Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/82/2021 on 14 August, 2023
Reserved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
AND SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
RESERVED ON :12.05.2023 DELIVERED ON : 14.08.2023 WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.82 OF 2021 Between:
Dr. Balwant ...........Petitioner and The Hon'ble Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar at Raj Bhawan, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and others. ..........Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui and Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Subhang Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following JUDGMENT OF THE COURT By the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who also participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in the Department of Chemistry, pursuant to Employment Notice No. A-20/2015, is challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the ground that respondent No. 4 is not having the essential qualification, as required for the post as per the advertisement. In addition to challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4, the petitioner is also challenging the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Chancellor, whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University, Pantnagar, Act, 1958 (The Act)-against the appointment of respondent No. 4, stood rejected. The petitioner is further seeking a direction that he may be given appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Chemistry (SC) in the Department of Chemistry w.e.f. 21.09.2015 i.e. the date when the recommendation was made for appointment of respondent No. 4 by the Selection Committee.
2. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent- University') has been constituted under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Agriculture and Technology) Universities Act, 1958.
The brief facts relevant for our purpose may now be noticed. In the year 2011, the respondent- University advertised one post of Assistant Professor, 2 meant for SC category candidate, in the Department of Chemistry vide Employment Notice No. A-18/2011, and the essential qualification, as prescribed in the advertisement, was Master's Degree in the concerned discipline, i.e. Chemistry and a PhD Degree. The said post was mentioned at Serial No. 28 of the Advertisement, in the College of Basic Sciences & Humanities, and the qualification, as prescribed for the post-in-question, is also mentioned in the advertisement, which reads as under:-
"For the posts at Sl. No. 27 to 34 & 71:
Essential: 1. Ph.D./Doctorate Degree in the subject concerned or related field. 2. Master's degree in the concerned discipline with at least 60% marks or equivalent in the point scale system. A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Master's level for the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Differently- abled (Physically and visually differently-abled).
3. (1) The NET/SLET will be an essential qualification for the recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor or equivalent in the discipline where NET / SLET is conducted by the ICAR / UGC/ CSIR or any other Central / State Govt. Agency. (2). The NET / SLET will not be an essential qualification in the discipline in which NET / SLET is not conducted."
3. On 15.01.2012, respondent No. 4 applied for the said post pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice No. A-18/2011, despite the fact that he was not having the Degree of M.Sc. (Chemistry). Respondent 3 No. 4 was, however, having Master's Degree in M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals). Respondent No. 4 relied upon a Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University, that the degree of M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) is equivalent / at par to M.Sc. (Chemistry) degree of other Universities. The said Certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar on 14.07.2010.
4. Since respondent No.4 was not having the requisite qualification, as was required pursuant to the said advertisement, the candidature of respondent No. 4 was rejected by the Screening Committee of the respondent-University, and respondent No. 4 was not allowed to appear for the interview.
5. The reason for rejection of the candidature of respondent No. 4 by the Screening Committee was:-
S. Name Reason for rejection
No.
7. Dr. Ravendra M.Sc. in Agricultural
Kumar Chemicals, NET in Crop
Protection by ICAR, one
publication in NAAS cited
journal, for another paper
published NAAS rating is
not available.
6. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid rejection of the candidature of respondent No. 4 by the 4 Screening Committee in respect of the selection process initiated pursuant to the Employment Notice No. A-18/2011 was not challenged by respondent No. 4 at any point of time.
7. Thereafter, another Employment Notice No. A-20/2015 was issued by the respondent-University, which was published on the website of the respondent- University i.e. www.gbpuat.ac.in for the same discipline, i.e. Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in the College of Basic Sciences & Humanities, and this post is mentioned at Serial No. 28, as reserved for Scheduled Caste Category candidates. The qualification, as prescribed for the said post, as per the said advertisement, is as follows:
"For the posts at Sl. No. 27 to 33:
Essential: 1. Ph.D. / Doctorate Degree in the subject concerned or related field. 2. Master's degree in the concerned discipline with at least 60% marks or equivalent in the point scale system. A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Master's level for the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Differently- abled (Physically and visually differently-abled) candidates."
