Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kailash Tiwari vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 October, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4792/1999 Anju Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5106/1999 Kulvinder Kaur versus State of Rajasthan & anr 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1771/2000 Dharmendra Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan & anr 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5064/1999 Kailash Tiwari versus State of Rajasthan & anr 30.10.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ajay Gupta for petitioners Mr Anant Bhandari, Dy GC for respondents BY THE COURT:
In these writ petitions, petitioners were appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.9.1993 for the post of Lecturer. Petitioners applied for the post and were selected thus given appointment vide order dated 17.1.1996. Initially, appointment was on temporary basis but in the regular pay scale because selections were made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on regular basis. Subsequent to the appointment, petitioners were served with the notice directing them to pass out National Eligibility Test (NET)/ State Level Eligibility Test (SLET), otherwise, their services would be discontinued. Reminder was also given to them to undertake NET/SLET. The writ petitions were filed at that stage.
This court granted interim order in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondents to discontinue them from service.
It is stated that at the time of issuance of the advertisement and during course of selection process there was no requirement to possess NET/SLET. Petitioners underwent selection pursuant to the requisite qualification then existing. Subsequent circular by the University Grants Commission (UGC) requiring qualification of NET/SLET cannot govern recruitment made pursuant to the earlier selection held in the year 1993. The UGC, however, issued an order indicating that those Lecturers, who were appointed after 29.11.1995 for Computer Applications and 13.5.1996 for Electronic Sciences without prior permission, should be asked to clear NET/SLET within a period of two years from the issuance of the letter dated June, 1998. This was in ignorance of the fact that selection in question was made pursuant to the advertisement of the year 1993 when even as per the UGC, there was no requirement to pass out NET/ SLET thus petitioners should not have been commanded with the directions to clear the said test thus impugned notices deserve to be set aside.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioners were appointed pursuant to the selection made in the year 1993, however, the government had amended the rules on 17.6.1993 by issuing Notification. It was provided that qualification should be possessed as provided by the UGC. Since UGC provided requirement of NET/ SLET thus petitioners were asked to possess the aforesaid qualification. Accordingly, notices were served on the petitioners to possess NET/ SLET qualification.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the advertisement does not show requirement of NET/ SLET. The petitioners applied for the post of Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.9.1993 and after selection, appointments were made vide order dated 17.1.1996. Even while issuing appointment order, there was no direction to clear NET/ SLET. The UGC issued an order on 18.6.1998 directing the State Government to ask the candidate to clear NET/ SLET within a period of two years from the aforesaid date. Pursuant to the letter of the UGC, the State Government issued impugned notices on the petitioners.
On careful consideration of the case, I find that an appointment pursuant to the terms and conditions prevalent, cannot be annulled or be substituted by any other condition than what was provided in the advertisement and the rule then existing.
It is, no doubt, true that rule was amended by the State Government vide Notification dated 17.6.1993 but, therein also, it was not provided as to what qualification is required for the post of Lecturer in the branches in which petitioners have been appointed. It makes a reference of the rules of the UGC. If the UGC has amended the rules, then government was under an obligation to provide a condition while issuing advertisement. It seems that the subjects of Computer Applications and Electronic Sciences were dealt with the same condition as existing for other discipline and, thereby, NET/ SLET for the aforesaid post was also required. The aforesaid decision seems to have been taken sometime in the year 1995-96, therefore, only a direction has been issued that for appointment after 29.11.1995 and 13.5.1996, a condition should be made to possess the qualification of NET/ SLET and if any candidate has been appointed without aforesaid qualification then he should possess qualification within two years. I find the circular of the UGC to be not applicable for the selection initiated in the year 1993 i.e. much before requirement of NET/ SLET for appointment as Lecturer in Computer Applications and Electronic Sciences. Petitioners are otherwise continuing in service pursuant to the interim order passed by this court. In totality of facts, impugned order/ notice issued by the respondents cannot be allowed to sustain in regard to the recruitment held in the year 1993 though appointment was made in the month of January,1996, containing no condition to pass NET/ SLET thus circular of the UGC has prospective application, thereby, any advertisement made after the circular can be governed by the conditions given therein and not for the advertisement issued prior to it.
In the result, writ petitions are allowed and impugned order/ notice directing the petitioners to pass out NET/ SLET qualification is quashed and set aside.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW