Punjab-Haryana High Court
Welfare Association vs Dav College Management Committee And ... on 25 April, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.15969 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.15969 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.04.2013 ***** DAV Institute of Engineering and Technology (DAVIET) Employees Welfare Association . . . .Petitioner Versus DAV College Management Committee and others . . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.R.N. Moudgil, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Ravi Kapur, Advocate, with Mr.Surbhi Jain, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Mr.Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
***** JASBIR SINGH, ACJ (ORAL) By filing this writ petition challenge was made to the appointment of Sonia Chawla, Professor & Head, MBA, DAV CWP No.15969 of 2010 -2- Institute of Engineering and Technology (DAVIET), Jalandhar. It was stated that she does not possess the requisite qualifications.
After issuance of notice of motion, reply was filed wherein it was specifically stated that respondents No.1 and 2 are self-sustained institutions and do not get any aid from the Government and as such writ petition is not maintainable.
Be that as it may, on merits, it was stated by respondent No.5 that when advertisement was issued for the post in question, it was specifically stated that the candidate should possess qualification and experience as per AICTE/PTU norms. It was further stated that as per the advertisement, respondent No.5 was eligible for the post. In this regard, on 30.1.2013, following order was passed by this Court: -
"In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is an association of employees of the respondent No.1 institute/college, challenge is to the appointment of the respondent No.5 as Professor and Head, Department of Business Management. The learned Single Judge vide orders dated 28.8.2012 observed that the matter is to be treated as Public Interest Litigation and that is how it has come up before the Division Bench for hearing. CWP No.15969 of 2010 -3- The main plank on which the challenge to appointment of the respondent No.5 as Professor and Head is laid is that the respondent No.5 did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed by the all India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as the AICTE) for the post of Professor. The AICTE norms for the aforesaid post specify that the candidate should have total experience of 10 years out of which 05 years should be as Assistant Professor. The respondent No.5, concededly, did not have 05 years' experience as Assistant Professor when her candidature was considered and she was recommended for appointment to the said post by the Selection Committee. Proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting are annexed by the respondent as Annexure R-11, which would disclose that the Selection Committee decided to relax this condition with the following remarks: -
"Since no eligible candidate was available, Dr. Sonia Chawla, who CWP No.15969 of 2010 -4- has total experience of 10 years, but not of 05 years as Assistant Professor was selected by waiving off the condition of 05 years experience of Assistant Professor as a special case, on probation for two years in the pay scale of Rs.16400-450-20900-500-22400 with an initial start of Rs.16400/- plus admissible allowances."
The submission of the petitioner is that there is no provision for any relaxation provided in the rules/regulations of the AICTE.
On 17.9.2012, this Court had directed the AICTE to file an affidavit indicating as to whether on the basis of qualifications possessed by the respondent No.5-Sonia Chawla, she was eligible to be appointed as a Professor and whether qualifications possessed by her were in terms of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Professor at the time of Selection. The AICTE has filed the affidavit in compliance with the aforesaid directions and as per this affidavit, the respondent No.5 could not be appointed to the post CWP No.15969 of 2010 -5- of Professor. Alongwith the reply filed by the AICTE to the aforesaid effect, Minutes of the Review Committee, which went into this very issue specifically, are annexed. After deliberating on the issue posted before the Committee, as per the orders of this Court, the recommendations of the Review Committee are as under: -
"Based upon the above
observations of the Review
Committee, the Review Committee recommends that Dr. Sonia Chawla was not eligible for the advertised post of Professor in Business Management, as she did not possess 05 years' teaching experience as Assistant Professor, being the mandatory requirement as per AICTE norms applicable during the time of selection."
From the aforesaid affidavit of the AICTE, it becomes clear that the requirement of 05 years' teaching experience as Assistant Professor was obligatory and mandatory which was not relaxable. The respondent No.5 has filed her affidavit in reply to the CWP No.15969 of 2010 -6- aforesaid stand taken by the AICTE, wherein it is submitted that the Review Committee of the AICTE, while forming the aforesaid opinion did not take into consideration the guidelines issued by the University Grants Committee (hereinafter referred to as the UGC). Reference is made to UGC regulations issued vide D.O. No.F3-1/2000 (PS) dated 4.4.2000, which prescribed the qualification for the post of Professor as under: -
"An eminent scholar with published word of high quality, actively engaged in research with 10 years of experience in post-
graduate teaching, and/or
experience in research at the
University/National Level
institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level.............."
