HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserved on 25.3.2011
Judgment delivered on 22.4.2011
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 5100 OF 2011
Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.
1. We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University.
2. The petitioner has prayed setting aside the order dated 23/28th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi in so far as the Chancellor has accepted the reference of disagreement of the Executive Council of the University under Section 31 (8) (a) of the U.P. State University Act, (in short, the Act), to the recommendations of the selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee, for the post of Reader in Psychology (unreserved).
3. The University issued an advertisement no.2 of 2006 for appointment on a large number of posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors by direct recruitment, followed by advertisement no. 6 of 2006 to the same effect. The petitioner applied and was called to appear for interview before the selection committee on 18.12.2007.
4. The Executive Council in its meeting held on 23.6.2010 considered the recommendations of the selection committees. With regard to the petitioner's selection as Reader in Psychology the Executive Council found that a vigilance enquiry initiated by the State Government is pending on the appointments made during the tenure of Shri S.S. Kushwaha, the outgoing Vice Chancellor, and that in the vigilance enquiry the information has been sought with regard to the appointment on the post of Reader in Psychology also. The Executive Council found that there is possibility of delay in conclusion of the vigilance enquiry and thus taking into account the difficulties, which are faced by the students, a decision was taken to refer the matter to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act and to take steps only after the decision was taken by him.
5. The Chancellor in his impugned order dated 23/28th December, 2010 has found that so far as the selection on the post of Reader Psychology, (unreserved) on which Shri Rajendra Singh has been recommended at serial No.1 and Shri Arun Kumar Jaiswal at serial no.2 in the waiting list and if none of them joins, Dr. Shafali Varma Thakral and Dr. Madan Gopal Varma in the waiting list; the subject specialists were present in requisite number, but that since a vigilance enquiry has been instituted in respect of all the appointments made by the then Vice Chancellor, which is likely to take some time, in the interest of the students, the matter has been referred to him. The Chancellor has observed that since the persons, who have been recommended for appointment, have not been issued any appointment letter, nor the Executive Council has accepted the recommendations of the selection committee, the persons recommended for the selections have not acquired any vested rights and thus on the decision taken by the Executive Council, the recommendations of the selection committee are cancelled.
6. Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no complaint with regard to non-availability of the vacancies, the category in which the vacancy falls, the qualification and eligibility of the petitioner and the constitution of the selection committee. The vigilance enquiry conducted by the vigilance establishment is only a fact finding enquiry in which some complaints were required to be verified, and with which the petitioner's selection has no concern. The Executive Council did not disagree with the recommendations of the selection committee, nor there is any error of procedure in the selections. It only observed that since the vigilance enquiry is pending, in which some information has been sought with regard to the post of Reader (Psychology) also, and there is possibility of delay in conclusion of the vigilance enquiry the matter be referred to the Chancellor. The Chancellor has illegally and arbitrarily considered the observations of the Executive Council as the reasons for disagreement and after recording that the petitioner has not acquired any right for appointment, cancelled the recommendations. He submits that the entire procedure adopted so far as petitioner is concerned, is grossly arbitrarily, unfair and unreasonable. The Chancellor had not made any comments nor has found the recommendation of the selection committee to be illegal on any point. He has simply rejected the recommendation on the ground that the vigilance enquiry may take some time to be concluded.
7. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh submits that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Reader. He does not have a minimum of five years' experience of teaching in University or in any Colleges; experience in research or any special achievements such as published articles or contribution in preparing new curriculum. In para-6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has worked as part time lecturer in the University from 01.1.1986 to 11.6.2004. He was appointed as a lecturer in the regular pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 in Psychology Department only on 12.6.2004. He was thus not qualified as he did not possess five years' teaching experience as lecturer on 18.12.2007. He could not be considered by the Selection Committee for direct appointment as Reader on that date.
