Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Territory Chandigarh ... on 30 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (Reserved on 23.09.2013) Chandigarh, this the 30th day of September, 2013 CORAM:HONBLE MR.SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J) HONBLE MRS.RAJWANT SANDHU,MEMBER(A) (I) OA. 346/PB/2011 Dr. Mrs. Dolly Arora wife of Sh. Sunil Gandhi, resident of House No. 502, Tower 18 Motiaz Royale Estate, Chandigarh, Ambala Highway, Zirakpur (Mohali). Applicant BY ADVOCATE: MR. SHARWAN SEHGAL PROXY COUNSEL FOR SH. M.K. BHATNAGAR VERSUS 1.Union Territory Chandigarh Administration through its Secretary Education Sector 9, Chandigarh. 2.The Selection Committee through its Chairman cum Principal, Post Graduate Govt. Arts and Science College, Sector 11, UT Chandigarh. 3.Dr. R.S. Brar, Subject Expert, Deptt. Of Physical Education c/o Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh. 4.Panjab University through its Vice-Chancellor, Sector 14, Chandigarh. 5.University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002 through its Chairman. Respondents BY ADVOCATE: MR. ASEEM RAI (II) OA. 440/PB/2011 Dr. Mrs. Dolly Arora wife of Sh. Sunil Gandhi, resident of House No. 502, Tower 18 Motiaz Royale Estate, Chandigarh, Ambala Highway, Zirakpur (Mohali). Applicant BY ADVOCATE: MR. SHARWAN SEHGAL PROXY COUNSEL FOR SH. M.K. BHATNAGAR VERSUS 1.Union Territory Chandigarh Administration through its Secretary Education Sector 9, Chandigarh. 2.The Selection Committee through its Chairman cum Principal, Govt. Home Science College, Sector 10, Chandigarh. 3.Dr. R.S. Brar, Subject Expert, Deptt. Of Physical Education c/o Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh. 4.Panjab University through its Vice-Chancellor, Sector 14, Chandigarh. 5.University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002 through its Chairman. 6.Ms. Nandini Sharma D/o Sh. J.B. Shukla, House No. 1509, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana). Respondents BY ADVOCATE: MR. ASEEM RAI ORDER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-
1. These OAs are disposed of through a common order since the issues raised by the applicants are identical. The facts are taken from OA. 346/PB/2011 wherein the relief has been sought as follows:-
As the applicant fulfilled all the necessary qualifications as per UGC guidelines the applicant was required to be considered as fully eligible for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education and hence she be given appointment and may be granted all consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was published in various newspapers on 23.6.2010 for the recruitment of lecturers on contract basis in Govt. Arts and Science Colleges UT Chandigarh as per UGC norms regarding qualifications (Annexure A-1). As per the said advertisement, there were 20 posts of Lecturers of Physical Education and the date of interview was fixed for 10.7.2010 at 12.00 p.m. The applicant claims to be eligible and qualified for the post of Lecturer of Physical Education and hence applied for the same. It is further claimed that as per item 4.6.3 of the UGC Regulations relating to minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges published in the Gazette of India Part III Section IV, dated 23.9.2009. As per item 4.6.3 of the aforesaid regulation, stipulation No. v provides that holder of Ph.D Degree as on the date of notification of these regulations, alongwith those candidates who were awarded a Ph.D Degree through a process of admission, registration, course work and external evaluation and adopted by the University shall be exempt from NET/SLET/SET Stipulation No. (i) provided that the candidate for appointment to the post of Director of Physical Education should hold a Masters degree in Physical Education or Master degree in Sports Science with at least 55% marks or its equivalent in a grade point scale with a consistently good academic record (Annexure A-2).
3. Averment has been made in the OA that as per the criteria prescribed by the UGC the applicant scored 34.32 marks and her name was displayed at S. No. 17 as per Annexure A-3 which is the score-sheet of candidates who appeared at the interview for the post of Lecturers on contractual basis in Government Arts & Science Colleges, UT Chandigarh. The candidates for the posts of Lecturers in Physical Education were interviewed on 13.7.2010. The applicant appeared on the said date, but she was not interviewed as she was orally advised that since she had a Degree of M.Sc in Sports Science, she was not eligible for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education. The applicant then issued a legal notice to the respondents as per Annexure A-5 and received reply from the respondent No. 2 wherein it was stated that M.Sc. Sports Science obtained by the applicant was not in the list of recognized course/degree by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) for teaching Physical Education and teachers education programme B.Ed (Annexure A-6). Averment has been made that in accordance with the advertisement, the applicant was fully eligible in accordance with the UGC guidelines. The applicant also received the reply from the respondent No. 3 stating that there was no teacher by the name of Dr. R.S. Brar in the Department of Physical Education, Punjab University, Chandigarh (Annexure A-7). However, it was a fact that Dr. R.S. Brar was one of the members of the Selection Committee and he had since retired from service and had also received the notice sent by the applicant through counsel.
4. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated that as per UGC norms the applicant had a Masters degree in Sports Science with more than 55% marks and she has good academic record having first division (Annexure A-8). She was also a PhD in Sports Science from Panjabi University, Patiala (Annexure A-10).
5. Counter reply was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1-3 as well as respondent No. 5, i.e. UGC. In the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents at S. No. 1-3, it has been stated that the applicant has no cause of action to challenge the action of the answering respondents to the effect that she has been held to be ineligible for the post of Lecturer in the Govt. Arts and Science Colleges in UT Chandigarh. The posts in question were for Lecturers/Assistant Professor in Physical Education and not for Director/Dy. Director/Assistant Director in Physical Education as per university norms. The qualification held by the applicant may be applicable for the latter category but not the former. She was not eligible for lectureship which is a teaching post although she may be eligible for non-teaching post like Director/Dy. Director/Assistant Director in Physical Education as per university norms (Annexure R-1). Further, the detailed mark sheet (Annexure R-2) submitted by the applicant indicated that she has not attended teaching classes as is desirable for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education. Besides, there is a vast difference between the duties and functions of a Lecturer and DPE. The comparative duty charges of both these categories are as follows:-
Duty List of University Assistant Director of Physical Education/College Director of Physical Education and Sports
(i) Promotion of Sports
(ii) Organizing Sports Training Camps
(iii) Organizing Sports Competitions
(iv) Organizing annual Athletics Meet of the university
(v) Preparation/Maintenance of Play field
(vi) Management of Resources
(vii) Selection of teams for inter-college/inter university competition Duty List of Lecturer in Physical Education(Colleges) /Assistant Professor
(i) Teach the classes in the classrooms
(ii) Teach the games and sports as per University Syllabus
(iii) Teach the games and sports and prepare Panjab University inter-college teams for competitions
(iv) Organize Coaching camps for various games and sports
(v) Conduct National Sports Day in the colleges
(vi) Set University Question papers for Physical Education
(vii) Evaluate University Papers of Physical Education for graduate and post graduate classes
(viii) Perform duties assigned by the college from time to time.
The applicant was not qualified to perform the duties of Lecturer in Physical Education and hence this OA deserves to be dismissed.
6. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the UGC, it has been stated that NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in Universities/colleges/institutions. Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D Degree in compliance of the University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for a ward of Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/colleges/institutions.
7. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the facts and the grounds taken in the original application. He stated that the guidelines of the UGC were applicable to the teaching and academic staff and within these guidelines and the posts of Deputy Director of Physical Education/Assistant Director of Physical Education/College Director of Physical Education found specific reference. In para 4.6.3 of the UGC Regulations of 23.9.2013, it was specifically mentioned that for the post of Assistant Director of Physical Education/College Director of Physical Education candidates would need to have a Masters Degree in Physical Education or Masters Degree in Sports Science with at least 55% of marks or its equivalence in a grade point with a consistently good academic record and holders of Ph.D Degree as on the date of Notification of these Regulations, alongwith those candidates who are awarded a Ph.D. degree through a process of admission, registration, course work and external evaluation as laid down in the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree), Regulations, 2009 and so adopted by the university shall be exempted from NET/SLET/SET. Hence, the Masters Degree in Physical Education and in Sports Science had been equated and the applicant could not have been rejected for being interviewed for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education on the ground that her Masters Degree was in the subject of Sports Science. He further stated that the applications of the candidates applying for the post of Physical Education had been screened and the applicant had been invited for the interview but it was on the subject experts insistence that the applicant was not allowed to participate in the interview.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the advertisement issued inviting applications for the posts of Lecturers in all Governmental Arts and Science Colleges in UT of Chandigarh for the academic session 2010-2011. He stated that the post for which applications were invited was Lecturer, Physical Education. He also referred to contention made through the written statement that the duties of the post of University Assistant Director of Physical Education/College Director of Physical Education and Sports were completely different from the duty list of lecturers in Physical Education (Colleges). The lecturers in Physical Education were required to perform teaching duties while the Assistant Director/College Director was involved in the promotion of sports and organizing sports-related activities. Hence, it was essential for the lecturer in Physical Education to have a degree in the subject of Physical Education in order to be equipped adequately to teach the subject of Physical Education.
9. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in detail and perused the material on record, we are of the view that the post of lecturer in Physical Education is a teaching post and hence, the eligibility criteria for the same is a Masters Degree in Physical Education. A person holding the Masters Degree in Sports Science can in no way be considered to be qualified to teach the subject of Physical Education and hence, while selecting the persons for appointment as Lecturer (Physical Education), the Masters Degree in Physical Education and Sports Science cannot be equated. The applicant was clearly not qualified for the post of Lecturer (Physical Education) and could not have been interviewed for selection for this post.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in these OAs and the same are dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER(J)
Dated: September 30th , 2013.
ND*