Orissa High Court
Premananda Mohapatra vs Vice-Chancellor Ravenshaw University ... on 20 April, 2016
Author: A.K.Rath
Bench: A.K.Rath
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
WP(C) No.5441 of 2016
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
-----------
Premananda Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Versus
Vice-Chancellor, Ravenshaw University,
Cuttack & another .... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner ... Mr.Umakant Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties ... Mr.Pratap Chandra Mishra,
Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing: 04.04.2016 : Date of judgment: 20.04.2016
Dr. A.K.Rath, J In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed, inter
alia, for issuance of writ of mandamus to the Vice-Chancellor,
Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, opposite party no.1, to allow him to
participate in the interview for the post of Professor in Odia.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is
that Ravenshaw University issued an advertisement on 29.1.2016,
vide Annexure-5, to fill up various posts in the University. The
petitioner, who is a Reader in Odia and otherwise eligible, applied for
the post of Professor in Odia. It is stated that he has a brilliant
academic record. He was a Reader in Ravenshaw University from
17.11.2012to 16.11.2015. He made significant contribution to the Odia Literature. He has published various research books. He has been awarded prestigious "Odisha Sahitya Academy Award" in the 2 year 2009. He has delivered lecture in different colleges organized by U.G.C. At present, he is prosecuting the research project funded by U.G.C. Eleven candidates have been awarded M.Phil under his guidance. Eight scholars are prosecuting their Ph.D under him. He is a member of the Odia Bhasa Pratisthan. But then he was not called for the interview.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. It is stated that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner has applied for the post of Professor in Odia. Along with his application, he has submitted a calculation sheet of his "Academic Performance Indicator" (API) score. As per his own calculation, he has secured 364.87 points, whereas eligible requirement is 400 points. Thus he is not eligible for the post of Professor. In view of the same, he has not been called for the interview. It is further stated that as per Appendix-III Table II(c) of UGC Guidelines, 2010, the minimum requirement of API score for the post of Professor is 400 points. Since the petitioner secured less than 400 points, he is not eligible for the post of Professor in Odia.
4. Heard Mr. Umakant Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pratap Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
5. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has a brilliant academic record. He is eligible for the post of Professor in Odia, but then the opposite parties committed a manifest illegality in not issuing call letter to him to attend the interview.
6. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Professor in Odia and, as such, he has not been called for the interview. He further submitted that as per Appendix-III Table II(c) of 3 UGC Guidelines, 2010, the minimum requirement of API score for the post of Professor is 400 points. Since the petitioner secured less than 400 points, he was not eligible for the post of Professor.
7. The Parliament has enacted the University Grants Commission Act. First para of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short "the UGC Act") is illustrative and the same quoted hereunder:
"The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to 'co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions'. It is obvious that neither co-ordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central Government has some voice in the determination of standards of teaching and examination in Universities, both old and new. It is also necessary to ensure that the available resources are utilized to the best possible effect. The problem has become more acute recently on account of the tendency to multiply Universities. The need for a properly constituted Commission for determining and allocating to Universities funds made available by the Central Government has also become more urgent on this account."
In the second para it is stated that the Commission will also have the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the reform and improvement of University education and to advise the University concerned upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation. The Commission will act as an expert body to advise the Central Government on problems connected with the co- ordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities.
8. The preamble of the UGC Act proclaims:
"An Act to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to establish a University Grants Commission."
9. The University Grants Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, frames the Regulations, namely, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). The said Regulation was amended in 2013. Appendix-III Table-II(c) of the amended Regulation provides for minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment of teachers in university departments/Colleges, Librarian/Physical Education cadres in Universities/Colleges, and weightages in Selection Committees to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the Regulation. It postulates the consolidated API score of 400 points from category III of APIs.
10. The question does arise whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to appear at the interview when the Regulation provides minimum API score 400 points and the petitioner secured 364.87 points. ?
11. In A.P Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1986 SC 1490, the Supreme Court held that direction cannot be issued to the University in transgression of the provisions and the regulations of the University. No direction can be issued to disobey the statute, to which it owes its existence, and the regulations made by the University. Any direction by the Court to disobey the law would be destructive of the rule of law.
12. Thus the writ of mandamus can not be issued to the statutory authority to compel it not to perform its statutory obligation. No mandamus can be issued to the University to disobey the UGC guidelines.
513. Judging the case from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the writ application, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. No costs.
.............................
DR. A.K.RATH, J Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 20th April, 2016/Pradeep