Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel further contended that there are various communications in the form of clarification issued by UGC, KUK, MD University, Rohtak CDLU, Sirsa as well as State Government which are categoric on the subject. Thus, matter stands settled beyond iota of doubt still learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon a clarification of UGC which is not even remotely connected with the issue involved. Contention of the respondent (Reena)

5. Learned counsel for respondent supporting findings of learned Single Judge pointed that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra) is founded upon fraud committed by petitioners therein. There was connivance between University and candidates and accordingly forged documents in the form of communication dated 5.3.1992 was placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which passed judgment relying upon the aforesaid communication. The UGC was directed by this court to clarify its position qua letter dated 5.3.1992, however, UGC has filed its affidavit which is nothing more than an eye wash and attempt to mislead this Court. The advertisement was unambiguous and the candidate having Master's Degree in Public Administration cannot be treated at par 5 of 26 LPA-982 of 2017 (O&M) -6- with a candidate having Master's Degree in Political Science. If the intention of University was to treat Master's Degree in Political Science and Public Administration at par, there was nothing which prevented University to clarify in the advertisement that candidates having Master's Degree in Public Administration can also apply like candidates having Master's Degree in Political Science. The University had no authority to change rules midway i.e. after advertisement till the completion of selection process. However, University with intent to favour appellant has ignored the writ petitioners who were holding Master's Degree in Political Science and issued appointment letter in favour of the appellant. The nominee of Vice Chancellor was expert of the subject and he specifically expressed his reservation, still appointment letter was issued to the appellant. The advertisement was just like a piece of delegated legislation and its content especially basic qualification could not be changed by letters or communications or circulars. The essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement was sacrosanct and it could not be changed by way of communication between two authorities. The instructions issued by UGC and relied upon by learned Single Judge are certainly applicable and these instructions were issued after taking note of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra). The UGC while conducting NET assigns different Codes to different subjects and Code No. 2 has been assigned to Political Science and 14 to Public Administration.

Conclusion:

12.5 In view of the above cited judgments, regulations and letters of different authorities, we are of the considered opinion that it was well within domain of appointing authority to appoint appellant as Lecturer in Political Science, though he was holding Master's Degree in Public Administration.

The question is answered in favour of the appellant. Question No. (ii)Whether appointment of appellant amounts to change of rules after publication of advertisement?

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that appointment of appellant amounts to change of rules of advertisement. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University and others 2009 (4) SCC 555, the respondent-university was debarred from making appointment of appellant because as per advertisement, candidates having degree in Political Science were eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The appointment 21 of 26 LPA-982 of 2017 (O&M) -22- of appellant amounts to change of rules and it is settled proposition of law that after advertisement and till the conclusion of selection process, the rules prescribing essential qualification cannot be changed. The selection authority to complete the process of appointment can change rules which do not prejudice anyone. The change in rules must be inevitable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) held that rules midstream cannot be changed. The Hon'ble Court was dealing with a case where post advertised was Lecturer in Chemistry whereas a person belonging to Industrial Chemistry was appointed. The Court found that the post was meant for candidates having degree in pure Chemistry and candidates having degree in Industrial Chemistry could not be appointed. Findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court read as:-

22 of 26 LPA-982 of 2017 (O&M) -23- Lecturer Chemistry, for pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different subjects."

12.6 We are at one with learned counsel for respondent when he contends that the rules after advertisement till completion of selection process cannot be altered. In the case in hand, the Appointing Authority has not altered the rules whereas Appointing Authority has considered and implemented mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra) and various instructions issued by Government, UGC and different universities. Thus, it would be hypothetical and contrary to mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court if it is concluded that the respondent University has altered midway the rules regarding eligibility for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. As observed earlier, there is lapse on the part of respondent University while drafting advertisement because there was nothing which prevented the Appointing Authority to clear that candidates having Master's Degree in Public Administration are equally competent to apply for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. Though, there is lapse on the part of the respondent University, nonetheless, we find ourselves unable to hold and conclude that act of Appointing Authority amounted to change of rules prior to completion of selection process. We are not oblivious of the fact that there were seven candidates out of 15, who were holding Master's Degree in Public Administration. The ratio of candidates having Master's Degree in Public Administration is substantial in comparison to total candidates. Had one out of 15 or in the form of percentage less than 10% candidates having Master's Degree in Public Administration applied, we could think otherwise. However, percentage of candidates having Master's Degree in Public Administration is almost 50%, thus it cannot be held that 23 of 26 LPA-982 of 2017 (O&M) -24- there is prejudice to respondent-Reena. The rules though midway cannot be altered yet if there is no prejudice to a candidate who is one of the aspirants cannot claim that rules have been altered. The respondent was having degree in Political Science and she had participated in the selection process, thus, she cannot claim that rules were altered to her prejudice. Conclusion:

In view of the above findings, we are of the considered opinion that there was no change in rules after advertisement and prior to completion of selection process. The authorities have simply implemented judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well regulations/instructions of UGC and different instructions issued by State Government as well different universities. Accordingly, question is answered in negative and argument of respondent-Reena is turned down.
Question No.3: Whether it would be just and fair to quash appointment of appellant?