Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Pursuant to the advertisement issued on 17.10.1992, interviews, which were initially to be held on 10.6.1993, were postponed twice, and were finally held on 23.8.1993. According to the petitioner, on 23.8.1993, the date of interview, he alone was eligible as he was awarded his M.Phil Degree on 12.2.1993, and since the 3rd respondent had not completed his Ph.D. even on the date of the interview, selection of the 3rd respondent was arbitrary and illegal.

7. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, the petitioner's contention that the 3rd respondent was not eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Human Genetics is denied. Allegations of favouritism, nepotism, bias and mala fides are also denied. It is contended that the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent was valid as he was fully eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer. It is stated that the Selection Committee made an objective evaluation and assessment of all the candidates who had appeared for the interview, had considered their qualifications, research and/or teaching experience and academic achievements, had observed their performance in the interview, awarded marks under various heads to each of the candidates and had selected candidates purely on merit. It is stated that the 3rd respondent passed M.Sc in the year 1988 with 57.96% marks, that he was a regular Research Scholar in the University, having joined the Ph.D. Course on 15.9.1991, that the 3rd respondent appeared for pre-Ph.D, (which is equivalent to M.Phil), in the examination conducted in July 1992 and was declared to have passed when the results were announced on 28.8.1993. It is stated that the 3rd respondent submitted his Ph.D. thesis on 15.12.1993 and since the U.G.C. circular letter, dated 10.2.1993, exempted candidates who had secured 55% marks at the Master's Degree level from appearing in the Eligibility Test for Lecturership provided they submit their Ph.D thesis upto 31st December 1993, the 3rd respondent, being eligible, was considered for selection and was appointed as a Lecturer. It is stated that the Vice-Chancellor, by proceedings dated 28.12.1993, accepted the request of the 3rd respondent to permit him to submit his Ph.D. thesis earlier than the prescribed period and that the 3rd respondent had, in fact, submitted his thesis on 15.12.1993 itself. Allegations of fraud are denied. It is stated that the petitioner had joined M.Phil Course in April, 1991, that he submitted his M.Phil dissertation in November, 1992 and that, by proceedings dated 20.1.1993, he was awarded M.Phil. Respondents would contend that since the petitioner did not pass the NET Examination and did not get his M.Phil Degree on or before 31.12.1992, as stipulated by the U.G.C., the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification and as such was not eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer. It is stated that while the Selection Committee did not include the petitioner in the select panel, the 3rd respondent was included in the select panel on the condition that he submitted his thesis before 31.12.1993.

8. The 3rd respondent, in his counter-affidavit, would state that the last date for receipt of applications for the post of Lecturer in Human Genetics, as per the advertisement dated 17.10.1992, was 17.11.1992 and that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer at all. It is stated that the petitioner was one year junior to the 3rd respondent and while the 3rd respondent passed M.Sc in 1989, the petitioner passed his M.Sc in 1990. The 3rd respondent joined the Ph.D. Course on 15.3.1991 and the petitioner joined M.Phil Course in April 1991. It is stated that pre-Ph.D is equal to M.Phil and some of the question papers are also common, that while the petitioner was awarded his M.Phil Degree only 12.2.1993, the 3rd respondent submitted his Ph.D. thesis on 15.12.1993 which was accepted in adjudication. Reference is made to the U.G.C. circular dated 10.2.1993 whereunder exemption was granted, from appearing in the Eligibility Test for Lecturership, to those candidates who would submit their Ph.D. thesis upto 31.12.1993. The 3rd respondent would contend that as he had submitted his Ph.D. thesis on 15.12.1993, well before the stipulated date i.e., 31.12.1993, and his thesis was accepted for adjudication, he was eligible for being selected and appointed to the post of Lecturer, whereas the petitioner was not eligible. The 3rd respondent also denies the allegations of fraud and favouritism. He would submit that pursuant to the orders of the University dated 15.3.1994, appointing him as a Lecturer in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology, he had submitted his joining report and has been working as a Lecturer ever since.

9. While Sri P. Srinivasulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would agree that both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent belong to the Scheduled Castes, he would however contend that the entire exercise in postponing interviews from time to time, in permitting the 3rd respondent to submit his Ph.D. thesis prior to the prescribed date and the selection process itself were tailored only to suit the 3rd respondent and somehow ensure that he was appointed as a Lecturer and since the entire exercise of selection was arbitrary and the action of the respondents mala fide, selection of the 3rd respondent was liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel would submit that the U.G.C. circular dated 10.2.1993 merely provided that those candidates who secured 55% marks at the Masters Degree level may be exempted from appearing in the Lecturership Eligibility Test provided that such candidates would submit their Ph.D thesis before 31st December 1993, and did not enable the respondent-University to select the 3rd respondent inasmuch as the clarification of the University Grants Commission does not relate to appointment of Lecturers and is, in any event, subsequent to the advertisement notification dated 17.10.1992. Learned Counsel would submit that since the advertisement notification dated 17.10.1992, grants exemption only to those candidates, who had already been awarded Ph.D. Degree or those who would be awarded Ph.D. Degree by 31.12.1992, from clearing the Lecturership Eligibility Test, and inasmuch as the 3rd respondent had admittedly, not been awarded his Ph.D. Degree even by 31.12.1993, he was not eligible to be considered for selection to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Human Genetics of the Andhra University. Learned Counsel would submit that the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor dated, 28.12.1993, according permission to the 3rd respondent to submit his thesis earlier than the prescribed period, was not for the purpose of appointment as a Lecturer and did not empower the Selection Committee to treat this as an exemption. Learned Counsel would submit that since the Selection Committee had completed the selection process on 23.8.1993, the subsequent event of the petitioner submitting his thesis by 15.12.1993, should not have been taken into consideration by it. Learned Counsel would seek to place reliance on the report of a foreign examiner to show that even as on the 14th of June there were several discrepancies in the thesis submitted by the 3rd respondent. He would submit that in view of U.G.C circular dated 15.6.1993, the earlier prescription of a candidate being required to pass his M.Phil before 31.3.1991 was no longer valid. Learned Counsel would rely on the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Board of Research Studies, held on 29.12.1992, wherein it was resolved that the date of the last written examination or the date of submission of the successfully adjudicated dissertation, whichever is the latest, should be considered as the effective date of the candidate being qualified for M.Phil. Learned Counsel would also refer to the certificate, issued by the Head of the Department of Human Genetics on 17.12.1993, to the effect that the petitioner had submitted his M.Phil, dissertation on 7.4.1992, had given his seminars on 15.6.1992 and 16.6.1992, that the last paper of the M.Phil Examination was conducted on 10.7.1992, that No Dues Certificates were submitted by him on 24.12.1992 and the results were sent to the Registrar's Office on 26.12.1992 and submit that on a conjoint reading of the minutes of Sub-Committee of the Board of Research Studies dated 29.12.1992, and the letter of the Head of the Department dated 17.12.1993, since the last M.Phil. Examination was held on 10.7.1992 and the dissertation was submitted in June, 1992, either of the dates must be considered as the effective date for a candidate to be qualified for M.Phil and since both these dates were prior to the cut off date of 31.12.1992, the petitioner was fully qualified.

10. Sri P. B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the University, would refer to the counter-affidavit of the U.G.C. wherein it is stated that the U.G.C. has not prescribed any minimum or maximum time limit within which a student has to complete his course or to submit his thesis after appearing for the examination, that the U.G.C. has not laid down any guidelines to determine the minimum period required for submission of thesis after research work, that it is for the University concerned to frame their own statutes, rules and regulations in this regard and that it is purely an academic matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the University. Reference is made to the fact that the U.G.C, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26(1)(c) of the U.G.C. Act, had framed the University Grants Commission (Qualifications Required of a Person to be Appointed to the Teaching Staff of a University and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991, wherein qualifications were prescribed for appointment to a teaching post in the University or in any of the institutions including constituent or affiliate colleges. These regulations were notified on 19.9.1991 and required, apart from educational qualifications, the candidates to clear the Lecturership Eligibility Test conducted by U.G.C./C.S.I.R. or similar test accredited by the U.G.C. Reference is made to the U.G.C. Circular dated 10.2.1993 whereunder, among others, candidates who would submit their Ph.D. thesis upto 31.12.1993 and those who had already been awarded M.Phil Degree upto 31.3.1991, were exempted by the U.G.C. from appearing in the Eligibility Test. By circular dated 15.6.1993 exemption in respect of candidates who had been awarded M.Phil Degree upto 31.12.1992 was granted by the U.G.C. By notification dated 21.6.1995, the 1991 Regulations were amended and a proviso was added, below the requirement regarding clearing the Eligibility Test for appointment to post of Lecturer, that candidates who have submitted their thesis or passed the M.Phil Examination by 31.12.1993 were exempted from the Eligibility Test for Lecturers conducted by the U.G.C./ C.S.I.R. or similar test accredited by the U.G.C. Learned Standing Counsel would rely on (1) University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary 1996 SCC (L&S) 1431; (2) Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chattisgarh ; (3) P.V.S.V. Prasada Rao v. Andhra University ; (4) Dalpat Abasaheb Solnnke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan . He would also submit that the 3rd respondent was respondent No. 112 in the writ petition heard by the Full Bench in P.V.S.V. Prasada Rao's case (supra) and inasmuch as appointment of the 3rd respondent was not set aside by the Full Bench, this Court should refrain from doing so in a writ petition filed by a person who himself did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for being appointed to the said post.