Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Poonam Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 20 March, 2015
1
W.P.No.1699/2015(S) (Dr.Poonam Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors)
20032015
Shri Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabal Solanki, Government Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Ankur Mody, Advocate for the respondent No.3. With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter of participation in the recruitment process for the post of Associate Professor (Computer Science Engineering) in the institution of respondent No.3 scheduled to be conducted on 22/03/2015.
On pointed query raised by this Court as regards eligibility of the petitioner for seeking permission to appear in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Associate Professor (Computer Science Engineering), as to whether petitioner is fulfilling the eligibility criteria B.E./B.Tech., and M.E./M.Tech, counsel fairly concedes that though the petitioner is not B.E.,/B.Tech., in Computer Science Engineering but obtained M.Tech., and Ph.D., in Computer Science Engineering and has also teaching Computer Science in the institution/respondent No.3, therefore, she deserves to be treated at par with other eligible candidates for the post of Associate Professor. Denial of right to appear in the recruitment process amounts to denying the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the 2 W.P.No.1699/2015(S) (Dr.Poonam Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors) Constitution of India. Counsel submits that the respondents cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner holds M.Tech., and Ph. D.,, in Computer Science Engineering as well as teaching in the subject of the Computer Science Engineering in the institution of respondent No.3. Therefore, merely because, she has done B.E.,/B.Tech., in different stream other than Computer Science Engineering, that by itself cannot be basis to preclude her from participation in the recruitment process.
Per contra, counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3/institution is a nodal agency in the context of recruitment process and has to adhere to the qualifications and experience of the candidates strictly as per the advertisement issued in accordance with guidelines issued by AICTE (respondent No.2). Hence, as nodal agency, only such candidates who fulfill all the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science Engineering) in the pay scale of Rs.1560039100+6000/ having B.E.,/B.Tech. and M.E./M.Tech., in relevant branch with first class or equivalent either in B.E.,/B.Tech. or M.E.,/M.Tech has to be permitted to participate in the recruitment process. Likewise, for the post of Associate Professor in the pay scale of Rs.3740067000+9000, a candidate having B.E.,/B.Tech. and M.E./M.Tech. in relevant branch with first class or equivalent either in B.E.,/B.Tech. or M.E.,/M.Tec., with Ph.D., in relevant branch together with other conditions stipulated in the 3 W.P.No.1699/2015(S) (Dr.Poonam Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors) advertisement for the recruitment process have to be considered for appointment. As such, the candidates fulfilling such qualifications are only entitled to be considered for the post. It is pertinent to note that 'relevant branch' means the subject concerned. In the instant case, the requisite qualification is that of B.E.,/B.Tech. and M.E.,/M.Tec., with first class and Ph.D., in Computer Science Engineering which is relevant branch (subject concerned) for appointment to the post of Associate Professor. Since, the petitioner has not fulfilled the first requirement being B.E.,/B.Tech., in Computer Science Engineering even though holds M.E.,/M.Tech., with first class and Ph.D., this by itself cannot qualify her for consideration of her candidature in the recruitment process though she is working as Assistant Professor in the subject of Computer Science Engineering with the respondent No.3's institution. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 does not have authority either to relax or modify the eligibility criteria conditions. The power vested with the AICTE (respondent No.2). Therefore, the respondent No.3 cannot permit the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Associate Professor for the aforesaid reason.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the qualifications which have been prescribed are wellexplicit from Annexure P/5. Admittedly, petitioner is not B.E.,/B.Tech. in Computer Science 4 W.P.No.1699/2015(S) (Dr.Poonam Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors) Engineering, i.e., the subject concerned. Therefore, petitioner having not fulfilled the basic qualification, though she possesses M.E.,/M.Tech., and Ph.D., in Computer Science Engineering and has experience of teaching in that stream, that by itself would not enable her to claim substitution of the conditions of appointment. The conditions of appointment, eligibility conditions and qualifications have to be applied in letter and spirit in recruitment process, issued by the AICTE (respondent No.2). There is no scope either to substitute or modify the aforesaid conditions for appointment. That too, after applications are invited and selection process has started. This, if permitted would amount to denial of fundamental right of eligible candidates; equality before law and equal protection of law enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The law is wellsettled that the conditions required to be fulfilled for the recruitment as per the rules or notification issued inviting applications, have to be strictly adhered to. No variation or modification can be permitted after selection process is started as per the recruitment process already initiated and scheduled for 22/03/2015. All the eligible candidates have already been called upon to participate in the process of selection. More over, there is no challenge to the conditions of appointment stipulated in the advertisement issued by the respondent No.3 for the post in issue in the instant case.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the 5 W.P.No.1699/2015(S) (Dr.Poonam Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors) case, in the opinion of this Court, this petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Arya) Judge b/