Gujarat High Court
Rami Gaurangkumar Yagneshkumar vs State Of Gujarat & on 30 January, 2013
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
RAMI GAURANGKUMAR YAGNESHKUMAR....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/SCA/15742/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15742 of 2012 ================================================================ RAMI GAURANGKUMAR YAGNESHKUMAR....Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent ================================================================ Appearance: MR NEHAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner No. 1 MR JAMIN GANDHI AGP for the Respondent No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 30/01/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has approached this Court with following prayers;
(A) Your lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 31/8/2012 issued on 5/9/2012 bearing no. KVT/V-4/12-13/5345.27 passed by Joint Education Director (College), more particularly as Annexure A, and be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the N.O.C. Dated 12.10.2009, and be pleased to restore the selection by interview committee dated 15/3/2011 for the post of Adhyapak Sahayak , in the course of P.T.I. (B) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to not to fill up the post of P.T.I. Adhyapak Sahayak at the respondent no.4 college, Smt. T.S.R. Commerce college, Patan.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to Grant Such other and further relief as though fit in the interest of justice.
Thus, essentially what is under challenge is the order dated 31.08.2012/05.09.2012, passed by the Joint Director of Education (College) State of Gujarat.
Facts in brief, as could be culled out from the memo of petition need to be set out as under.
3. The North Gujarat Education Society in pursuance to the NOC granted by the concerned Commissioner, issued advertisement for the post of Adhyapak Sahayak on 24.12.2009. The said society is running two colleges. Both of them are grant-in-aid under the name and title of Sheth M.N. Science College, Patan and Smt. T.S.R. Commerce College, Patan. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that a candidate should have cleared NET/Slat or Ph.D. within 5 years from the date of selection. The petitioner applied, as he was having degree in physical education i.e. Master of Physical Education and he had registered in the same discipline. As per the say of the petitioner in the petition, he completed his Ph.D. on 18.09.2010 and accordingly the college was informed to the same. The interviews were conducted on 11.03.2011. The procedure for interview was completed and petitioner was selected. The selection was subject to approval of the State and it was thus sent to the State vide communication dated 15.03.2011. The two other candidates in the interview represented against the selection vide communication dated 11.03.2011 and tendered their objections on 13.03.2011. The Commissioner, Higher Education issued notice on 12.05.2011, pursuant thereto he submitted his reply and hearing was granted. The hearing was granted on 17.05.2011, wherein he has submitted his reply and stated that he had completed Ph.D degree before the date of interview and thus acquired qualification for the purpose of selection as per condition of advertisement dated 24.12.2009. The Commissioner, Higher Education passed an order on 12.10.2009, which was assailed by the petitioner by preferring S.C.A. No. 16122 of 2011, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2012 remanding the matter to the concerned authorities for consideration on account of the order being non speaking order. After the remand, the hearing was given and the impugned order came to be passed. The petition is, therefore, filed against the impugned order on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the memo of petition.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the factum of Ph.D degree on the date of interview is known to all and as per the advertisement when there was clear provision for completing Ph.D. within 5 years from the appointment, the impugned order was not tenable in eye of law.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the government resolution relied upon by the respondent in rejecting the representation of the petitioner and canceling the selection could not have been contrary to the UGC guideline prescribing qualifications for appointment in academic posts. The UGC has clearly stated that the requirement of passing NET/Slat is not to be insisted upon in a case where the candidate has obtained the degree of Ph.D. Therefore, when the petitioner was having degree when he was being interviewed the date of degree of Ph.D., in case of petitioner being 18.09.2010 and the interviews were being conducted on 11.03.2011, therefore, petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria on the date of the interview and these facts have not been considered by the concerned authority at all.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited this Court s attention to the specific consideration taken out on 17.05.2011, which is reproduced at page no.38 and submitted that on the date of the advertisement the petitioner had registered for Ph.D. and when the interviews were conducted after two years he had obtained Ph.D degree which was verified and thereafter selection was made. Therefore, the cancellation of selection is impermissible in eye of law.
7. The Court is of the view that petition is required to be dismissed for the following reasons namely;
(i) The petitioner has not produced on record the UGC Rules or Guidelines which petitioner s counsel has claimed to be binding and which is definitely binding, so far as, recruitment to the academic posts in the universities are concerned. The petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and during the argument the typed copy of UGC Regulations for minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staffs in universities and colleges is shown and it was contended that relevant extract is reproduced at page no.8, para 3.15. But, the Court is of the considered view that the fine point which has been raised and relied upon by the authorities in rejecting the representation is either missed by the counsel or there is no focusing on that at all. The question which has been raised is whether the candidate who is required to have qualifications prescribed on the date when his candidature is submitted or he is entitled to acquire the qualification during pendency of the selection process, is a question which is required to be addressed appropriately. Unfortunate it is that the counsel for the petitioner has not produced the two resolutions which have been referred to by the State in its order for rejecting the representation and canceling the selection.
The entire reading of the order closely, would for sure indicate that the advertisement itself was not in consonance with the relevant condition in the order impugned in this petition. The resolutions are also not produced on record however, but the narration from the resolution as referred to in the impugned order indicate to show that the candidate has to fulfill the qualifications and eligibility criteria on the date he is offering his candidature. In the instant case, the date of advertisement being 24.12.2009 and admittedly on that date or on the last date of submitting the candidature, the petitioner did not have any qualifications which would have entitled him to be interviewed. The Court reiterate at the cost of repetition that the circulars extensively relied upon by the State authorities have not been placed on record by the petitioner for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Therefore, the presumption is required to be drawn that may be those circulars or resolutions are not in favour of the petitioner.
The candidature of the petitioner is, therefore, required to be viewed from the date of advertisement i.e. 24.12.2009 and as it is stated hereinabove the UGC prescribes qualification was not held by the candidate on that date and it was surely within the domain of the authorities to decide the matter in accordance with the guidelines and resolutions. The conduct of interview on 11.03.2011 is merely a fortuitous circumstances and that cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to say that by that time he had obtained Ph.D. Degree, as the advertisement is 24.12.2009 and at that time petitioner admittedly did not have the qualifications prescribes by UGC or by the State. Therefore, on the date of putting up the candidature, candidate that is the petitioner did not have requisite qualifications. The order impugned, therefore, in my view, cannot be said to be in any way to be perverse so as to call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court hasten to add here that in absence of any particular provision indicating that the candidates were entitled to be considered even on the date of advertisement when they were not having requisite qualifications naturally such a situation cannot arise besides the impugned order specifically makes reference to at least three Government Resolutions, wherein the exemption was sought from the UGC and which was not granted, therefore, the relaxation in the insistence upon the qualification prescribed by the UGC was not to be embedded in the recruitment procedure. In other words the relaxation of obtaining Ph.D. degree after entering into the service was particularly turned down and not approved. When such was a situation, as could be specifically seen from the order impugned, then what assumes importance with the date of putting up candidature that being 24.12.2009 and the last date of submission of application within these two termini when the petitioner has no requisite qualification. He has no right to contend that subsequently obtained qualifications in any way save his selection.
8. The petition is, therefore, being meritless, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Page 7 of 7