Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.(Smt.) Samta Jain vs M.P. Public Service Commission on 25 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 153
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 8543 of 2011
Parties Name Dr. (Smt.) Samta Jain
Vs.
M.P. Public Service Commission and others
Bench Constituted Singble Bench
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat.
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma,
Advocate.
For respondent No.1: Shri Anshul Tiwari,
Advocate.
For respondent No.2: Shri Rohit Sohgaura, Government Advocate.
Law laid down Significant paragraph numbers (O R D E R) 25.02.2020
1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 03.02.2011, contained in Annexure P/4, with a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit her to appear in the interview and she be given appointment on the post of Professor Economics. Vide impugned order dated 03.02.2011, application filed by the petitioner for her appointment as Professor Economics was rejected.
2. In brief, the case of petitioner is that she has obtained Doctorate of Philosophy on 19.01.2000 and she passed National Eligibility Test conducted by UGC in the year 1999. M.P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 19.01.2009 for appointment on the post of Professors in 23 subjects. Petitioner applied for the post of Professor in Economics subject. The last date for submission of application form was 20.02.2009. The eligibility, which was required for the post of Professor was Ph.D. in relevant subject with 10 years' experience of teaching to graduate and post graduate classes. Petitioner received a letter contained in Annexure P/4 dated 03.02.2011 that she is not having experience as advertised, therefore, her application was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner applied under R.T.I. and she was given information that she had teaching experience of Mata Gujri Women College, Jabalpur and said college is not included in Government Aided Institutions. As per the guidelines issued by the Department of Higher Education, experience of Government College or College receiving grant in aid from State or University can be counted for experience. Petitioner being aggrieved by rejection of her application form has filed the present writ petition.
3. Respondent No.1/M.P.P.S.C. filed its reply and stated that as per guidelines of Higher Education Department, experience of only Government Colleges, Government Aided Colleges and University teaching department has been recognized. Petitioner was not having 10 years' experience from aforesaid institutions, therefore, her experience was not counted and her application was rejected. State Government vide its communication dated 27.10.2009 has clearly stated that teaching experience of only those candidates will be counted, who had worked in Government Colleges or in Government Aided Colleges. Copy of the communication dated 27.10.2009 has been filed as Annexure R/1.
4. Respondent No.2/State Government also filed its reply and relied on circular 29th April, 2010. In this circular, it has been stated that candidates who had worked as contract teachers, guest faculty and part time teachers, their experience will not be taken into account and who had worked in Government Colleges of Government Aided Institutions or in Universities, only their experience will be counted. It is further stated that application form of petitioner has rightly been rejected. Respondent No.1 has also submitted in its return that essential qualification for appointment to the post of Professor is Ph.D. in the particular subject. The petitioner does not have Ph.D. in Economics, hence, she is lacking essential qualification and her application has rightly been rejected. It was averred that petitioner had done her Ph.D. is Tribal Studies in Social Science faculty, which is evident from Annexure P/2, dated 19.01.2000. In view of above, petitioner did not hold Ph.D. in the particular subject i.e. Economics and her application was rightly rejected on this count.
5. In such circumstances, only two questions arise for determination in this writ petition: (1) Whether petitioner was having eligibility i.e. Doctorate Degree in Economics? And (2) Whether the petitioner has 10 years' experience or not?
6. Petitioner has filed UGC Regulation on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, contained in Annexure P/9, dated 30th June, 2010, wherein in Clause 4.1.0.A.(i), it is mentioned that an eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers, is eligible for appointment.
7. It was submitted by the petitioner that petitioner has Ph.D. qualification in allied subject and relevant discipline. It was further submitted that similarly situated candidate in the same examination, who had done Ph.D. in Social Science has been selected as Professor of Economic and petitioner has been discriminated. Further, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Rani Durgawati University has issued a certificate, annexed as Annexure P/22, that Doctorate Degree of petitioner is Interdisciplinary and she had passed post graduate examination in Economics, therefore, the degree of petitioner is recognized for Economics subject. Rani Durgawati University has also appointed the petitioner as guide in Economics subject for the candidates doing Ph.D. and many candidates are doing their Post Doctorate Degree under the petitioner.
8. Though, to decide the fact whether the petitioner is having a particular degree, i.e. eligibility qualification, is to be left to be decided by an expert, but in this case, expert bodies like UGC as well as Rani Durgawati University have specifically stated that petitioner's Degree of Doctorate is recognized for the purpose of Economics subject and moreover, the petitioner herself is a guide to students, who are doing their Doctorate and research work. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was not having qualification of Doctorate Degree for making an application for appointment to the post of Professor in Economics subject.
