Patna High Court - Orders
Smita Kumari vs Rajendra Agricultural Universi on 5 September, 2011
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12019 of 2009
Smita Kumari D/o Sri Balmiki Singh R/o village- Maranchi PS-
Moranchi Distt- Patna -----------------Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajendra Agricultural University PUSA, Distt.- Samastipur through
its Registrar
2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Distt-
Samastipur
3. The Office-in-charge Recruitment, R.A. University Pusa, Distt.-
Samastipur
4. Sangita Kumar D/o Sri Shiv Charan Prasad, R/o village- Kaler,
Distt.- Arwal, Presently posted as Subject Matter Specialist in Home
Science under faculty of Home Science Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Seed
Multiplication farm, Lakhisarai, PS- Lakhisarai , Distt- Lakhisarai
5. Suneeta Paswan W/o Kumar Sanjeev R/o vill.- Akha, PO-
S.S.Barari, Distt- Begusarai, Presently posted as Subject Matter Specialist
in Home Science under faculty of Home Science, Krishi Vigyan Kendra
Agwanpur. PO- & PS- Agwanpur, Distt- Saharsa
6. Dr. (Mrs) Karuna Kumari D/o Dr. Sahjanand Ray R/o vill- Sahuri,
PO- Saidpur, Distt- Samastipur. Presently posted as Subject Matter
Specialist in Home Science under Faculty of Home Science, Krishi
Vigyan Kendra, Sirish Agricultural Farm, PO & PS- Sirish, Distt.-
Aurangabad.
7. Seema Pradhan D/o Shree Rajendra Pd. Singh, R/o Shanti Nagar,
Cotton factory Road, Po & PS- Sitamarhi, Distt- Sitamarhi, presently
posted as Subject Matter- Specialist in Home Science under faculty of
Home Science, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Raghopur farm, Po & PS- Supaul,
Distt.- Supaul
8. Kavita Dalmia D/o Shri Kailash Pati Dalmia R/o Durga Niwas,
Block Road, PO & PS- Rosera, Distt- Samastipur presently posted as
Subject Matter Specialist in Home Science, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Arwal,
Lodhipur Farm Sarvarpur Via Ushri (Arwal) PO & PS- Arwal, Distt-
Jehanabad
9. Nutan Kumari D/o Sheo Narayan Roy, R/o Aghoria Bazar, behind
Central Bank Muzaffarpur presently posted as Subject Matter- Specialist
in Home Science under faculty of Home Science, Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
PO & PS- Madhepura, Distt- Madhepura
10. Veena Kumari D/o Ambika Pd. R/o Chandpur Bela near Shiv
Mandir, Doopulwa Patna, presently posted as Subject Matter-Specialist in
Home Science under faculty of Home Science, Krishi Vigyan Kendra
Jalagarh, PO & PS- Jalalgarh Distt- Purnea
11. Sunita Kumari D/o Gyan Chand Choudhary ,R/o Mohalla- Zallo
Shaheed PS & PO- Sasaram, Distt- Rohtas, presently posted as Subject
Matter-Specialist in Home Science under faculty of Home Science at
Krishi Vigyan Kendra Araria, PO &PS- Araria, Distt- Araria
12. Sandhya Kumari D/o Devi Dayal Ram, R/o 1F. Chitra Complex
Nandanpuri Ambedkar, PO- Khazpura, Patna, presently posted as Subject
Matter-Specialist in Home Science under faculty of Home Science Krishi
Vigyan Kendra, PO & PS- Sheohar, Distt- Sheohar
13. Archana Kumari D/o Banarsi Mahto R/o vill- Lagar Distt-
Khagaria, presently posted as Subject Matter Specialist in Home Science,
under faculty of Home Science, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Agricultural Farm
2
PO & PS- Manjhi, Distt- Saran----------------------Respondents .
