Delhi High Court
Dr.Manbir S.Sachdev vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 5 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P(C) No. 19541/2004
% Date of Decision: 05.07.2010
DR.MANBIR S. SACHDEV .... PETITIONER
Through Petitioner in person
Versus
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULATURAL ....RESPONDENTS
RESEARCH & ORS.
Through Mr.G.C. Nagar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. ICAR invited applications to fill up the post of Project Director (Nuclear Research Laboratory) IAR, New Delhi. Amongst others, it was stipulated that a doctorial degree in any field of Agricultural Science was a must.
2. The petitioner applied and so did respondent No.4 Dr.P.S.Datta.
3. Respondent No.4 has a doctorial degree in Isotope Hydrology.
4. The petitioner took a stand that respondent No.4 did not possess the requisite doctorial degree and since the employer did not agree, he filed a petition which stands disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Needless to state the petitioner has not met with success. The petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal stands dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2004. Review sought of the said order stands dismissed W.P.(C)19541/2004 Page 1 of 4 vide order dated 27.07.2004.
5. In rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the Tribunal has held that the available literature in the field, acceptable to the peers in the field, shows that a doctorial degree in Nuclear Hydrology is an Agricultural Science degree. It has been held that the degree concerns Water and Soil Science.
6. The Tribunal has referred to Encyclopedia Britanacia on the subject "MACROPAEDIA". It has been held as under:-
"MAJOR DIVISIONS OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES The agricultural Sciences are normally subdivided into five groups:
1. Soil Science, which deals with the geological generation of soil, with soil physics, and soil chemistry, as they pertain to agriculture, and with all other factors relevant to soil fertility.
2. Plant production, which comprises applied plant physiology, plant nutrition, plant breeding (including genetics), weed control, plant diseases, and pest control.
3. Animal production, comprising animal breeding and genetics, animal nutrition, and animal husbandry, (in most countries the science of animal diseases is not counted among the agricultural sciences).
4. Economics and management science, including behavioural science, agricultural policy, market research, and rural sociology.
5. Agricultural engineering, including appropriate areas of mechanical engineering, construction, hydraulics and soil mechanics.
From the above it is clear that appropriate areas of hydraulics and soil mechanics forms part of the W.P.(C)19541/2004 Page 2 of 4 Agricultural Sciences. The thesis of Respondent No.4 for his Ph.D. was on "Estimation of Ground water Recharge in the Indo-Gangetic Alluvial Plains Using Tritium Tracer". Thus clearly the thesis pertains to hydraulics and soil mechanics using the techniques of nuclear science. The qualifications of Respondent No.4 were accepted by ASRB for appointment to the ARS of ICAR. Currently he is Prof. and Principal Scientist in the NRL of IARI and has been selected in the same laboratory as Project Director. His selection as Project Director has been challenged in this OA by the applicant. We find no reason to differ with the assessment of the respondents regarding the qualifications of Respondent No.4 for selection to this post.
8. In view of the foregoing, we find that the respondent No.4 was appointed against one of the disciplines recognized by the ARS and his Ph.D. thesis was related to an area of Hydrology and Soil Mechanics which forms part of the major divisions of the agricultural sciences, as such he fulfils the prescribed qualification for the post. Therefore OA having no merit is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
7. Since the issue of the classification of a degree or equivalence thereof requires expert evaluation, vide order dated 10.07.2008 passed in the instant petition, it was directed that the thesis submitted by respondent No.4 which was accepted and pursuant thereto the doctorial degree was awarded to respondent No.4 should be evaluated by experts in the field i.e. a reference was made to IIT Kanpur as also the University Grants Commission to look into the doctorial thesis and inform this Court whether the same related to a field of Agricultural Science.
8. Both organizations have opined in favour of respondent W.P.(C)19541/2004 Page 3 of 4 No.4.
9. In this view of the matter, nothing survives for adjudication by this Court.
10. Suffice it to state that experts in the field have conclusively opined that the research work of respondent No.4 resulting in the award of a doctorial degree to him is in the field of Agricultural Science. Even the available literature, referred to by the Tribunal, so opines.
11. We would be failing not to note that the submission urged by the petitioner is that while rendering opinion, UGC as also IIT Kanpur have used the expression "may be considered equivalent to a thesis in Agricultural Science." Submission urged is that it is not equivalence which entails a candidate to become eligible for the post in question, but the actual.
12. This is nothing but quibbling with words. The existing literature, noted by the Tribunal, clearly shows that the subject matter of research and thesis resulting in respondent No.4 acquiring a doctorial degree relates to Agricultural science. Hydrology and Soil Mechanics clearly form part of Agricultural Science and the thesis submitted by respondent No. 4 clearly relates to this subject.
13. Whether somebody uses the expression that the work is equivalent or uses the expression that the research work relates to a field of Agricultural Science, is a matter of choice of words.
14. We find no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. But we refrain from imposing any costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 05, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„dc‟
W.P.(C)19541/2004 Page 4 of 4