9. The second question, which is to be considered, is whether the petitioner is having requisite experience of 10 years' of teaching to graduate and post graduate students or not.
10. Petitioner had obtained her Ph.D. in 1999-2000. The experience, which was obtained by the petitioner in Chitransh A.D.P.G. College, Bhopal w.e.f. 1st July, 1997 to 30th June, 1999 is obtained in a private college, that too, in a period when she was doing her Ph.D., therefore, such experience could not be counted. Her experience of Ojaswini Institute, Damoh was between 1 st July, 2001 to 30th June, 2002 also could not be counted. Petitioner has five months' teaching experience in Government P.G. College i.e. w.e.f. 07.04.1999 to 12.09.1999, and in Rani Durgawati College, Damoh she has teaching experience w.e.f. 1 st July, 2000 to 30th June, 2001 i.e. total for a period of 1 year.
11. Petitioner has submitted that circular filed as Annexure R/1 dated 29.04.2010 will not come in her way because she has earned experience in Mata Gujri College as a regular appointee. In the circular dated 29.04.2010, the experience of contract, guest teachers and part time teachers in non-Government College is not to be considered. Petitioner has worked in a regular appointment, therefore, her experience should be considered for appointment on the post of Professor Economics.
12. It is settled principle of law that experience which has been acquired after obtaining the eligibility qualification i.e. Doctorate Degree is to be counted. Petitioner has obtained Ph.D. Degree on 19.01.2000 and she was employed in Mata Gujri College on 01.07.2002. She had acquired experience of about 7 years, 7 months and 20 days of teaching in Mata Gujri College. She has experience of 1 year, in Rani Durgawati College, Damoh. Her experience in Ojaswini College between 01.07.2001 to 30.06.2002 will not be counted. As such, the total experience of petitioner, which is 8 years, 7 months and 20 days, cannot be said to be sufficient experience required for the post.
13. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is an outstanding scholar, which is also an eligibility for consideration for appointment to the post of Professor of Economics subject. It has been submitted that petitioner is an outstanding scholar, who had contributed to knowledge, therefore, respondents had committed an error in rejecting the application of petitioner.
14. Whether the petitioner is an outstanding scholar and contributed to the field of knowledge is to be decided by an expert. This Court is not an expert to decide the said issue.
15. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 4086/2011 (Dr. Mrs. Ankita Bohare vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and another), in December, 2014. In that case, Dr. (Mrs.) Ankita Bohare received communications dated 27.1.2011 and 21.02.2011 that her candidature was rejected due to not having requisite teaching experience or having teaching experience of private college. By way of interim order, petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination and she came out successful in the process of selection and as per interim order of the Court, she was also appointed provisionally subject to final outcome of the writ petition. Respondent had filed reply that Ankita Bohare was not having requisite minimum experience of teaching. In additional return, it was clarified that UGC has issued a letter to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department dated 29.08.2009, that no criteria has been fixed or laid down by UGC that who may be an outstanding scholar and it should be decided by the Universities considering the cases of each individuals. State Government has not filed reply to the amended pleadings. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that she was rightly selected by M.P.P.S.C. Application was made in the writ petition that petitioner is an eminent scholar in the subject and has made major research projects in capacity of Principal Investigator. M.P.P.S.C., in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Ankita Bohare, after examining the eligibility of the petitioner found her suitable for selection and placed her in the merit list. Her order of appointment was issued by the State Government and Selection Committee of M.P.P.S.C. appointed the petitioner without raising any objection. Further, said description find support from their return in para 5.5. relating to eminent scholar/outstanding scholar had not been denied. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Ankita Bohare, considering her to be the eminent scholar.
16. In the present case also, by an interim order, petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process. In the selection process, petitioner stood qualified. Petitioner is an outstanding scholar in Economics subject. The case of petitioner is identical to the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Ankita Bohare. In case of Dr. (Mrs.) Ankita Bohare, she was at Sr. No.5 in the merit list and her name was recommended by the M.P.P.S.C. and she was also appointed on the said post and was terminated later on.
17. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off with a direction that if M.P.P.S.C. has recommended the name of petitioner as qualified and her name is in the merit list, then her case may be considered for giving her appointment on the post of Professor Economics, if the post of Professor Economics is available as on today. This order will not have any effect on the respondent No.4, as he has not been heard in the matter and notices were not served upon him.
18. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed off.
(Vishal Dhagat)
Judge
vkt
VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
KUMAR
PRADESH, postalCode=482002, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=c3a773822dd60058372dba984a8
595fa556ca32c10ef613cc76f9f59c60d4d85,
TIWARI cn=VINOD KUMAR TIWARI
Date: 2020.02.25 16:30:58 +05'30'