Sushil Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 497 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 34
 
                                                                                                                AFR
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Ashish Agarwal,Manish Goyal,Siddharth Singhal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Nath Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey (petitioner in person) and learned standing counsel for respondents.

2. The dispute in present writ petition relates to appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Education. Petitioner possess qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., M.Sc., M.Ed and NET. He applied for an appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Education. The qualification prescribed by University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to as UGC) under University Grant Commission Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation, 2010) reads as under:

(i). Good academic record as defined by the concerned University with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University.

(ii). Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test INET) conducted by the UGC,CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.

(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.1, condidates, who are, or have been awarded a Phd. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET./SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities / Colleges / Institutions.

(iv) NET / SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in discipline for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. "

3. Dispute is whether Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree possessed by petitioner can be said to be a Master's degree in relevant subject or it is only M.A in Education which would be Master's degree in relevant subject.

4. Petitioner placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in Ram Sevak Singh Vs. U.P. Singh and others ( AIR 1999 SC 737) decided on 21.1.1999. We have gone through the aforesaid decision and find that therein dispute related to appointment on the post of Principal in degree college for which qualifications prescribed, as mentioned in para-3 of the judgment, are as under:-

"3. Qualification prescribed for appointment as Principal as follows"

(a) A consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessments through the academic career of a candidates) with first or high scored class (that is to be say with as aggregate of more than 54 percent marks) Master's degree in an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subject taught in college or in a subject allied or interconnected forthwith, and

(b) A doctorate degree is one of the subjects taught in the college, with 7 years experience teaching degree classes;

Provided that if a candidate possess 15 years or more experience of teaching degree classes or 10 years or more experience of teaching Post Graduate classes or if he is or has been a confirmed Principal of four years or more standing of any Degree College, the Selection Committee may relax the requirement of doctorate degree.

Provided further that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard if may relax any of the qualification prescribed in Sub-Clause(a). (emphasis added).

5. The qualification for Principal did not require Master's degree in particular subject but it was provided that it may be any of the subject taught in the college or in a subject allied or interconnected forthwith. While interpreting aforesaid provision, Court held that M.Ed degree can be said to be a Master's degree in one of the subject taught in college or in a subject allied or interconnected for the reasons that college in question already was imparting education in teaching as well. This is evident from para-6 of judgment, which reads as under:

"Therefore, the principal question that falls for consideration is whether M.Ed degree possessed by the appellant was a qualification for the purpose of appointment as Principal. In Dr. Prit Singh (supra) the qualification required was a Master's Degree in any subject and also a degree in education, whereas in the present case the qualification required is Master's Degree or an equivalent degree in one of the subjects taught in the college or in a subject allied or interconnected therewith. The distinction between the requirement of qualification in these two cases is obvious. In Dr. Prit Singh (supra) the required qualification as a Master's Degree and a degree in education as an additional qualification. In the present case, the College imparts education in teaching as well and, therefore, Master's Degree In Education is a degree in respect of a subject taught in the College. We cannot apply the ratio settled in Dr. Prit Singh (supra) irrespective of the qualifications required for a particular post. In the present case a Master's Degree required can include a teaching subject and, therefore, M.Ed degree possessed by the appellant was held to be a sufficient qualification by the Commission. It cannot be said that the principles stated by this Court in Dr. Prit Singh (supra) can be applied in the present case because in Dr. Prit Singh (supra) the qualifications were a Master's Degree and Degree in education, whereas in the present case a Master's Degree in any subject taught in the college was the requisite qualification. We think the appellant satisfied the same. In regard to other qualification of "consistently good academic record" which has been relaxe, this has not been seriously disputed.

(emphasis added)

6. The aforesaid judgment has no application in the present case. Qualification for appointment of Assistant Professor in Education is "Master's Degree in relevant subject". This question has been considered by Supreme Court in Dr. Prit Singh Vs. SK Mangal and others, 1993 Supp(1) SCC 714. A writ petition involving similar issue has been decided by this court vide judgment dated 14.5.2018 in WP No. 16127 of 2017; Sanjai Kumar Deubey vs. State of UP and others in which it has been held that M.Ed. Degree is a Training education and not equivalent to Master's degree in Education.

7. In the present case the selection is not for the post in which masters degree in any course is required. Petitioner is M.Ed and Supreme Court in Dr. Prit Singh Vs. S.K. Mangar and others (Supra) has held that M.Ed is not equivalent to M.A in Education, since M.A in Education is a Master's Degree and M.Ed is professional teachers' training qualification. The case of present petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Dr. Prit Singh Vs. S.K. Mangal and others, 1993 Supp(1) SCC 714.

8. In view of above, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.5.2018

SKS