Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. (Mrs.) Abida Shamim Qureshi vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service ... on 24 March, 2015

                               1
                                   WA No. 87 of 2015



24.03.2015
         Shri M.A.Khan, counsel for the appellant.
         Shri Manas Verma, counsel for respondent No.1.

Shri K.S.Wadhwa, Addl. AG for the respondent No.2. Shri Manoj Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3 Appellant has filed this appeal against the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No.4086/11. The Public Service Commission/ respondent No.1 issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Professor in various subjects. The respondent No.3 applied for appointment to the post of Professor (Zoology). She was appointed on the post of Professor (Zoology) vide order dated 3.8.11 and posted as Professor in Govt. Model Science College, Jabalpur. The services of respondent No.3 were terminated vide order dated 29.10.13. The writ court quashed the order of termination of the respondent No.3 and allowed the writ petition. The writ court further held that respondent No.1 was eligible for appointment to the post of Professor (Zoology).

2. Learned Addl. A.G has contended that the order passed by the writ court is contrary to law. Respondent No.3 did not have had the requisite minimum qualification of 10 years teaching experience as required for the post of Professor (Zoology). He further contended that the respondent No.3 was not covered within the exception as mentioned in the advertisement.

3. The learned writ court quoted the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Professor (Zoology) prescribed in the advertisement as per rule 8 Schedule III of the Madhya Pradesh Educational Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 and also UGC guidelines. The criteria reads as under :-

"bZ vgZrk &1- ;w-th-lh- }kjk le; le; ij fofgr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk,a lacaf/kr fo"k; esa ih-,o-Mh- vfuok;Z vgZrkA 2- Lukrd@LukrdksRrj d{kkvksa esa 10 o"kZ dk vuqHkoA ;w-th-lh- ekxZn'kZu ekpZ] 2003 iz[;kr fo}ku ftudk mPp xq.koRrk dk izdkf'kr dk;Z] gks tks vuqla/kku dk;Z esa lfdz; :i ls yxk gks] lkFk esa LukrdksRrj d{kkvksa esa v/;kiu dk 10 o"kZ dks vuqHko vkSj ;k fo'ofo|ky;@ jk"V~zh; Lrj ds laLFkkuksa esa vuqla/kku dk;ksZ dk xkbZM ds :i esa vuqHko lfEefyr gks ;k ,d mRd`"V fo}ku ftldk Kku ds {ks= esa egRoiw.kZ ;ksxnku djus dk Lfkkfir izfr"Bk gks A"

The writ court further observed that the respondent did not have had 10 years teaching experience on the last date of submission of application. However, the respondent No.3 fulfilled the other qualification prescribed under the rule i.e "eminent scholar" and she was within the criteria of outstanding scholar of established reputation, hence she had fulfilled the eligibility criteria. On arising to the conclusion that the respondent No.3 was the "eminent scholar", the writ court recorded the finding in para-20,21,22 and 23 of the impugned order. The writ court also quoted the recommendations of the 3 WA No. 87 of 2015 Public Service Commission which was communicated to the Government vide letter dated 28.6.11. It was mentioned in the letter that the case of respondent No.3 was examined minutely and, as per opinion of the Public Service Commission, respondent No.3 was eligible for appointment to the post of Professor (Zoology). In our opinion, the findings of the writ court are in accordance with law.

4. The Division Bench of this Court in para-3 of the order dated 20.1.15 passed in W.A.No.2/15 and WA No.16/15 in which appointment of the respondent No.1 was also challenged, has recorded the following observations :-

"3. The appellant has challenged the selection of the respondents on the ground that the experience of the candidates who worked on contract basis as Guest Faculty in the Government colleges and Government Aided Colleges and University should not be counted. The appellant further contended that Smt Dr. Ankita Bohare did not have the requisite qualification and experience. The aforesaid points have been considered by the writ court in detail. The writ court has considered the qualification of Smt Dr. Ankita Bohare in paragraph Nos. 17,18 and 19 of the order and the findings recorded by the writ court in this regard are in accordance with law. The writ court has also taken note of the fact that the appellant was placed in the waiting list and the period of list has already been expired.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant does not dispute the fact that the period of list has already been expired."

5. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Division Bench of this court and the findings recorded by the learned writ court in regard to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria by the respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Professor (Zoology), in our opinion, the order passed by the writ court is in accordance with law. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.

      (Rajendra Menon)                               (S.K.Gangele)
         Judge                                           Judge

MKL