8. The general essential qualifications for all the posts, as advertised by the said advertisement, are as follows:-
"General essential qualifications for all posts (Sl. No. 1 to 56) 5 For the candidates having Master's degree, NET (National Eligibility Test) shall remain compulsory along with one publication in NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi) rated refereed journal. Essentiality of NET is waived off for the candidates holding Ph.D. degree with course work along with at least two full length publications having a NAAS rating not less than 4, on the last date of submission of application. The candidates with Ph.D. degree without course work will not qualify for NET exemption. The NET / SLET will not be an essential qualification in the disciplines in which NET / SLET is not conducted."9. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4
applied for the said post pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, and both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were called for the interview, and the Selection Committee interviewed and prepared a panel of selected candidates. Respondent No.4 was placed at Serial No. 1, whereas the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2, and both were recommended for selection by the Selection Committee on 21.09.2015. The report of the Selection Committee is also annexed with the petition. The petitioner has placed on record the Performance Chart of candidates and their scores for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry)-for both categories, i.e. SC-1 and UR-1 for female. As per this Performance Chart, respondent No. 4 obtained 76.25 marks out of 100, whereas the petitioner obtained 6 75.50 marks out of 100. The relevant extract of the Performance Chart of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, is being extracted herein below:-
Remarks Sl. Name of Marks Marks Marks Total No. the obtained for obtained for obtained candidates Educational Experience, for Qualifications Presentation Interview in the subject, Publications and Achievements (60) (20) (20) (100) Category: SC 1 Dr. 58.00 08.25 10.00 76.25 Reserve Ravendra Kumar 2 Dr. 54.00 07.50 14.00 75.50 Reserve Balwant
10. The petitioner states that respondent No. 4 mentioned his educational / technical qualifications in his application, as below:-
"(12) Educational / Technical qualifications with Examination passed, Name of University / Board, Passing Years, Division and % of marks, OGPA with conversion formula, Subject of Examination:
Sl. Examination Subject Board / Year Division OGPA No Passed / University with % . degree marks
1. HIGH SCHOOL HIN, ENG, MATH II, SCI II, U.P. BOARD 1998 IInd, -
BIO, SOC SCI 55.50%
2. INTERMEDIATE HIN, ENG, PHY, CHE, BIO U.P.BOARD 2000 1st, -
61.80%
3. B.Sc. ZOOLOGY, BOTANY, KUMAUN UNI, 2003 1st -
CHEMISTRY NAINITAL 62.37%
4. M.Sc. AG. CHEMICALS G.B.P.U. AG. & JAN Ist, 7.313/1
(EQUIVALENT TO TECH. 2006 73.13% 0
CHEMISTRY) PANTNAGAR
5 Ph.D. MAJOR- G.B.P.U. AG. & DEC 75.83% 7.583/1
AG. CHEMICALS TECH. 2010 0
MINOR- PANTNAGAR
BIOCHEMISTRY
6 NET CROP PROTECTION ICAR, NEW 2010 - -
DELHI
7
11. The petitioner, in order to ascertain whether the University had granted the equivalence certificate-to certify that the Degree in M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) is equivalent to the Degree in M.Sc. (Chemistry), or not, submitted an RTI Application to the respondent-University.
The information, which was sought by the petitioner through the RTI letter dated 11.11.2017, is as follows:-
"1- 14 tqykbZ 2010 dks D;k vkids dk;kZy; ls bl vk'k; dk izek.k i= tkjh gqvk gS tks ;g n'kkZrk gks fd M.Sc. Agricultural Chemicals is Equivalent / at par to M.Sc. ChemistryA ;fn gksWa rks fdl fdl O;fDr dks tkjh gq, gSA izekf.kr lwph nssaA 2- ;fn gkWa rks mDr fu.kZ; fo}r ifj"kn dh fdl cSBd esa fy;k x;k gS vkSj ml cSBd ds feuV~l ¼izkslhfMax½ dh izekf.kr Nk;kizfr nssA 3- bl vk'k; dk izek.k i= tkjh djus dk vf/kdkj fdl vf/kdkjh dks gSA jftLVz~kj] fMIVh jftLV~Zkj ;k lgk;d jftLV~zkjA 4- ekufodh egkfo|ky; ds jlk;u foKku foHkkx esa M.Sc.
Agricultural Chemicals rFkk M.Sc. Chemistry fo"k; ds vUrxZr i<k;s tkus okys Core Courses rFkk Optional Courses dh izekf.kr lwph nsasA"
12. The petitioner states that in reply to the above information sought by him, the respondent- University informed him that there is no such information available with the respondent-University, meaning thereby, that the respondent University had 8 not undertaken any official exercise of examining the equivalence of the aforesaid two qualifications.
13. The petitioner submits that M.Sc.
(Chemistry) is a totally different course from M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals), and he has brought on record the details of the courses taught in the two disciplines of M.Sc. (Chemistry) and M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals), as attested by the Head of the Department of Chemistry of the respondent-University.
14. The petitioner has contended that respondent No. 4 also appeared in the National Eligibility Test (NET) through Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ICAR) in the subject of Crop Protection, and not Chemistry, which makes it clear that M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) is totally different from M.Sc. (Chemistry), and in reference to this, the petitioner also enclosed a copy of the NET Certificate of respondent No. 4 issued on 23.06.2011.
15. The petitioner submits that marks were to be allotted under different heads by the Screening Committee, and one of such heads is "experience". The petitioner has experience of 16 years in the respondent-University, in conducting biochemical 9 analytical work, demonstration and teaching in undergraduates classes, and he has also been involved in the research work of P.G. The petitioner has enclosed a copy of his Experience Certificate dated 07.07.2015 with the petition. Similarly, the petitioner has pointed out the experience of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 had produced a certificate of four years and six months' experience in Indian Glycols Limited, a private pharmaceutical company, where he was purportedly responsible to conduct lab scale development work on phytopharmaceuticals, active pharmaceuticals ingredients and nutraceuticals derived from the plants and other fields.
