The division judge bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy of the Patna High Court in the case of the Bihar Public Service Commission Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta held that no presumption can be made merely because an educational institution is affiliated with the UGC that it follows scrupulously the regulations brought out by the UGC.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) filed the appeal when the dispute arose between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 5 for the post of Assistant Professor, Hindi. Respondent no. 1 was not selected it was alleged that the advertisement provided for 4 marks for the M.Phil obtained in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009, while only two marks were awarded to the 1st respondent, and if 4 marks were awarded then he would have succeeded respondent no. 5.
The learned single judge of this court observed that the University of Delhi is a statutory institution that has been properly recognized by the UGC, and as such, the degrees it confers must be regarded as inviolate and exempt from dispute by another university of higher learning. The writ petition was approved, and the petitioner was instructed to be given four marks for the M.Phil degree earned.
Contentions of the Appellants
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the persons who are awarded the M.Phil in compliance with the regulations are selected for appointment. Furthermore, it was contended that even if the criteria applied differ from those under the UGC Regulations of 2009, it can’t be said that the criteria were changed in between.
Contentions of the Respondent No.1
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 contended that the M.Phil degree was obtained under the UGC Regulations of 2009 from the University of Delhi.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the M.Phil. dissertation must be evaluated by one external examiner, according to the criteria indicated in the certificate. According to UGC Regulations from 2009, a minimum of two experts, one of whom must be from outside the State, must review an M.Phil. or Ph.D. student's thesis. As a result, even as per the certificate issued by the university used to give the M.Phil degree did not comply with the UGC Regulations of 2009.
It was furthermore observed that dispute is not in respect to the ineligibility, however, lesser marks being conceded to a candidate having an M.Phil. degree not in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009, as against a higher mark conceded to one who has an M.Phil./Ph.D. under the UGC Regulations of 2009. Also, It cannot be criticized since the power to grant such candidates an advantage was only within the purview of the appointing authority, and the Ph.D. given under the UGC Regulations of 2009 was deemed to be of a better standard, necessitating a concession to such candidates.
It was noted that it cannot be assumed that just because an educational institution is affiliated with the UGC, it adheres strictly to the rules the UGC has established. Because of this, the appointing authority particularly required that any claim for an M.Phil. or Ph.D. under the UGC Regulations of 2009 be backed by a certificate from the university that awarded the degree attesting to its full compliance with those regulations. This does not constitute a modification to the criteria or the rules of the game. Although the criteria have not changed, the requirements for proof of acceptance have been strengthened and stated explicitly in the call letters sent to candidates before interviews.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that Respondent no. 1 was not entitled to be granted four marks, since demonstrably, from the certificate issued by the University which awarded the M.Phil degree; it was not an award in compliance to the UGC Regulations of 2009.
Decision of the Court
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Bihar Public Service Commission Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24042 of 2019
Advocates for the Appellants: Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mrs. Shilpa Singh, GA-12 Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Navnit Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent No.2: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