On this basis, it is submitted that the respondent No.5 was fully eligible for being considered to the post of Professor as she had 10 years of experience in post-graduate teaching. This plea is, however, sought to be CWP No.15969 of 2010 -7- rebutted by the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the AICTE pointing out that the said UGC guidelines pertained to University Departments/Technological Universities and have no relevance with the appointment in question which was that of a professor in Business Management.
The other submission of the respondent No.5 is that the advertisement dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure R1) issued for the post in question pursuant to which the respondent No.5 was selected specifically mentioned that the candidate should possess the qualification and experience as per AICTE/PTU (Punjab Technical University) norms. Pre-dictated on that, the argument is that a candidate could be eligible if he/she was fulfilling the PTU norms as well. The PTU norms are annexed as Annexure R10 and sustenance is sought to be drawn from the norms fixed for the post of Dean, which inter alia, provides a minimum of 10 years of teaching experience in university/college and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience in guiding candidates for research at doctoral CWP No.15969 of 2010 -8- level. It was, thus, submitted that when the advertisement itself contained that the candidate can have qualifications and experience as per the PTU norms and PTU norms only provide for 10 years of teaching experience, which the respondent No.5 possessed, she was eligible to be considered for the post.
As mentioned above, these are the norms for the post of Dean and not Professor. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the post of Dean is equivalent to that of Professor and same qualifications are required for the post of Professor as well. He wants some time to obtain certificate to this effect from the PTU.
List on 2.3.2013."
Respondent No.5 was directed to put on record a certificate from Punjab Technical University to the effect that the post of Dean is equivalent to the post of Professor. In this regard, an affidavit was placed on record by moving an application. The relevant content of the certificate reads as under:
"The Post of Dean, PTU is equivalent to the Post of Professor as per UGC in the pay Scale of 16400-450-22400 (Pre Revised)." CWP No.15969 of 2010 -9-
It is specifically stated that post of Dean, PTU is equivalent to the Post of Professor as per UGC norms and is also in the same pay scale. If that is so, probably the grievance raised by the petitioner is not sustainable. Furthermore, as per established law in Public Interest Litigation in service matters this Court is very slow in interfering. The observations made by Division Bench of this Court in "Jagdev Singh Vs. Punjabi University, Patiala and others" 2012 (3) SCT 485 can be referred in this regard. Relevant para No.5 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"We feel that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. In service jurisprudence appointment is an individual right of a candidate and the candidate whose right is effected is a proper party to challenge the conditions or qualification prescribed in the advertisement which adversely effects such candidate. None of the effected candidate is before us to raise his/her grievance against the qualification prescribed in the impugned advertisements. Further, at this stage it cannot be said that the earlier appointees would be again selected. This writ petition is totally based on apprehensions. As per the qualification CWP No.15969 of 2010 -10- prescribed for filling up the posts in question, a candidate should have minimum experience of working in any university or college or any other higher educational institution and in the note appended to the advertisement it is only stated that preference will be given to the candidates who have worked in the Universities. In this region, there are a large number of Universities and there may be a large number of candidates who have earned experience from those Universities and have applied for the posts in pursuant to the impugned advertisements. During the selection process, candidates having earned experience from the other universities may also be selected. The grievance based on the apprehension, therefore, is premature at this stage because the selection process has not yet been completed. Otherwise also, it is a service matter. As per the verdict of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr.Daryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others AIR 1999 CWP No.15969 of 2010 -11- (Supreme Court) 114, public interest litigation in respect of service matter does not lie."
Otherwise also there is nothing on record to show that respondent Nos.1 & 2 are getting any financial aid from the State authorities. No case is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE APRIL 25, 2013 Vivek