----------------------------------
With
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12572 of 2009
1. Mahnaz Fatma D/o S. Quiser Hussain, R/o Tahir Lane Road No.
16, Gardanibagh PS & PS- Gardanibagh, Distt- Patna
2. Priyanka Kumari D/o Sheo Kumar, R/o Azad Nagar Road No.2,
Kankarbagh, PO & PS- Kankarbagh, Distt. -Patna--------Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajendra Agricultural University PUSA Distt.- Samastpur
through its Registrar & 9 (nine) others ( as mentioned more or less in
CWJC No. 12019 of 2009)--------------------------Respondents
With
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3622 of 2011
Sweta Prasad D/o Dr. Rajendra Prasad W/o Dr. Krishna Prasad R/o Maa
Shardey Complex, Flat No. 304, East Boring Canal Road, PS-
Srikrishnapuri Distt.- Patna---------------------------Petitioner
Versus
1. Rejendra Agricultural University, PUSA, Distt.- Samastipur through its
Registrar and 3 ( three) others ( as mentioned at serial nos. 2 to 3 and 13
in CWJC No. 12019 of 2009)--------------------------------Respondents
----------------------------------
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.R.P. Singh, Advocate &
Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the University: Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For Respondents 4,5,7,8,9,11 & 13: Mr. M.N.Parbat, Advocate
For Respondent 10: Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate
--------------
7 5.9.2011In all the three writ applications petitioners have a common grievance against the respondent authority i.e. Rajendra Agricultural University Pusa (hereinafter refereed to as the University). They contend that the selection made of private respondents as subject matter specialist in Home Science pursuant to Advertisement No. 3/08/RAU dated 4.4. 2008 is not only in total breach of the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement but also large scale illegalities have been resorted to in the selection process by accommodating people who did not have the requisite qualification and eligibility. They have given a go to the fair play, for extraneous reasons. They therefore want quashing of appointments so 3 made as well initiate a fresh process of appointment by appointing the petitioners against the vacancies so caused.
There was also a prayer in the writ application for issuance of direction upon the respondents‟ authority to produce the relevant records relating to said dispute to verify the actual state of affairs with regard to selection as according to them the records itself speak the truth.
The Court directed for production of the records and these records have been tendered by learned counsel for the University. Not only the Court but even learned counsel for the parties have gone through the records.
Though the selected candidate have been arrayed as private respondent nos. 4 to 13 but after going through the records learned counsel for the petitioners decided to give up their claim against respondent nos. 4,5 and 6 on the ground that they did have the requisite qualification and eligibility to be appointed on the post. The attack or relief is therefore are confined to respondent nos. 7 to 13.
The advertisement in question issued by the respondent University is annexure-5 to the writ application. This lays down the vacancies which was available for various faculties. Both the writ applications are however is confined to appointment to Home Science. The requirement in terms of qualification as indicated in the said advertisement is quoted herein below:
Qualification:
Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F or equivalent grade in other scales such as 4/5/10 at the Masters degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian 4 University or as equivalent degree from a Foreign University In addition the candidates must possess respective basic Professional Degree at the undergraduate level. Besides, fulfilling the above qualification candidates should have cleared the NET for lecturers conducted by the UGC/CSIR/ASRB or similar test accredited by the UGC.
NET shall be relaxable for a candidate having two years Teaching/ Research/Extension Education Experience in University/ National Institute of repute. Candidates having Master's Degree in the relevant subject but not qualified in the NET will have to pass the NET examination after appointment before completion of three years, failing which their services shall be terminated without notice. This condition will not be applicable to the candidate having Ph. D. degree in the relevant subject.
Ph.D. if available shall be preferred. Knowledge of Computer Application is desirable.
A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the Master's level for SC/ST category. A relaxation of 5% marks may be provided to the Ph. D. degree holders who have passed their Master' degree prior to 19th September, 1991.
The primary thrust of the argument which has been made against the selection of the private respondents is that on scrutiny the respondent authorities have themselves indicated on the application forms the various kinds of infirmities which the said candidate was suffering from which made them ineligible. Further despite such endorsement the selection committee gave a go by to those objections without even recording any minutes for waiver of those objections at any point of time. On close scrutiny of the application forms of private respondents specially private respondents 7 to 13 would show that they did not have the basic professional degree at the undergraduate level. According to leaned counsel representing the petitioners the University in question is a premier university to carry out research in the area of agriculture and other related faculties and the object of appointment of candidates in terms of the vacancies 5 advertised in annxure-5 is to find specialist in their fields who are capable of delivering by setting standard for higher research. Generality of the degree obtained at the undergraduate level from any kind of institution in Home Science would not do. The advertisement itself indicates that the recruitment was for subject matter specialist having proven track and field records from recognised institutions specialising in the area and even having higher qualification in teaching or research because even passing of NET was considered and made an attribute.
The thrust of the argument of the petitioners is that the object behind the recruitment on this post has been lost out by giving openings to all kinds of candidates who had cleared the basic Home Science degree at the undergraduate level from various Universities whose contents of the course so taught does not even match up to the so called teaching imparted at the undergraduate level even by the present university i.e. Rejendra Agriculture University.
It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the advertisement itself indicates the number of posts which are available to various reserved categories in the selection of total 11 number of subjects specialist, the selection committee did not bother to stick to the same because the selection of the candidates were made or accommodated even though they were not applicants under that reserved category. In support thereof a chart has been annexed as annexure-8 along with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in CWJC No. 12019 of 2009. It not only gives a comparative chart and the kind of marks the 6 people had but also indicates that people who had applied in B.C. category were selected against general category. So is the case of S.C. candidates yet another person who applied in EBC category got selected against S.C. seat.
