Uttarakhand High Court
Puneet Chandra Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 June, 2017
Author: K.M. Joseph
Bench: K.M. Joseph, Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 424 (SB) of 2015
Puneet Chandra Verma. ........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. ...... Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, DAG for State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Coram:
Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, CJ.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
Hon. K. M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
"i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letter no. 37/19/DR/SEWA - 02/2011-12 Dated 07.05.2015 and letter no. 38/19/DR/SEWA -02/2011-12 Dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure No. 5) and (Annexure No. 6).
ii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner participate in the interview in pursuance of the advertisement no. 05/DR/SEWA-02/2011-12 dated 22.03.2012 for the post of lecturer in Government Polytechnic; Lecturer CE/CSE/PGDCA at serial no. 02 and of Lecturer IT at serial no. 5 (Annexure No. 2) iii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to hold the interview in pursuance of the advertisement no.2
05/DR/SEWA-02/2011-12 dated 22.03.2012 for the post of lecturer in Government Polytechnic; Lecturer CE/CSE/PGDCA at serial no. 02 and of Lecturer IT at serial no. 5 (Annexure No. 2).
iv. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents that a high level enquiry be initiated and culprits be punished for their illegal actions."
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as "Commission") issued advertisement on 22.03.2012 calling applications for the posts of Lecturer in Government Polytechnics. 20 posts were of Lecturer in CE/CSE/ PGDCA. The educational qualification prescribed was 55% marks in Engineering / Technical subject. Petitioner applied on the basis of being an MCA. Petitioner was declared successful in the written examination and was called for interview. Finally, it was declared that petitioner was not possessing essential qualification, as per the advertisement. Petitioner made representation (Annexure No. 7). By Annexure No. 8 representation of the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner claimed that he completed his BCA in 2005 and MCA in 2008. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
4. We heard Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the Commission and Mr. N.S. Pundir, DAG for the State of Uttarakhand.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would undoubtedly point out that qualification possessed by the petitioner is sufficient for the post of Lecturer (CE/CSE/PGDCA). He would submit that MCA is technical course. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Association of Management of Private 3 Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others reported in 2013 (8) SCC 271.
6. Per contra, the case of the Commission is as follows:
7. The post in controversy is a composite post. It is post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering / Computer Science Engineering / Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application. There were sufficient number of candidates available, who were having requisite qualification to teach the subjects. Even though, MCA is technical qualification but this technical qualification is not sufficient for the purpose of post, in question.
8. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (8) SCC 271, the question related to the scope of power available to AICTE under the All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987. The Court took a view that the AICTE Act does not override the UGC Act. It is in the course of said judgment, the Court posed the following question:
"47.3 Whether MCA course be construed as technical education in terms of definition under Section 2 (g) of the AICTE Act?"
9. The Court answered the said question in para 63 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"The above meanings of the words 'technology' and 'engineering' as per the dictionaries referred to supra would clearly go to show that MCA also comes within the definition of technology. Therefore, the contention that technical education includes MCA as raised by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the AICTE stand to its reasoning and logic in view of the nature of MCA course which is being imparted to the students at post graduation level which is being conducted by the institutions, constituent colleges and affiliated colleges to the universities. The same is 4 a technical education and therefore, it comes within the definition of technical education but for its proper conduct of courses and Regulation the role of AICTE must be advisory and for the same, a note shall be given to the UGC for its implementation by it but not the AICTE."
10. In fact, learned counsel for the Commission does not dispute that MCA is technical qualification but his case is that the said qualification is not sufficient for the composite post of Lecturer to teach Computer Engineering / Computer Science Engineering and also Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application. In other words, the Lecturer appointed on the said post has to take classes of Computer Engineering / Computer Science Engineering besides Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application.
11. On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that large part of the MCA course itself is devoted to the computer application, therefore, what is important is requirement of qualification for the post, as provided in the Rules. The Rules are annexed as Annexure 10 to the petition. In the said Rules, qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer Engineering and Technical Branches and Foreman, Auto reads as under:
"1) Degree with 55 per cent marks in respective discipline of Engineering / Technical or AMIE (India)
2) Knowledge of Hindi Note:- 1) where basic degree in concerned discipline is not awarded or where candidates having such degree are not available candidates having basic bachelor's degree with respective subject as be effective or special subject shall be considered.
3)- Experience of Government Institutions, Public Sector Undertakings or Limited Organizations only will be acceptable and will be counted after the candidate has attained the prescribed academic qualifications.
Preferential Qualifications :- (1) Post graduate degree in the concerned subject.
(2) Research work in the concerned subject and knowledge of 5 Hindi.
Note - Experience of Government Institutions, Public Sector Undertaking or Limited Organizations only will be acceptable."
12. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to rely on certain appointments given to persons, who have passed MCA or who got PGDCA. He would submit that appointments have been given to persons, under direct recruitment, who are having MCA.
13. Learned counsel for the Commission would submit that it is not clear when these appointments were made. Illegal appointments, if any, made cannot advance case of petitioner.
14. We are here concerned with the correct interpretation of statutory Rules. We would think that the view taken by the Commission cannot be faulted as being illegal. Commission is a Constitutional body and unless and until, it is found that action taken by the Commission is illegal, the Court should be slow to interfere with the decision of the Commission. In this case, even petitioner cannot claim that with MCA, petitioner would be competent to take classes of Computer Engineering and Computer Science Engineering, which is part of common course of Lecturer in CE/CSE/PGDCA. Since it is a composite post of Lecturer involving teaching of Computer Engineering and Computer Science Engineering also and there is also no dearth of candidates available with the qualification prescribed in the Rules, in our view, no case is made out. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Singh, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
13.06.2017 13.06.2017
SKS
6