8. Shri R.N. Singh has taken two fold objections to the reply given by Shri Ajit Kumar Singh. He submits that firstly this objection was neither raised by the Executive Council nor by the Chancellor. It has been taken for the first time in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit. In view of judgements in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978SC 851, and Pavnendra Narayan Verma vs. SGPGI, JT 2001 (9) SC 420, no such reason can have been taken into consideration to support the orders of the Chancellor, which were not considered by him. Secondly, he submits that five years' teaching experience is required to be considered, and not the period of five years spent as a regular lecturer in the University or the College. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in P.C. Saxena vs. State of UP and others 2008 (2) ADJ 205 (DB) in which it was held that for the post of Professor in State Medical Colleges the requirement was of teaching experience, and not the period of service as a regular Professor. If a person had teaching experience as Professor, for a period of six years, he fulfilled it for being considered for the post of Principal of the Medical College.
9. Along with rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has filed his experience certificate dated 01.10.2005, issued by the Registrar of the University. This certificate has given teaching experience of the petitioner Dr. Rajendra Singh in the Psychology Department as follows:-
(i) On fixed pay of Rs. 400/- from 01.1.86 to 31.5.86
(ii) On Rs. 25/- per lecture with a maximum of Rs. 1100/- per month from 01.4.1991 to 31.5.1991.
(iii) On Rs. 25/- per lecture with a maximum of Rs. 1100/- per month from 25.6.1991 to 31.10.1991.
(iv) On Rs. 25/- per lecture with a maximum of Rs. 1100/- per month from 01.11.1991 to 15.12.1991.
(v) On fixed pay of Rs. 1500/- from 16.12.1991 to end of exam.
(vi) On fixed pay of Rs. 1500/- upto supplementary exam of the year 1992.
(vii) The period was extended by the order dated 20.4.1993 upto end of the session 1992-93 or 30th June, 1993.
(viii) The period of his work was extended by the order dated 30.6.1993 till further orders and thereafter on 12.6.2004 the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Psychology in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 and is working upto date of issuance of the experience certificate.
10. The certificate of experience given by the Registrar of the University on 01.10.2005, filed by the petitioner, clearly demonstrates and records his admission in para-6 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as a Guest Lecturer on fixed pay of Rs. 400/- for a period of four months in 1986; he worked from 01.4.1991 with certain breaks upto 30.6.1993, on Rs. 25/- per lecturer with a maximum of Rs. 1100/-, which was increased from 16.12.1991 to Rs. 1500/-. He was appointed as Lecturer in Psychology on regular basis only on 12.6.2004. His experience with long and irregular breaks from 1986 to 1993, working as guest lecturer, without any proof of the actual periods taken and the days of work, cannot be counted by adding it to the period of his experience as regular lecturer for treating it as five years experience as lecturer. The minimum qualification prescribed in the Government Order dated 6.1.2003 for appointment on the post of Reader requires five years experience as a lecturer, and not as a guest lecturer for which the number of lectures and nature of duties (teaching work and duties assigned by the persons), is not fixed. The certificate of experience does not verify that the petitioner had worked as lecturer in the University from 1986 to 1993. A guest lecturer, appointed to take classes as and when he may be required to do so, at a fixed rate of Rs. 25/- per lecture subject to maximum of Rs. 1100/- and thereafter on a fixed pay of Rs. 1500/-, cannot be equated with the post of which the requisite experience is required to fulfil the minimum qualifications.
11. No one can be appointed as Reader in the University unless he possesses the requisite qualifications and experience as prescribed in the Government Order dated 6.1.2003. On the face of admission made by the petitioner in para-6 of the rejoinder affidavit, and the experience certificate, it cannot be said that the objections taken in the counter affidavit cannot be pressed into service for defending the order of the Chancellor. The petitioner has not denied that he does not have experience of working as regular Lecturer for five years. He has admitted that he was not serving as regular Lecturer in the University from 1.1.1986 to 11.6.2004. His experience as guest lecturer does not qualify, and cannot be added to make up the essential qualification of teaching experience of five years as lecturer in the University or the college for claiming minimum qualification.
12. The writ petition is dismissed.
Dt.22.4.2011 RKP/