In the same supplementary affidavit the petitioners obtained Xerox copy of the original application forms of the selected candidates under Right to Information Act. The said application forms are annexures 7/A to 7/J. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out to the Court that there is clear endorsement by the University authority on the application forms of specially respondent nos.7 to 12 that they did not have the basic qualification for the post they had applied but yet they came to be selected. Can there be a better example of arbitrariness or lack of fair play in the matter of selection to a public post?
The Court decided to verify the authenticity of annexure-7 series by looking at the original application forms produced by learned counsel for the university. The assertion made in the writ applications and the endorsements on the application forms have been found to be corroborated from the original records.
It is not that those objections have been casually recorded by the university authority at the time of scrutiny. There is basis for making such endorsements when a closer look at the educational qualification of these respondents is made. None of these candidates so selected actually have specialisation in the subject at the undergraduate level. Their degrees cannot be dubbed as „basic professional degree‟ by any standards. They are mere routine kind of 7 degrees obtained in Home Science from a University which offers such courses as a routine. None of them have claim to fame with regard to any specialisation in offering „professional degree‟ at the undergraduate level. Mere acquisition of Home Science degree is not the object of the advertisement or qualification which the university was looking for because the university itself chooses to emphasis the fact that the candidate must possess respective basic professional degree at the undergraduate level. If that condition is read with the rest of the eligibility of the qualification then obviously the university was looking for specialist having specialisation of some professional attribute in the matter of these selections.
Counter affidavit on behalf of the university has been filed where except for putting up all the routine kind of defence that everything has been done by the selection committee in terms of the eligibility and there is nothing wrong with the selection as such.
But the defence which has been put up by the University is rather meek one and falls apart in face of the original records, when it was examined in open Court and so called objections recorded against the candidature of some of the selected candidates by the university authority themselves. The university has obviously filed a wishy-washy counter affidavit to cover up serious omissions on their part in the manner in which the selections had been carried out.
The Court is far from satisfied with the so called explanation offered on behalf of the university in the matters of selections in question. In fact, the Court has no hesitation in recording that an honest and fair position was not indicated by the university in 8 affidavits and if the Court had not summoned the original records of selection then the illegalities as well as ineligibility of most of the candidates so selected specially respondent nos. 7 to 13 would not have emerged. The Court gets a feeling that there was a deliberate effort on the part of the university authority to cover up misdeeds of the selection committee for the reasons best known to them for which negative inference can be drawn by this Court in this regard.
So far as the private respondents are concerned, as the Court has already recorded that there does not seem to be any serious infirmity about eligibility or qualification of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 but in their cases too selections have not been made under the category under which they were applicants or claiming benefit of reservation then even their selections cannot be said to be above board.
As for the rest of the private respondents except respondent no.12, counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. Their explanation given in the counter affidavit is that merely because they had obtained degree from traditional university in Home Science they are in no manner handicapped in shouldering responsibility which they are expected to do, like trainings of tailoring, stitching, food and their preservation, child development and better nutrition to anemic women and children etc. In the opinion of this Court the private respondents are well aware that the degree or syllabus based on which they had obtained their degree in Home Science from what is termed as "Traditional University" by them is not a basic professional degree 9 from the university specialising in the said branch but they want to establish their ability to deliver on the basis of the kind of work which have or can be assigned to them.
With due regard to learned counsel representing the private respondents their appointments have to be seen in terms of the requirements laid down in the advertisement. If they fulfilled the same and if there was no breach of any other kind, then there would not have been an occasion to investigate the matter so deep. But unfortunately for them the Court cannot go by the explanations offered by them. The validity of their appointments cannot be judged on the basis of their capacity to carry out the responsibility thrust upon by the respondents but on requirements and attributes of the advertisement as well as fair play in selection.
Since from the records of selection of these candidates many infirmities in the earlier part of the order has emerged then the whole selection process stands vitiated and the entire selection will have to go. If there has been lack of fair play and if the selection committee had not acted as per the advertisement including the reservation in terms of the advertisement contained in annexure-5, then the Court has no option but to quash all these appointments and give a direction upon the respondents authority to carry out a fresh selection by ensuring that fair selection is made in accordance with the requirements of the advertisement and eligibility so laid down therein.
The appointments of private respondent nos. 4 to 13 on the post of home science specialists to that extent are quashed. 10
Let the university authority take steps forthwith the fill up the vacancies by all eligible candidates who fulfill the requirements. It is however made clear that some of the respondents like respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 who possesses the basic professional qualification and eligibility, have freedom to apply afresh and their candidatures would be considered irrespective of the decision of this Court with regard to earlier selection.
All the three writ applications are allowed with the above direction/observation.
( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) RPS