16. The petitioner contends that despite his having 16 years of experience in academic and research work in the respondent-University, as opposed to much lesser experience of respondent No. 4, the petitioner was arbitrarily awarded 'Zero' marks for experience, whereas respondent No. 4-despite having no academic / teaching experience in a University, which, in fact, was much more relevant for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry), was awarded 'four' marks, which is evident from the "proforma for scoring the academic achievements for the post of Assistant 10 Professor and equivalent". The petitioner contends that this was arbitrary. The petitioner submits that since respondent No. 4 has been awarded Rajiv Gandhi fellowship only for PhD-which is not a post-doctorate degree, the same could not be considered a post- graduate fellowship and, for the same, respondent No. 4 could not have been awarded one mark. It is further submitted by the petitioner that under the same head, another recipient of Rajiv Gandhi fellowship, namely Dr. Neelam Arya was awarded 'Zero' marks. The petitioner highlights the bias in favour of respondent No.4, which the respondent-authorities exhibited in the matter of award of marks. In reference to this, a copy of the UGC letter awarding Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC Candidates to pursue Ph.D. to respondent No.4, is relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner also relies upon the UGC letter, awarding Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC candidates to Dr. Neelam Arya, along with break-up of her marks given by the Screening Committee. The petitioner further submits that, had respondent No. 4 not been awarded the said 'one mark', the petitioner would have scored 0.25 marks more than respondent No. 4, and would have been appointed on the said post.
11
17. The petitioner submits that no statute/rule, statutory authority, or regulatory body-such as University Grants Commission, or Academic Council of the respondent-University, has passed any order / decision vide which M.Sc. (Chemistry) can be considered to be equivalent to M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals). The petitioner submits that the Deputy Registrar of the University is purely administrative authority, with no powers or expertise to take a decision on equivalence. However, he has issued the certificates of equivalence, without placing the matter for consideration before the Academic Council, which alone was competent to examine and certify equivalence of two different courses.
18. The petitioner preferred a representation through proper channel to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, raising his grievance, but he did not receive any response to the same. Then again, on 27.10.2017 and 12.01.2018, he sent reminders to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, but again he has not received any response in this regard. On 19.01.2018, the petitioner also preferred a representation to the Chancellor, but the same was not responded to by the Chancellor, and no action was 12 taken thereon. Consequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 160 of 2018, wherein this Court, by order dated 23.04.2018, directed the Chancellor to decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest.
19. The petitioner further submits that the Chancellor called for the response of respondent No. 4 and the Vice-Chancellor. The Screening Committee submitted in its report, supporting the selection of respondent No. 4. Since the Vice-Chancellor was not satisfied with it, he constituted a three-member independent Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. T.K. Bhattacharya, Professor and Head of Department, Farm Machinery, and the said independent Committee- after going through the evidence on record, presented its report on 18.05.2018, stating therein that the selection process was wrong and respondent No. 4 had been appointed wrongly, as there was no equivalence between M.Sc. (Chemistry) and M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals). The Committee also found that there is no certificate available, on the record of the University, of the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University, to prove that any such certificate was actually issued. After receiving this report, the Vice-Chancellor 13 forwarded both the reports to the Chancellor, on 29.10.2018, clearly giving his opinion therein, that amongst the two reports, the report prepared under the chairmanship of Dr. T.K. Bhattacharya seems to me more trustworthy and transparent, since it was prepared by three independent persons.
20. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract herein below the contents of the letter of the Vice Chancellor dated 29.10.2018:-
"i=kad @ ohlh@ ih,e,@ ,vkjvkj@----
fnukad % vDVwcj 29, 2018 lsok esa] Jh fodze flag ;kno] la;qDr lfpo Jh jkT;iky @ dqykf/kifr lfpoky;] mRrjk[k.M] nsgjknwuA fo"k;& foKkiu la[;k ,&20/2015 eas izdkf'kr lgk;d izk/;kid jlk;u foKku ds in dh p;u izfdz;k esa vfu;ferrk ds fo:) xfBr tkWap lfefr;ksa dh tkWap vk[;k fo"k;dA egksn;] d`i;k mijksDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k 3451] th,l@ f'k{kk@ D2-22/2017 fnukad fnlEcj 19, 2017 vuqLekjd i= la[;k 4762 @ th,l@f'k{kk@ D2-22/2017 fnukad ekpZ 26, 2018] vuqLekjd i= la[;k 900 @ th,l@ f'k{kk@ D2-22/2017 fnukad twu 7, 2018 rFkk vuqLekjd i= la[;k 8@1203/th,l@ f'k{kk@ D2-22/2017 fnukad tqykbZ 5, 2018 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa tks foKkiu la[;k ,&20@2015 eas izdkf'kr lgk;d izk/;kid] jlk;u foKku ds in dh p;u izfdz;k esa vfu;ferrk ds fo:) Mk0 cyoUr }kjk izLrqr i= fnukaWd 27.10.2017 rFkk 19.01.2018 esa mfYyf[kr rF;ksa dk fu;ekuqlkj ijh{k.k dj leqfpr dk;Zokgh djrs gq, lEiw.kZ lk{;ksa lfgr oLrqfLFkfr ls lfpoky; dks miyC/k djkus ds lEcU/k esa gSA mijksDr ds vkyksd esa bl dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k ih,u,@,vkjvkj@ 1443 fnukad uoEcj 10, 2017 }kjk vf?k"Bkrk foKku ,oa ekufodh egkfo|ky; ls foKkiu la[;k ,&20/2015 esa foKkfir lgk;d izk/;kid] jlk;u foKku ds fy, xfBr Ldzhfuax lfefr ls tkWap djk;h x;hA tkWap vk[;k izkIr gksus ds mijkUr iqu% tkWap dh vko'drk izrhr gqbZA izdj.k ij iqu% tkap djus gsrq Mk0 Vh0ds0 HkV~Vkpk;kZ izk/;kid 14 ,oa foHkkxk/;{k] QkeZ e'khujh ,oa ikoj baft0 foHkkx dh v/;{krk esa rhu lnL;h; tkWap lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;kA vr% lUnfHkZr izdj.k ij nksukaas xfBr lfefr;ksa dh izkIr tkWap vk[;k lEiw.kZ lk{;ksa lfgr bl i= ds lkFk layXu dj izsf"kr gSA nksuksa tkWap vk[;kvksa esa ls Mk0 HkV~Vkpk;kZ] izk/;kid ,oa foHkkxk/;{k] QkeZ e'khujh ,oa ikoj baft0 foHkkx dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr dh tkWap vk[;k vf/kd fo'oluh; ,oa ikjn'khZ izrhr gksrh gS D;ksafd ;g tkWap rVLFk ladk; lnL;ksa }kjk dh xbZ gSA layXud& ;FkksifjA Hkonh;] ¼Rkst izrki½ dqyifr"
21. The Chancellor, vide the impugned order dated 12.11.2020 rejected the representation/ complaint of the petitioner. In support of his plea that the Chancellor acted with discrimination against the petitioner, so as to favour respondent No. 4, the petitioner has made a reference to the selection of one Dr. Biswajeet Pramanick, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Agronomy), pursuant to the same advertisement, i.e. A-20/2015, and his appointment was challenged by one Mrs. Vineeta Rathore before the Chancellor, and the Chancellor vide order dated 12.06.2020 directed the University to appoint Mrs. Vineeta Rathore to the post of Assistant Professor, since Dr. Biswajeet Pramanick was held to be ineligible. The appointment of Dr. Biswajeet Pramanick 15 was cancelled after five years of his appointment. However, in respect of the petitioner's claim, a different yardstick has been adopted by the Chancellor, by observing that since respondent No. 4 is working on the said post since 2015, therefore, it is not justifiable to cancel the appointment of respondent No. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Chancellor dated 12.11.2020, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
22. The contesting respondents, i.e. respondent No. 2-the Vice Chancellor & Chairman, Selection Committee, G.B. Pant University, and respondent No. 3-the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology have filed their counter-affidavit. They state that "the qualification of any post is decided by the University authority which is the Academic Council and Board of Management of the University", and based on that, the Screening Committee has to decide whether it is considerable, or not.
23. With regard to the two Certificates issued by the office of the Deputy Registrar dated 14.07.2010, it is stated that they were issued by his office after recommendation of the concerned Advisor / Head / Dean, of College. Consequently, it is stated that both the Certificates issued on 14.07.2010 are true. 16
24. The said respondents deny the petitioner's submission that the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University has no power to grant a certificate of equivalence in respect of any Degree, with another degree. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 state in Paragraph-18 of the counter-affidavit that "as per practice Deputy Registrar is authorized to issue the certificate based on the recommendation of Advisor, Head/Dean concerned after approval of Registrar."
25. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 state that as per the advertisement, for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry), the essential qualification was Ph.D./Doctorate Degree in the subject concerned or related field, with Master's Degree in the concerned discipline, with at least 60% marks or equivalent in the point-scale system. Respondent No. 4 has completed his Doctorate Degree in 2010 and, thus, as per the Advertisement, NET was not compulsory for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry), and after considering the NET Certificate of respondent No. 4 in Crop Protection, the Screening Committee considered the candidature of respondent No. 4 to be good.
26. The said respondents justified the order passed by the Chancellor, by stating that the 17 Chancellor, after thoroughly examining the representation of the petitioner, rightly ordered that the appointment of the successful candidate, which was done in the year 2015, cannot be interfered with. Consequently, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Chancellor, who is the supreme authority of the University.
DISCUSSION
27. The respondent University was established under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the '1958 Act'). The authorities constituted under the 1958 Act are the following:-
"(i) The Board of Management,
(ii) The Academic Council,
(iii) The Board of Faculties, and
(iv) Such other authorities as may be declared by the Statutes to be authorities of the University."
