Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Jagdish Kumar & Ors. vs State Of Himachal on 14 December, 2023
Dr. Jagdish Kumar & ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.
.
CWP No.10267 of 2023 14.12.2023 Present: Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Ms. Sunaina Deputy of Advocates General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for rtrespondent No.2.
Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
CWP No.10267 of 2023 Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
Let replies be filed within three weeks.
CMP No.18658 of 2023The case of the petitioners is that the Respondent No.2-H.P. Public Service Commission ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2023 20:31:40 :::CIS issued an advertisement on 31.12.2022 (Annexure .
P-1), inviting online applications to fill-up 25 posts of Principal (College Cadre) by direct recruitment in Department of Higher Education. The advertisement contained essential qualifications i.e. educational of qualifications, required experience and required "Minimum rt Consolidated Academic Performance Indicator (API) Score of 400 points from Category-III as detailed in the advertisement.
2. The petitioners considering themselves eligible, applied for the aforesaid post. On 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), candidature of the petitioners herein has been rejected for want of essential qualification (iv) i.e. API Score of 400 points.
3. For the purpose of interim prayer, Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the rejection orders dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) is contrary to to a Division Bench judgment in CWP(OA) No.4373 of 2019, titled as Dr. Sanjeev Kumar & ors. versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., decided on 23.06.2022 and has led stress on Paras 11, 32, 39 and 40, which read as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2023 20:31:40 :::CIS"11. According to the respondent-State, the UGC regulations and notifications only .
deal with cases pertaining to the appointment of Principals on direct basis, for which candidate must essentially possess Ph.D. degree, whereas in the State Rules, quota for these posts is merely 25%, of whereas remaining 75% posts are to be filled on the basis of promotion, for which the respondent-State has been duly rt empowered and has in fact formulated its own Rules.
32. Even as per the UGC, the regulations are framed by it from time to time, more particularly, the one's applicable to the instant case, which are applicable only to the post of Principal to be filled up through direct recruitment and not otherwise unless specifically adopted and the reason for it appears to be logical as in terms of the judgment, referred to above, the matter regarding adoption of the UGC regulations has been left to the State Government. The UGC can have no say in the matter regarding the promotion, which is to be governed by the Rules framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India; unless the State government itself adopts the Regulations and make them applicable to the cases of the promotion.
39. As observed above, the post of Principal (college cadre) is to be filled up by promotion and through direct recruitment in the ratio of 75:25 i.e. 75% by promotion ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2023 20:31:40 :::CIS and 25% by direct recruitment through Commission on all India basis.
.
40. Therefore, once it is concluded that the UGC regulations did not apply to the post of principal to be filled up on the basis of promotion and rather applicable to the post of Principal to be filled up through direct of recruitment, the instant petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending rt application (s), if any, also stands disposed of."
4. In order to examine the prayer for interim, it is necessary to have a reference to the Himachal Pradesh Higher Education Department Principal (College Cadre) Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules notified on 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-3). Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes the minimum educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits. Perusal of
(iv) of Rule 7(a) prescribes the eligibility of 400 API Score of a candidate. Rule 10 of the R&P Rules mandate that the 25% direct recruitment posts, for which the educational qualifications are mentioned in Rule 7 (supra) are necessary.
5. Once the Recruitment & Promotion Rules dated 27.02.2020 Annexure P-3, were in force on the date of commencement of selection process-date ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2023 20:31:40 :::CIS of advertisement on 31.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) .
which mandates the requirement of minimum API Score of 400 points from Category-III and once the petitioners do not possess the aforesaid score and the petitioners are not eligible under this head, of therefore, the rejection dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) is valid in Law.
rt
6. The contention raised by Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned Senior Counsel, by placing reliance on the judgment, in case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra) will not come to the rescue of the petitioners, for the reason that the requirement of eligibility [based on API Score of 400 points] was held to apply to direct Recruitment, as is being alone in present case.
Rather the findings in case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra) are against the petitioners.
7. The prayer for interim cannot be granted, so as to make the petitioners-ineligible as eligible;
by directing the Respondents to permit them to participate in the selection process de hors the R& P Rules dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) and de hors the Advertisement dated 31.12.2022 (Annexure P-
1).
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2023 20:31:40 :::CIS8. Moreover, unless the Advertisement or .
Rules were assailed, any direction de hors the Rules cannot be granted, as any interim will prejudice the rights of eligible candidates also.
9. In view of the cumulative discussion as of referred to above, this Court is of the prima facie view that the rejection of candidature of the rt petitioners on 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), for want of Educational Qualification (iv) in Rule 7 i.e. for want of API Score of 400 points is in accordance with the mandate of the Existing R&P Rules notified on 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of which, the recruitment process commenced by issuance of the Advertisement on 31.12.2022 (Annexure P1), which is still underway.
In these circumstances, the prayer for interim is declined. However, it is made clear that appointment to the post of Principal (College Cadre) shall be subject to the final outcome of writ petition.
(Ranjan Sharma)
December 14, 2023 Judge
(Shivender)
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2023 20:31:40 :::CIS