* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3965/1999
% 3rd March, 2015
SHRI HANS RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. M.P. Raju, Advocate.
versus
BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR COLLEGE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms. Prerna Shah Deo, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was appointed as a Lecturer (Hindi) in terms of the minutes of the Selection Committee dated 28.5.1995 of the respondent no.1-college/Bhim Rao Ambedkar College, impugns the action of the respondent no.1/college vide its letter dated 8.2.1997 in terminating the appointment of the petitioner. Appointment of the petitioner was terminated inasmuch as petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria of 55% marks at W.P.(C) No.3965/1999 Page 1 of 7 the Master's Degree level and no relaxation to the petitioner as an SC candidate was granted.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in fact appointed in terms of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee of the respondent no.1/college on 28.5.1995 as an SC candidate. It subsequently transpired that when the Selection Committee met on 28.5.1995 it had to consider the applicable statutory regulations being UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1991 Regulations') and as per Clause 2 of these regulations, a person who is appointed to a teaching post in a college must fulfill the requirements as to qualifications for the appropriate subjects specified in Schedule I. Clause (3) A of Schedule I requires that the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer were that the candidate must have a good academic record with at least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level. Under the proviso to Clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations, relaxation could be granted in the qualifications with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission (UGC).
3. The issue in the present case is that whether there is any prior or post facto approval of the UGC, and, even if there is no prior or post approval of the UGC whether the UGC was justified in refusing to grant W.P.(C) No.3965/1999 Page 2 of 7 relaxation of 5% marks to the petitioner and so conveyed to the petitioner by the UGC vide UGC's letter dated 13.1.1997. This letter of UGC dated 13.1.1997 reads as under:-
" OB/15/20.1.97 January, 1997
No.F.1-1/96 (PS) 13 JAN 1997
The Registrar,
University of Delhi
Delhi-110007.
Subject:- Proposal received from Bheem Rao Ambedkar College, Delhi for relaxation in percentage of marks at P.G. level in respect of Shri Hans Raj, Lecturer in Hindi.
Sir, With reference to your letter No.F.CB-J/96/NET/3642 dated 26th April, 1996 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the University/College has not given any special and valid justification for selection Shri Hans Raj, Lecturers in Hindi as out of 105 candidates who appeared for interview, 84 were NET qualified which implies that they had more than 55% marks. Apart from this, there were candidates who were exempted from NET and have more than 55% marks at Master level.
The Commission regrets its inability to grant relaxation in percentage of marks at Master level to Shri Hans Raj.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(DILBAGH SINGH) Under Secretary"
4. The issue with respect to grant of relaxation as per Clause 2 of the 1991 Regulations would be if there were no sufficient number of candidates available with 55% marks at the Master's Degree level. In such a W.P.(C) No.3965/1999 Page 3 of 7 case, UGC obviously could have considered an issue of relaxation of the qualifications. Also, before this Court does so of granting relaxation or before the UGC could have done so, there were required to be pleaded by the petitioner and also substantiated by the petitioner that the selection process for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) which culminated in terms of the minutes of meeting of the selection committee dated 28.5.1995, all the SC candidates who were called for consideration did not meet the 55% marks criteria at the Master's Degree level.
5. A reading of the entire pleadings in this petition; be it the writ petition or the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner; does not show that there exists pleading showing what was the reason on the basis of which the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to relaxation except that the petitioner only stated that the petitioner is an SC candidate. Simply stating that the petitioner is an SC candidate is not a good enough ground for grant of relaxation inasmuch as if there were sufficient number of candidates available in the selection process for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in the 1995 selection process, then, the Selection Committee actually ought to have appointed a person being an SC candidate having 55% marks at the Master's Degree level. A reading of the record shows that five SC candidates appeared for selection, but what was the position of marks of these SC W.P.(C) No.3965/1999 Page 4 of 7 candidates at the Master's Degree level is not found in the writ petition. Hence it cannot be said that none of the candidates called in the SC category failed to meet the criteria of 55% marks at the Master's Degree level and hence petitioner was entitled to relaxation because there were no other eligible candidates.
6. For completion of narration, I must state that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had passed an order dated 23.2.1998 in favour of the petitioner by giving directions for the petitioner to be absorbed by the respondent no.1-college, however, this order of the National Commission for SC and ST was set aside in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4835/1998 (as informed to this Court by the counsel). The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 12.9.2002 and the order of the National Commission for SC and ST was not binding. This would be in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 606. Accordingly, the petitioner can derive no benefit of the order of the National Commission for SC and ST dated 23.2.1998.
7. In view of the above, since there are statutory requirements of every candidate in terms of the 1991 Regulations for being considered to W.P.(C) No.3965/1999 Page 5 of 7 have a minimum of 55% marks at the Master's Degree level, and no relaxation is shown which can be granted in favour of the petitioner or that there exists a general order entitling relaxation to SC candidates of 5%, petitioner cannot be granted the relief prayed in this petition. I may also, at this stage, add that counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance upon the UGC circular dated 23.8.1982 that 5% relaxation at the Master's Degree level has to be granted to an SC candidate, however, this administrative circular will no longer be available and applicable after promulgation of the statutory 1991 Regulations of the UGC inasmuch as once statutory regulations occupy the field, an earlier office memorandum of the UGC cannot be read to confer automatic general relaxation to each and every SC candidate. I also reject the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that because of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, a 1982 circular will prevail over the statutory provisions being the 1991 Regulations which have specifically come into force as regards eligibility requirements and which regulations required that every candidate who is appointed to a teaching post in a University or college to have at least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level. Obviously, the object of law is that there should be persons having minimum qualifications for teaching inasmuch as the question of the future of the students who are being taught, is concerned. W.P.(C) No.3965/1999 Page 6 of 7
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is therefore dismissed. No costs.
MARCH 03, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
W.P.(C) No.3965/1999 Page 7 of 7