28. Section 16 of the 1958 Act elaborates on the duties and functions of the Academic Council. The same reads:
18
"16. The Academic Council - (1) The Academic Council shall be in charge of the academic affairs of the University and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, have the control and general regulation of, and be responsible for, the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination and for the requirements for obtaining degrees, and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes. It shall have the right to advise the Kulpati on all academic matters.
(2) The constitution of the Academic Council and the term of office of its members shall be as prescribed." (emphasis supplied)
29. Thus, the Academic Council is the competent body of the University to deal with academic issues and affairs. The mandate to maintain standards of education in the University lies with the Academic Council. This, obviously, means that it is for the Academic Council to determine, who is qualified-and 19 who is not, to get appointed on a teaching post in the University, as that would have a direct bearing on the standard of instruction and education in the University.
30. The Statutes of the University have been framed by invoking the powers conferred by Section 28 of the Act. Rule 6 of Chapter IV of the Statutes of the University states as to what would be the functions and duties of the Academic Council, in greater detail. The same is being reproduced as under:-
"6. Except as otherwise provided in these Statutes, the Academic Council shall determine:
(i) Requirement for admission to the several colleges and other teaching divisions;
(ii) questions of education policy;
(iii) relations between colleges and other teaching divisions;
(iv) changes in the amount, character or quality of work required for admission to the colleges and other teaching divisions; and
(v) the degrees and diploma which shall be awarded and the conditions for their award."
(emphasis supplied)
31. Thus, any change in, inter alia, the amount, character or quality of work required for, inter alia, teaching divisions specifically falls for determination of the Academic Council. When the issue of equivalence of a qualification-for purpose of recruiting a teaching 20 faculty arises, the same, therefore, falls for determination only by the Academic Council.
32. On a plain reading of these provisions, it is clear that the Academic Council is the only competent body, which is the statutory body, for examining the issue of equivalence of a particular qualification with another qualification.
33. Admittedly, in the present case, the issue of equivalence of M.Sc. (Chemistry) with M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) was never placed before the Academic Council, which is the only statutorily empowered body for taking a decision in respect of education policies. Since, at no point of time, any such agenda was placed before the Academic Council, consequently, the Academic Council never took a decision to treat M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) as equivalent to M.Sc. (Chemistry).
34. The respondent-University, though, in the counter-affidavit submits that the qualification of a particular post has to be decided by the University Authority, which is the Academic Council and Board of Management of the University (which is reflected from Paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit), however, the 21 entire counter-affidavit is silent about the fact whether, at any point of time, the Academic Council of the respondent-University was called upon to apply its mind to the issue whether the qualification of M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals), is equivalent to M.Sc. (Chemistry).
35. The respondent-University submits that "as per practice Deputy Registrar is authorized to issue the certificate based on the recommendation of Advisor, Head / Dean concerned after approval of Registrar." This can only mean that the Deputy Registrar is authorized to carry out the ministerial act of issuing a letter / certificate of equivalence. The Deputy Registrar is wholly incompetent to, on his own, decide the said issue.
36. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being the University, should have produced material on record to establish the claimed equivalence, but no such material has been placed before this Court in order to demonstrate that these two qualifications are equivalent to each other. We may hasten to add, that even if such material would have been produced, we would not be in a position to decide the issue of 22 equivalence, as the expertise and authority to make the said determination lies only with the Academic Council. The certificates, as issued by the Deputy Registrar, with regard to equivalence, can neither be taken into consideration for determining the issue whether respondent No. 4 is eligible or not, nor has it any relevance, since the issue of equivalence of qualification was never considered by the competent statutory body of the respondent-University, i.e. the Academic Council.
37. We have perused the advertisement, wherein, admittedly, the Master's Degree in the concerned discipline was the eligibility, and as such, respondent No. 4 cannot be treated to be eligible for appointment, since he was not having the Master's Degree in the concerned discipline, i.e. Chemistry, and his degree in M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) has not been declared to be equivalent to M.Sc. (Chemistry) by the competent Authority.
38. Pertinently, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 admit- particularly in Paragraph 7 of their counter-affidavit, that the Academic Council is the competent authority for determination of the minimum qualification required 23 for appointment to a particular post. Despite this, no agenda of equivalence, relating to M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) and M.Sc. (Chemistry), was placed before the Academic Council, and as such, it is clear that the issue of equivalence of these two qualifications was never dealt with by the Academic Council. Thus, the action of respondent-University, in treating respondent No. 4 to be eligible for the post-in-question is contrary to the 1958 Act, their own stand, as well as in complete violation of the Statutes of the University.
39. As per the Order-Sheet, notices were issued to respondent No. 4 on 08.03.2021, and on 10.03.2021, steps were taken and, thereafter, on 08.04.2021, a Vakalatnama was also filed on behalf of respondent No. 4.
40. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, despite grant of ample opportunity. He adopted the stand of respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
41. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, placed before this Court the mark- sheet of respondent No. 4-Ravendra Kumar of M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals), and one letter of Deepa Vinay, Registrar of the respondent-University dated 24 11.05.2023, wherein the procedure for providing certificate of equivalence for various degrees offered by G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar has been disclosed. This letter reads as under:-
"Registrar No. R/1364
Dt: 11.05.2023
The procedure for providing certificate of equivalence for various degrees offered by G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar.
At present the University is offering masters degree in 64 subjects and Ph.D. degree in 54 subjects. The procedure for issuing the equivalence certificate is as follows:
1. Syllabus of all the universities offering similar type of degrees is collected and comparative chart is prepared by a committee appointed by concerned Head of the Department.
2. The application of the applicant duly recommended by the Head of the Department and Dean of the concerned College followed by Dean, Post Graduate Studies is forwarded to Registrar for consideration.
3. After consultation of Head of the Department and Dean Post Graduate Studies a certificate of the equivalence is issued by the Registrar. The same procedure is followed for all the subjects whenever the equivalence is required.
4. The appropriate authority for issuing the equivalence certificate is vested with the office of the Registrar and the aforesaid powers have been conferred to Registrar under the provision 3(2) and 14(3) of Uttarpradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1958."25
42. Mr. Aditya Singh has also placed before this Court, the application moved by respondent No. 4 dated 15.06.2010, which is addressed to the Registrar, G.B. Pant University of Agricultural and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, wherein a request was made for issuing a M.Sc. Chemistry equivalence certificate.
Since no counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No. 4, it is also necessary to produce the contents of the said letter, which are as follows:-
"To, The Registrar, G.B.P.U.A.T., Pantnagar.
Uttarakhand.
Through-Proper Channel.
Subject: Request for issuing M.Sc. Chemistry equivalent certificate.
Respected Sir,
My name is Ravendra Kumar. I have
completed M.Sc. in Agricultural Chemicals in January, 2006 from G.B.P.U.A. & T. Pantnagar. I request you for issuing a certificate indicating that M.Sc. in Agricultural Chemicals is equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry. This Certificate has been previously issued to my seniors.
I will be thankful to you.
Dated:
15.06.10 Yours sincerely Ravendra Kumar I.D. No. 30641."
43. We find no merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. The communication of the Registrar dated 11.05.2023 26 is neither here, nor there. The respondent University- which has filed its affidavit before us, has not taken that stand. On the contrary, even the University states, that it is for the Academic Council to determine Academic issues. Moreover, the stand attributed to the Registrar, is completely contrary to the statutory scheme, whereunder, only the Academic Council has the competence and authority to examine the issue of equivalence. Pertinently, no material was placed by respondent No. 4 with regard to the equivalence of M. Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) with M.Sc. (Chemistry), along with his aforesaid letter dated 15.06.2010.
44. In Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University (2009) 4 SCC 555, the Supreme Court considered a similar issue viz. the appointment of a candidate as a lecturer who did not possess the qualification for the post, as advertised. The Supreme Court held:
"24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what 27 is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post.
25. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should be final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process during its midstream. Merajuddin Ahmad did not possess a degree in pure Chemistry and therefore, it was rightly held by the High Court that he did not possess the minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, for pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different subjects.
26. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Masters Degree holder in the said subject would also be suitable for being considered. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known and were informed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said post.
27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Masters Degree Holder in Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said post without there being any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the University is now manning the said post by having a 28 person from the discipline of pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to pure Chemistry stream."
(emphasis supplied)
45. The aforesaid judgment in the case Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) was further followed in the case of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi and others vs. Aarya K. Babu and another (2019) 8 SCC 587.
46. In the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali vs. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76, it was held that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question, to be determined on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the 29 decision of the Government, unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides, or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.
47. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the examination of equivalence of qualifications is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with: whether, a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant University therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such.
48. Since in the present case, there is no determination by the Academic Council, and merely based on the equivalence certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 4 was selected and appointed, the same itself reveals that the action of the respondent-University is not proper and legal as, on the one hand, they have themselves stated, on oath 30 (particularly in Paragraph-7 of their counter-affidavit), that it is the Academic Council, which decides the qualification and, on the other hand, based on the Equivalence Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University, respondent No. 4 was recommended.
