Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Rajesh Gautam vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar on 1 August, 2014
Writ Petition No.3331/2013
01.08.2014
Shri Vinayak Prasad Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Shobha Menon learned Senior Counsel with Shri
C.A.Thomas learned counsel for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Being deprived from presentation scheduled on 18.1.2013 for appointment to the post of Professor Anthropology, Dr. Harisingh Gour University Sagar (hereinafter referred to as University) petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction for consideration for appointment as Professor Anthropology.
Petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste Category, having Master's Degree in Anthropology and being qualified the National eligibility test (UGC-NET) with subject Anthropology, appointed as Assistant Professor on 10.7.2004 and having accomplished Doctorate (Ph.D) from University of Delhi on 24.2.2007, applied for the post of Professor Anthropology in response to open/rolling advertisement No.R-03/T/P/RA/2010 dated 30.10.2010/31.10.2012. The petitioner was not short listed for presentation. On enquiry made by him that he does not fulfill the requisite qualification prescribed vide University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification's for Appointment of Teachers And other Academic Staff In Universities and Colleges and Measures for the maintenance of standard in Higher Education)Regulation 2010.
To be precise, the petitioner was informed that he does not fulfill the criteria envisaged in clause 4.1.0 A (ii) of the UGC Regulation.
The controversy thus revolves round as to whether the petitioner fulfills the qualification prescribed in Clause 4.1.0A (ii) of the Regulation 2010.
The Regulation 2010 as evident therefrom are framed by the University Grants Commission in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (c) and (g) of sub section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act 1956 and in pursuance of the MHRD O.M No.F23-7/2008 IFD dated 23.10.2008 read with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) O.M No.F.I-1/2008-IC dated 30th August 2008 and in terms of the MHRD notification No.1- 32/2006 U.1 (1) issued on 31.12.2008.
Regulation 4.0.0 deals with direct recruitment whereon Regulation 4.1.0 lays down eligibility criteria for appointment of Professor, stipulating:
"4.1.0 PROFESSOR A (i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification
(s) in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers.
(ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/college, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level.
(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology-mediated teaching learning process.
(iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix III.
OR B. An Outstanding professional, with established reputation in the relevant field, who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials."
The controversy revolves round clause 4.1.0 A (ii) which envisages "A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University /college, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level Institutions/Industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level". The provision thus envisages, a minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College, and/or in the alternative experience in research at the University/National Level Institution/Industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level. In other words the incumbent must have:
(i) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level and/or
(ii) experience in research at the University /National level Institution/Industries including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level.
The candidate thus may have the experience either of the two or both, but must possess the experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level.
Thus unless comprehended with the experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level, an incumbent possessing ten years of teaching experience in University/College, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institution/industries, will not fulfill the qualification prescribed. This is what the import of clause 4.1.0 A (ii) of Regulations, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be.
In the case at hand in application form for teaching posts, the petitioner at serial No.9 which required detail about Teaching/Professional/Research Employment petitioner gave following details :
D Number of Thesis Awarded Submitted In progress n IzknRRk Ikw.kZ gqbZ Izkxfr ij Supervised:
Ik;Zfof{kr 'kks/k i Ph.D/ih,p-Mh- - - -
ii M.Phil./,e-fQy - - -
iii M.Tech/M.E./M.Sc./ 22 - -
,e-Vsd@,e-bZ@
,e-,llh
Evidently, the petitioner did not guide any candidate for research at doctoral level. For this reason he has been held ineligible for presentation for appointment to the post of Professor Anthropology. The decision being in consonance with the stipulations contained under Regulation 4.1.0 A (ii) of Regulation, does not warrant any interference.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand