndicate therefore did not approve of his selection. Finally, the Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur vide its letter dated 4.2.2008 addressed to the Vice Chancellor pointed out that there was no (4 of 8) [SAW-267/2009] enquiry initiated or complaint of any nature pending against the writ petitioner and that no objection certificate was issued by the competent authority and the allegations against the petitioner in the letter dated 12.12.2005 was totally false and baseless. The Vice Chancellor of the University sent letter dated 14.2.2008 to the Chencellor (His Excellency, the Governor) apprising him of this factual position with the request to resolve the issue exercising the power under Section 6(2) of Rajasthan University Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act No.18 of 1974. In pursuance thereof, a letter was sent by Chancellor on 25.2.2008 inter alia observing that once both the factors have been found to be baseless, the matter be again placed before the Syndicate for further necessary action under intimation to the Chancellor. The matter was again placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 20.3.2008. This time one of the members of the Syndicate raised the objection that writ petitioner was working only as a Teacher Gr.II and was having no administrative experience, which is one of the eligibility condition for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar and thus he was not eligible. The Syndicate therefore did not approve of the recommendation of the selection committee.
The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid background, allowed the writ petition with the following directions:
"Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Reason for rejection assigned by the syndicate in its meeting held on 20.03.08 for the post of Deputy Registrar is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent-University is directed to proceed further with process of selection for its finalisation based on recommendations made by selection committee (5 of 8) [SAW-267/2009] pursuant to advertisement dt. 23.03.05 (Schedule A) in accordance with law, Compliance be made within three months. No costs."
When the appeal was filed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, the division bench of this Court while issuing notice of the appeal has passed the following order on 22.04.2009:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Issue notice to respondents, returnable within for weeks. The University shall proceed with the selection agreement the Advertisement dated 23.09.2005 for the post of Dy. Registrar in terms of the eligibility in the notification or any other experience as sought for in the notification."
Shri Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has rejected the candidature of the respondent- writ petitioner treating him as ineligible and directed the university to proceed further to go ahead with the process of selection for its finalisation based on the recommendations made by the selection committee. In view of the aforesaid interim order dated 22.04.2009 passed by division bench of this Court, the matter was placed before the 30th Meeting of the Working Council of the appellant-university. The Council in the meeting held on 22.04.2009 noted that the respondent-writ petitioner has claimed that he was possessing the experience of 7 years, but Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur by his letter dated 12.09.2008 has conveyed that this experience he acquired while being posted as Teacher Gr.II in the pay scale of that post. Pursuant to another letter of the Sanskrit Education Directorate dated 8.10.2008, Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was posted as Senior (6 of 8) [SAW-267/2009] Teacher-Hindi (Gr.-I) in his own pay scale on the post of Teacher Gr.II. Thereafter by order of the Directorate, Sanskrit Education dated 4.9.2004, he was given the charge of the post of Deputy Inspector. The experience furnished by Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was that of the teaching at the school level and not of the standard of college. Moreover, Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was not appointed substantively on any administrative post and, therefore, he cannot be held to have any administrative experience of five years. He therefore could not be appointed as Deputy Registrar.
Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent no.1- writ petitioner has submitted that once the single bench of this Court has held decision of Syndicate as bad in law and the reasons assigned by the Syndicate have been held to be illegal, the Working Council of the university could not have on those very reasons, non-suited the respondent-writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. The appeal be therefore dismissed and the appellant should be therefore directed to be appointed.
Although the division bench of this Court while issuing notice of the appeal though did not specifically stay the operation of the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge, yet the appellant-university was permitted to proceed with the selection pursuant to advertisement dated 23.09.2005 for the post of Deputy Registrar in terms of the eligibility in the notification or any other experience as sought for in the notification. The appellant in a bonafide way interpreting the aforesaid order permitting them to consider the eligibility of the respondent again, placed the matter before the Working Council of the University in its 30th meeting dated 22.04.2009, which held that the experience (7 of 8) [SAW-267/2009] furnished by Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was that of the teaching at the school level and not of the standard of college. Moreover, Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was not appointed substantively on any administrative post and, therefore, he cannot be held to have any administrative experience of five years. He thus could not be appointed as Deputy Registrar.
We have carefully gone through the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge do not persuade us to disapprove of the reasons given by the Working Council in maintaining that while holding the post of Teacher Gr.II in Department of Sanskrit Education, he worked as Head Master from 10.01.1989 and upon his selection as Assistant Project Officer, then in Lok Jumbish Parishad from 12.8.1994 to 17.8.2001 and thereafter from 18.8.2001 to 5.9.2004 as Sr. Teacher Gr.I in School Teaching College, Mahapur. He then worked as Deputy Inspector in Directorate Sanskrit Education from 6.9.2004. His substantive appointment was all throughout on the post of Teacher Gr.II. There was thus serious dispute about his administrative working of five years and also the teaching experience at the college level. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge merely declared the respondent eligible, but thereafter nothing was directed further. The respondent-writ petitioner was 45 years old when the writ petition was filed in 2006 and the writ petition was decided by impugned order dated 29.1.2009. He has by now attained the age of 57 years, with only three years left for his retirement.
The process of selection in the present case has been lying standstill for last 13 years. We, therefore, do not deem it appropriate now to reiterate the same direction, which the learned (8 of 8) [SAW-267/2009] Single Judge has given to the appellant to proceed with the same selection process and appoint the respondent no.1.
The present appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned judgement dated 29.01.2009 is set aside. It would be open to the appellant to proceed afresh in accordance with law re-initiating the process of selection following the relevant rules.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
RS/66
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)