49. Such conduct of the respondent-University is most deprecable. Actions of a University-like the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar should be fair, particularly in the matter of selection. The candidate, who was not having the qualification, as required, was recommended for selection and given appointment, not only to the prejudice of the petitioner, but also the students that respondent No. 4 would have been asked to teach. It is most unfortunate, that the respondent-University sacrificed the interest of its students only to grant employment to respondent No. 4. This action of the respondent-University tantamounts to a serious breach of trust, that every student coming to the University to study the relevant subject reposes in the University. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appointment of respondent No. 4 is illegal and it cannot sustain. It clearly emerges that the Selection 31 Committee did not act fairly and it acted with a premeditated mind to select respondent No. 4, despite him not being qualified for the post in question. There is no explanation as to why the Selection Committee entertained the application of respondent No.4, despite him not having a Masters Degree in the concerned discipline, i.e. Masters Degree in Chemistry; why the Selection Committee proceeded to act merely on the certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar granted to respondent No.4, certifying the equivalence of M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) with M.Sc. (Chemistry), and it did not ask respondent no.4 to produce the decision of the Academic Council of the University-certifying equivalence of the two courses, particularly, since the certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar did not make reference to any decision of the Academic Council holding that the said two courses could be considered as equivalent; why the Selection Committee accepted the NET of respondent No.4 obtained in the subject 'Crop Protection', and not Chemistry; why the petitioner was awarded zero marks under the head 'Experience', and respondent no.4 awarded four marks, even though, the experience of the petitioner in the academic field was 16 years, as opposed to NIL 32 experience of respondent no.4 in the academic field; why respondent no.4 was awarded marks for Rajiv Gandhi Fellowship, when no marks were awarded for the same Fellowship to another candidate, namely, Dr. Neelam Arya; why, despite being made aware that the candidature of respondent no.4 for the same post in respect of the advertisement issued in the year 2011 was rejected, on the ground, that he did not have the qualification in the subject concerned, the Selection Committee justified its selection when it was asked to examine the same by the Vice Chancellor on the representation of the petitioner, and despite the Selection Committee being informed that the Academic Council has not certified the equivalence of the two courses in question.
50. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the Selection Committee acted with a bias in favour of respondent no.4, and with a premeditated mind to select him for the post in question, even though he did not have the relevant qualification.
51. Now, we may examine the impugned order passed by the Chancellor dated 12.11.2020.
52. It would be appropriate to set out, at this stage, the relevant extract of the English translation of 33 the three-member Dr. T.K. Bhattacharya Inquiry Committee's report, which is being extracted herein below:-
"6- It is clear from the records available on the pages (pages 183 to 186) of the file in the year 2012 of the two courses M.Sc. (Chemistry) and M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals), only two subjects are the same and all other subjects are different. There are no records available for equivalence of M.Sc. (Chemistry) with M.Sc. (Agricultural chemicals with respect to the proposal for giving the Equivalence Certificate sent by the Head of Department, on 16-06-2010 to the Registrar.
7- In the degree program in university generally, proposals related to Equivalence are submitted for approval of the Academic Council.
8- It is clear from the records available in the paper (page no. 211 and 212) that at the point number-28 of the employment advertisement number A-18/2011 issued by the university for Assistant Professor, Chemistry (page number 213 and 215) Dr. Ravendra Kumar's application also found unsuitable by the University's Screening Committee to the effect that his degree M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) was not considered equivalent to MSc (Chemistry), but at point number 28 of the university's employment advertisement number A-20/2015 (page number 207 and 210) Dr. Assistant Professor, Chemistry, the university found Ravendra Kumar's application appropriate.
Therefore, the opinion of the Inquiry Committee is that it is also important to know the rationale of Ravendra Kumar's application being unsuitable in the year 2011 and suitable in the year 2015 when the holder of the M.Sc. degree (In Agricultural Chemicals) in the both 2011 and 2015.34
9- It has also not been clarified by the Registrar's Office as to why two equivalence Certificates were issued to Ravendra Kumar on 14-07-2010 by the Deputy Registrar Office without indicating the reference / serial number on the letters with two different signatures. The inquiry committee is of the opinion that according to university rules, it is inappropriate to indicate any certificate without reference / serial number. Therefore, on this subject, a suitable explanation should be sought from the Registrar's Office."
(emphasis supplied)
53. This report of the independent committee was also placed before the Chancellor, for her to consider, while taking her decision.
54. We have perused the order of the Chancellor. Pertinently, in Paragraph-10 of the order, an observation is made that primarily both the qualifications appear to be different. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected, merely on the basis that respondent No. 4 was selected and appointed, which was based upon the equivalence certificate accepted by the Selection Committee. In Paragraph-11, the Chancellor has observed that there is no fault of the successful candidate. The University Registrar gave him a Certificate, according to which his degree is equivalent to the degree required in the advertisement. The same was challenged only when 35 the unsuccessful candidate came to know that he has been placed at Serial No. 2. The Chancellor relied on the Note Sheet dated 16.06.2010 of the Head, Dept. of Chemistry of the respondent University, which reads as under:-
"In reference to the application of Ms. Gunjan Bhatia (M.Sc. Agricultural Chemistry) this is to bring to your kind notice that M.Sc. (Chemistry) programme was started from academic session 2006-07 and the first batch of M.Sc. Chemistry students passed out in 2008.
The equivalent certificate was being issued for the M.Sc. Agricultural Chemicals students who passed out in 2007 but not after that. Since M.Sc. Chemistry programme started in 2006-07. Hence equivalent certificates can only be given to the students who passed out M.Sc. Agricultural Chemicals programme in 2007 or before as 2006-07 we that only M.Sc. Agricultural Chemicals programme running in the Department.
The applications of other students are also attached herewith.
Head Department of Chemistry Prof. & Head Deptt. Of Chemistry"
55. The conclusion, as drawn by the Chancellor in its order dated 12.11.2020, is as under:-
"16. So in view of all the facts, I come to the conclusion that the successful candidate (Dr. Ravindra Kumar) was selected on an advertised position. A certificate was also obtained in this regard that the degree of Agricultural Chemicals of GB Pant University is equivalent to M.Sc (Chemistry) of other universities. GB Pant University started the degree course of M.Sc. (Chemistry) only after 36 the year 2007. The successful candidate not only obtained an equivalent certificate but his / her candidature (candidature) was also approved by the screening committee. Later on the complaint of the unsuccessful candidate (Dr. Balwant), the screening committee approved the decision of the previous screening committee. Although the University in 2011 not guided by the fact that M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Chemistry), but later in the year 2015, the successful candidate was able to legally obtain such certificate. Stayed. This certificate was approved by the Screening Committee and was finally selected by a committee headed by the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, the appointment of a successful candidate cannot be considered "Void ab initio" "completely illegal from the beginning".
Therefore even if Dr. Ravindra Kumar holds the degree of M.Sc (Agricultural Chemistry / Agricultural Chemicals) in place of M.Sc. (Chemistry), if he is removed from service, after such a long time, without any fault mistake will be a satirical travesty of justice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to intervene in the appointment of the "successful candidate" which was done in the year 2015.
Accordingly, the representation given by Dr. Balwant under section 23 of the G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University Act is disposed of on 27-10-2017, 19-01-2018 and 23-04-2018. A copy of this order should be submitted to the concerned parties and the university."
56. The order of the Chancellor is completely misdirected. The Hon'ble Chancellor has failed to take into consideration relevant and germane aspects, while being driven by wholly irrelevant and extraneous 37 considerations. Moreover, the same displays the double standards adopted by her while dealing with similar complaints. Firstly, the report of the three- member Committee, which was chaired by Dr. T. K. Bhattacharya, was totally overlooked. The Chancellor has placed reliance on the equivalence certificate issued by Deputy Registrar, whereas under the parent Act and the Statutes of the University, only the Academic Council is the competent authority to determine the issue of equivalence. The Chancellor does not take into consideration, the fact that the Deputy Registrar had no authority to issue the equivalence certificate. She does not take into consideration the finding of the three-member independent committee, that the qualification of respondent No. 4 could not be considered as equivalent to M.Sc. (Chemistry), as only two subjects were common in the entire course. Even before us, the petitioner has brought on record the relevant material to show that the course content of the two courses is majorly different. There is no contest to it from the side of either of the respondents. The Chancellor has been swayed by irrelevant consideration-on the ground that respondent no. 4 is serving in the post, in question 38 since 2015. The issue which she had to consider was whether respondent No. 4 was qualified to be appointed to the post in question. The academic interest of the students, and the institution, was paramount, and not the personal interest of respondent No. 4. There was no question of it not being a fault of respondent No. 4. The students could not have been made to suffer at the hands of respondent No. 4, who was not qualified to teach in the capacity of Assistant Professor in Chemistry. The academic interest of the students of the University was severely and irretrievably prejudiced by appointment of a person, who did not have the requisite qualification.
57. Pertinently, the Chancellor acted with clear discrimination, inasmuch, as, in the case of Biswajeet Pramanick she was not guided by such equitable considerations. Here, respondent no. 4 was, admittedly, not eligible for the post in question, and the Chancellor herself pointed out that, prima facie, M.Sc. (Chemistry) is not equivalent to M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals). Despite being aware that the Academic Council had not certified the equivalence claimed by respondent No. 4, and that the three-member independent committee, as well as the Vice Chancellor 39 opined against the appointment of respondent No. 4, she rejected the petitioner's representation in the most arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory manner.
58. The Chancellor has also been swayed by the consideration that till 2006-07, the University was not granting degree in M.Sc. (Chemistry). We fail to understand what is the relevance of this fact. The respondent was not imparting the course in M.Sc. (Chemistry) till 2006-07, and that is why it was not granting that degree. It does not mean that the degree in M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals), granted to respondent No. 4 could be considered as equivalent to M.Sc. (Chemistry). It is not even the case of respondent University that the course content of M.Sc. (Agricultural Chemicals)-studied by respondent No. 4, is the same as that of M.Sc. (Chemistry). The fact that the respondent University is itself imparting education in both the subjects since 2006-07, shows that the course content of the said two courses is different.
59. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar is, hereby, quashed. 40 Further the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of the Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in the Department of Chemistry is also, hereby, quashed, and a writ of mandamus is being issued to the respondent University to forthwith appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in the Department of Chemistry, after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is the next candidate, who was recommended for selection. The petitioner shall be granted seniority notionally from the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 and shall, accordingly, be granted seniority and pay fixation. However, he shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary since he has not worked on the said post.
________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
__________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 14th August, 2023
Rathour
41