Himachal Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar vs Institute Of Hotel Management & Another on 21 April, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA .
CWP No. 4721 of 2014
Reserved on: 8.4.2016
Decided on : 21-04-2016
Raj Kumar .....Petitioner.
of
Versus
Institute of Hotel Management & another ....Respondents.
Coram:
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1yes.
For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Komal Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Sureshwar Thakur, J The petitioner through the instant writ petition has sought a direction being rendered by this Court to the respondents qua:-
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP
...2...
(a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to .
consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Lecturer for the selection process, which has to be instituted in pursuance to the advertisement notice, Annexure P-2.
(b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to of consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Assistant Lecturer in pursuance to the instructions rt issued by the University Grants Commission by relaxing the education standard by 5%."
2. An advertisement notice appended as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition stood published whereby applications stood invited from the eligible aspirants for filling up the posts as delineated therein. In response thereto the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Lecturer against the scheduled caste category. The educational qualifications prescribed/enjoined to be possessed by the petitioner for rendering him eligible for his being considered for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Lecturer stands extracted hereinafter.
"Full time bachelor degree in hospitality and hotel administration/hotel management after 10+2, from a recognized University and full time Masters degree in hospitality and hotel ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP ...3...
administration/hotel management secured not less than 60% in .
aggregate either in bachelor or Masters degree; or full time degree in hospitality and hotel administration/hotel management after 10+2 from a recognized University securing not less than 60% marks in aggregate with at lest two years industry experience."
of
3. The afore-extracted enjoined educational qualifications imperatively to be possessed by an aspirant for eligiblising him to rt stake a claim for his being considered for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Lecturer apart from other qualifications as stand ordained therein mandate his possessing the un-relaxable criterion of his holding not less than 60% marks in aggregate either in Bachelor or Masters degree.
4. The educational qualifications prescribed/enjoined to be possessed by the petitioner for rendering him eligible for his being considered for selection and consequent appointment to the post of Assistant Lecturer stood not accomplished by the petitioner entailing the consequence of his hence standing declared ineligible for participating in the selection process initiated by the respondents concerned for considering his candidature for selection and consequent appointment against the post concerned.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP...4...
5. On the anvil of instructions issued by the Union of India .
and the University Grants Commission, the petitioner stakes a claim for the affording to him the benefit of upto 5% relaxation in good academic record. However the relief as canvassed by him of his of standing entitled to hence avail the benefit of relaxation upto 5% in good academic record up to graduation level stood denied to him by rt the respondents.
6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has with vehemence contended qua rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for his being considered for selection and appointment against the post of Assistant Lecturer, his not possessing the requisite educational qualifications mandated in the afore-extracted portion of the apposite norms, is an outcome or an offshoot of the respondents concerned not affording to the petitioner the benefit of relaxation upto 5% in good academic record up to graduation level which benefit in case stood bestowed upon him would have rendered him eligible for participating in the selection process initiated by the respondents concerned for considering him for selection and appointment against the post of Assistant Lecturer .
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP...5...
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in espousing qua .
the respondents concerned untenably declining to the petitioner the benefit of relaxation upto 5% in good academic record upto graduation level has relied upon Annexure P-J and Annexures P-7 of and P-8 comprising communications issued by the University Grants Commission to all universities for considering the purveying of the rt benefit upto 5% relaxation in good academic record up to graduation level for SC and ST candidates aspiring for appointment to the post of Assistant Lecturer or an equivalent post in Universities and Colleges. Reliance thereupon placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived rather founders in the face of the reply furnished by the respondents concerned of the institute concerned whereat the post of Assistant Lecturer in the category of SC & ST stood advertised to be filled up, standing affiliated to Institute of Hotel Management catering Technology and Applied Nutrition (IHM) which is an entity distinct in character and status vis-à-vis institutions affiliated to the University Grants Commission qua upon alone the communications comprised therein enjoined adherence besides when it stands pointedly averred in the reply furnished by the respondents concerned of the Institute concerned not falling within ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP ...6...
the purview of UGC, factum whereof stands un-repulsed by any .
cogent material standing adduced at the instance of the petitioner herein, concomitantly begets an inference of the enunciations in Annexure P-J and Annexures P-7 and P-8 not enjoining any of reverence by the respondents concerned.
8. In sequel, the act of the respondents concerned not rt affording to the petitioner herein the benefit of upto 5% relaxation in good academic record up to graduation level, on benefit whereof standing afforded to the petitioner he would stand rendered eligible to participate in the selection process initiated by the respondents concerned for his being considered for selection and consequent appointment to the post concerned, is not devoid of any tenability.
9. Be that as it may even though Annexure P-8 is a communication emanating from the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, Ministry whereof holds some administrative control over the respondents concerned meteing therein a direction to the apposite quarters to for improving the career advancement prospects of the teaching faculty of IHMs under its control it/they in conjunction with Annexures appended therewith adopt on approval standing accorded by the Board of Governors, the apposite R&P ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP ...7...
Rules 2003 qua educational besides other qualifications to be .
possessed by aspirants for eligibliising them to participate in the process of recruitment and promotion to various posts borne on the establishment of the institute concerned. However no legal of capitalization can thereupon stand drawn by the petitioner especially when no material exists on record of communications comprised in rt Annexure P-8 accompanied by Annexures, standing implemented at the instance of the respondents concerned or the amendments comprised in the Annexure appended therewith standing adopted by the Board of Governors of the respondents concerned for their incorporation in the apposite R&P Rules. Consequently, for reiteration, any reliance upon Annexure P-8 by the counsel for the petitioner upon Annexure P-8 with a purported mandate therein of the benefit of relaxation upto 5% in good academic record up to graduation level being purvey-able to the petitioner for begetting its ensuing beneficent effect qua the petitioner, for hence rendering him eligible to participate in the selection process as stands initiated by the respondents concerned for selection and appointment to the coveted post of Assistant Lecturer, is of no avail to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP...8...
10. Further more, even a perusal of Annexures appended .
with Annexure P-8 do not on their incisive reading carry forward the espousal of the petitioner of theirs embodying therein any mandate to the respondents concerned to afford to the petitioner the benefit of of upto 5% relaxation in good academic record up to graduation level.
11. In aftermath, the propagation by the learned counsel for rt the petitioner of the candidature of the petitioner standing unwarrantedly rejected by the respondents concerned even though, he stood entitled to the benefit of 5% relaxation in good academic record upto graduation level is devoid of any legal force.
12. The summom bonum of the above discussion is of with the petitioner not possessing the enjoined educational qualification of his securing 60% aggregate marks up to graduation level tenably constrained the respondents concerned to reject his candidature.
13. Be that as it may during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner instituted an application for amendment of the writ petition canvassing therein the ground, of the interviewing committee constituted by the respondents concerned for interviewing the petitioner in a walk-in-interview conducted by it, for his being considered for selection and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP ...9...
consequent appointment, rejecting his candidature on the ground of .
his misbehaving with the members of the interviewing board concerned. The factum stands borne out by the apposite record produced before this Court. However, the concert of the petitioner of to incorporate the aforesaid facet as a ground for assailing the rejection of his candidature by the interviewing board constituted by rt the respondents concerned for subjecting him to a viva-voce in a walk-in-interview conducted by the interviewing board for gauging the suitability of his candidature for selection to the post of Assistant Lecturer falters as the ground aforesaid constraining the Interviewing Board concerned to reject his candidature stands embodied in a selection process which is in departure to besides in gross contradiction to the selection process as stood initiated under Annexure P-2 by the respondents concerned for considering the candidature of the competing aspirants for selection and consequent appointment against the post of Assistant Lecturer, in as much, as the walk-in-interview in which the petitioner participated and his candidature stood rejected on the score of his misbehaving with a member of the interviewing board, standing conducted for filling up a contradistinct post of guest faculty. The stark distinctivity in the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP ...10...
process initiated by the respondents concerned to select a suitable .
candidate amongst the competing aspirants as a guest faculty through a walk-in-interview vis-à-vis the selection process initiated by the respondents concerned under Annexure P-2 wherein the aspiration of of the petitioner to participate therein stood frustrated or baulked by the respondents concerned on the anvil of his not satiating the enjoined rt educational qualifications, does constrain this Court to hence discountenance the endeavor of the petitioner by seeking leave of the Court incorporate variant facts verging upon a selection process holding no connectivity with the apposite one held by the respondents concerned. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge.
21st April, 2016 ( Sureshwar Thakur ),
(priti) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:09:18 :::HCHP