Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Writ Petition (S) No. 5201 of 2014 is dismissed with regard to Petitioners 1,2,10,11,13 and 14 as covered by the pronouncement in (2015) AIR SCW 2769 (P. Suseela v. University Grants Commission).

3. Rule 8, Schedule III of the Recruitment Rules prescribed the essential eligibility as a "good academic record" with at least 55% marks or Grade of "B" in the 7 point grading system obtained at the Master's degree level in the relevant subject or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University. Besides the above the candidate was also required to have passed the NET/SLET examination. The 'Note' in the advertisement defined "good academic record"

8. The requirement for passing of NET/SLET examination was the result of a well thought and considered decision making process by experts. Opining that standards in Universities were not uniform, and to ensure appointment of quality teachers only, NET/SLET was devised to have a standardized procedure for selection all over the country and ensure that persons with a basic minimum standard only were appointed. The experts who devised these norms including the R. C. Mehrotra Committee did not consider it necessary to lay down any further requirement of minimum marks at the Higher Secondary and Under Graduate Levels. The laying down of such criteria was a superimposition over the recommendations of the experts. Testing proficiency level of 55% at the Post Graduate Level coupled with the requirement for preparation of research papers etc. as part of the course was sufficient to test the capacity of the person for shouldering higher responsibilities of teaching and there was no relevance at all in going back to the High School or Under Graduation Level to test such proficiency. Reliance was placed on AIR 1995 SC 336 (University of Delhi v. Raj Singh ) for the recommendations of the R.C.Mehrotra Committee as follows:-

29. It is difficult to accept that all those who may have passed Higher Secondary and Under Graduate examination constitute one class of eligible persons to be considered for appointment and that no classification is permissible amongst them on basis of marks under Article 14 of the Constitution. A classification based on marks incorporates intelligible criteria and has a direct nexus for appointment of quality teachers assessed on academic performance. Likewise, we find it extremely difficult to hold that if a candidate has secured 55% marks at the Post Graduate level and has passed NET/SLET, whether the candidate had a good academic record at the Higher Secondary and Under Graduate level is irrelevant. The cumulative assessment sought to be done by the Respondents to assess the capability and suitability based on overall performance of an aspirant for the post of Assistant Professor cannot be called an irrelevant, irrational or illogical exercise. If the academicians and experts did not consider passing of NET/SLET examination as sufficient for appointment and sought a "good academic record", even if the candidate succeeded in the selection process, the Court cannot substitute its views in the garb of judicial review to prescribe qualifications for appointment. In D.S.Nakara (supra) relied upon by the Petitioners it was observed :-

31. A similar question arose for consideration before a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in a batch of appeals led by (DB) Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 532 of 2002 - RPSC Ajmer v. Smt. Pushpa Panwar) disposed on 8.4.2010. (Coram: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Jagdish Bhalla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari). The advertisement published by Rajasthan Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in various subjects under the College Education Department required the candidates to have minimum 55% marks at the Post Graduate level, passed NET/SLET examination with a "good academic record" which was defined as minimum second class in Under Graduation. The Respondents did not secure second division marks in Graduation and were consequently rejected. It was similarly urged that they possessed all other essential qualifications for appointment like Post Graduation with minimum 55%, had cleared NET/SLET and rejection merely on the ground of not having second class in Under Graduation was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Learned Single Judge held that when a person steps further or acquires a higher qualification, the lower qualification loses its importance and rejection of the candidature with reference to Graduation marks was palpably arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more so when they had also passed NET/SLET observing as follows :-