Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. R.D. Sharma S/O Sh. Hargopal Sharma ... vs State Of Haryana Through The Financial ... on 29 May, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No.15991 of 2009(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15991 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.05.2012
Dr. R.D. Sharma s/o Sh. Hargopal Sharma presently posted as
Superintendent B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidalaya Khanpur Kalan,
Sonepat.
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana through the Financial Commissioner and
Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Education Department,
Chandigarh and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shreesh Gupta, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? YES/NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES/NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? YES/NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner challenges the advertisement notification issued by B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidalaya for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar. The ground of challenge, inter alia, is that the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement notification as regards the experience are contrary to Maharishi CWP No.15991 of 2009(O&M) [2] Dayanand University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1980 (for short, 'Rules of 1980'). Further contention is that as per the rules, the post is to be filled up only by promotion and the advertisement notification for direct recruitment is also untenable. The petitioner also relies on the observation of a Division Bench in LPA No.88 of 2010, which was against the summary order of dismissal of the writ petition at the first instance. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out to the summary of arguments as recorded by a Division Bench where it has observed that the learned counsel appearing for the parties argued that the rules of MDU would apply to the 2nd respondent
- University to the extent possible keeping in mind the ground realities.
2. The petitioner's particular objection to the qualifications prescribed could be understood only in the light of what it actually contains. It can be useful to reproduce the same:
Sr. No. Name of Post Qualifications No. of Vacant Posts 4 Asst. Registrar 1. M.A./ M.Com. M.Sc./ MBA 01 8000-13500+ with minimum 50% Marks OR Rs.400 Spl. B.A./B.Com/B.Sc./ BBA & LLB Allowance with 50% marks OR B.E./B.Tech./with Ist division or its equivalent.
2. Should have 5 years related administrative experience in a supervisory capacity in Govt./Semi Govt. or professional/ Educational University/ Organization.
3. Should have good knowledge of working.
The petitioner would contend that as per the regulations of CWP No.15991 of 2009(O&M) [3] Maharishi Dayanand University, the post of Assistant Registrar was required to be filled up by promotion to the extent of 75% and by direct recruitment to the extent of 25%. The cadre of Assistant Registrar comprised 3 posts and at least 2 posts had to be filled by promotion. Initially in the year 2008 when 2 vacancies were filled up, they had been filled up by direct recruitment and even the petitioner had competed for the same at that time. The petitioner would contend that he did not know at that time till he secured information under RTI Act, even at that time only one post could have been selected by direct recruitment and the remaining 2 posts must have been reserved only for promotion.
3. The writ petition also sets out information that the 2nd respondent - University obtained to such status on 18.08.2006 through a State enactment. Although a letter had been issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University that service conditions of its employees would be governed by the rules framed for the purpose, it also provides that till the BPS Mahila Vishwavidalaya rules are framed, the Rules of MDU should be followed. Referring to Rule 12 of the MDU, the petitioner would contend that there were three channels of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment, promotion and deputation; and Rule 13 prescribes that all the appointments shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
4. The petitioner's contention is resisted by the CWP No.15991 of 2009(O&M) [4] respondents by contending that the petitioner who had been working as a Steno-typist in Government Post Graduate College in Gurgaon had applied at the University on 23.07.2007 to the post as Superintendent to which post, he was appointed on 08.08.2007 as a Deputationist and permanently absorbed through an order dated 24.09.2007. The petitioner actually joined the post on 04.06.2008. The qualifications laid down by the MDU for the post of Assistant Registrar was the same as what was found in the advertisement notification and stipulated inter alia 5 years experience as Superintendent/PA in University or Examining Body conducting public examinations. The petitioner did not have the 5 years experience. Rule 13 provided that if the candidates with requisite qualification were not available within the University, the post would be filled up by open competition. Since none of the persons in the 2nd respondent - University had the requisite qualification through experience, the respondent had cast an advertisement to be issued for direct recruitment.
5. There is no denying the fact that the qualification mentioned as per MDU rules for the post of Assistant Registrar includes a 5 years experience in any supervisory capacity. Assuming that the post could have been filled up only by promotion then, by the very nature of the fact the Institute was established only in 2007 it should have been impossible to look for 5 years experience in any lower post for consideration for CWP No.15991 of 2009(O&M) [5] promotion. If the existing class of persons did not have the requisite experience already in any other place, the University would be fully justified in resorting to appointment through direct recruitment, in that manner that Rule 13(iii) of the Rules of 1980 provided. I do not find that there was any error in the decision of the 2nd respondent-University to stipulate the conditions as found in the MDU for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar. The plea that the post could have been filled up only through promotion was not justified since it was not a case as if the petitioner had the requisite qualification and they were going for recruitment in spite of the availability of the suitable candidate. If they resorted to direct recruitment on account of paucity of a suitable candidate with requisite experience, the 2nd respondent- University had full rights to adopt a direct recruitment process, in the manner provided by the rules.
6. I do not find any error in the advertisement notification issued calling for direct recruitment. The challenge to the notification as being contrary to rules is, therefore, not tenable. The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot, therefore, be granted and the writ petition ought to fail and is accordingly, dismissed.
May 29, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) rajan JUDGE