Dheeraj Kumar vs Union Of India And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 22137 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165225
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13737 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Kunal Ravi Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Yesterday, 16.08.2023, the matter was mentioned by Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner at 10 O'clock in the morning. The Court at that point of time, declined to accept the mention requiring the learned counsel for the writ petitioner to make mention before the learned Senior Judge.

Sri Ajay Kumar again made a mention at 01:00 P.M. apprising the Court that permission had been accorded to him to make mention before the Bench having the jurisdiction over the matter. Thereafter post-recess, this Court accepted the mention in view of the urgency of the matter and required the learned counsel for the petitioner to apprise the said fact to Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, who was stated to be appearing for respondents 2 to 4, being the University of Allahabad, Allahabad. Consequently the matter has been fixed for today.

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, who appears for the second and fourth respondent. Notice on behalf of the first respondent has been accepted by the A.S.G.I.

The case of the writ petitioner is that the University of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent-University) got published an Advertisement No. Advt. No.UoA/Asst Prof/01/2021 on 28.09.2021 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professors, which besides other disciplines included the post of Assistant Professor in Journalism and Mass Communication. As per the advertisement, the date of uploading of the detail and online registration, starting date for fees payment was 28.09.2021 and the last date for online registration and last date for final submission of the online application form was 27.10.2021. In paragraph-5 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the writ petitioner applied online for being considered for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, Journalism and Mass Communication and a copy of the application form is already on record as Annexure-2 from page-21 to page-25 of the paper-book, reference whereof has been given in paragraph-6 of the writ petition. As per the writ petitioner, the result of the Screening Committee was uploaded on 10.08.2021. According to the writ petitioner, it was a matter of utter surprise for him that in the remark column, it was mentioned that there was no evidence of joining and salary break up. While inviting attention towards paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it has been further sought to be argued that the respondents did not consider the experience certificate for Academic Performance Index (API) and the cut off marks was 81 under Un-Reserved Category. However, the petitioner was made admissible to 78 marks and had 7 marks been awarded to the writ petitioner under the head of Joining and Salary Break Up, he would have 7 additional marks making him qualified in all respects.

Questioning the result of the Select Committee declaring the writ petitioner to be unfit to be called for interview, the writ petitioner has filed the instant petition. Additional relief has been sought permitting the writ petitioner to appear in the interview, which is to be held on 17.08.2023 (today) for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that a totally hyper-technical approach has been adopted by the University, as according to him, in the application form, which is already on record as Annexure-2 at page-21 of the paper-book, relevant extract at page-22 under the parameter 3.1 "Full-time Teaching Experience", the writ petitioner had not only named the institution whereat he had been serving, but he had also mentioned the designation, status, Pay and the period From - To and the Effective Time Period also, and also appended the experience-cum-relieving letter as Annexure-4 at page-32 of the paper-book, reference whereof has been given in paragraph-8 of the writ petition, according to which, a certificate has been issued certifying the fact that the writ petitioner worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at IIMT COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, GREATER NOIDA (AFFILIATED TO CCS UNIVERSITY MEERUT) from 16.08.2017 to 28.02.2021 and he was relieved from the duties on 28.02.2021. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the said requirement, which was performed at the end of the writ petitioner, was itself sufficient for award of marks, which could entitle him to be called for interview.

Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent-University on the other hand submits that in the Advertisement itself, which happens to be dated 28.09.2021, there are certain clauses in the General Instructions, which was very well known to the writ petitioner, and he had to abide to the same and since the certificate, which was required to be submitted online was not submitted, which impelled the University to denude itself from awarding any marks. He seeks to rely upon the provisions contained under Clause (xvii) and (xxii) under the General Instructions as well as the notifications issued by the University Grants Commission dated 18.07.2018.

He seeks to rely upon the judgments in Writ-A No.10551 of 2022, Yogesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, decided on 02.08.2022, Writ-A No.2332 of 2023, Nitin Pandey vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.02.2023, Writ-A No.8473 of 2023, Dr. Ishita Singh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 16.05.2023.

Before delving into the rival submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to extract the relevant provisions and the UGC Guidelines, which will be governing the field in question:

"GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(i) ...

...

(xvii) The candidate must attach soft copies of all relevant documents which they have claimed in the online application form. The original certificates would be required at the time of interview only.

...

(xxii) Applications received without the requisite documents, fees, and after the prescribed date will not be entertained in any case."

"UGC GUIDELINES 2018

Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organisations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR and DBT, should count for the direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature, provided that:

(a) ...

(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor."

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

Undisputedly, an Advertisement was published on 28.09.2021 bearing no. UoA/Asst Prof/01/2021 for the recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor, which also included the post of Assistant Professor in Journalism and Mass Communication. Clause (xvii) of the General Instructions itself provides that a candidate must attach the soft copies of all the relevant documents, which it had claimed in the online application form, and the original certificate should be required at the stage of the interview only. Further Clause-(xxii) of the General Instructions contained in the Advertisement provides that application received without requisite documents, fees after prescribed date will not be entertained in any case. It is not in dispute between the parties that the UGC Guidelines of the year 2018 stands applicable and according to Clause 10.0 (b) one of the essential requirements with regard to counting of the past services for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS is that the post is / was in the equivalent grade or a pre-revised scale of the pay as the post of Assistant Officer (Lecturer), Associate Professor (Reader) and the Professor. A conjoint reading of Clause 10.0 (b) of the UGC Guidelines, 2018 read with Clause (xvii) and Clause (xxii) of the General Instructions contained in the Advertisement in question casts an obligation upon the respective candidate to fill the online application form, followed by the submission of the relevant documents online at the time of filing of the application form and submission of original at the time of interview that too as per the specification. There is no choice available with the candidate, but in order to obtain marks under a specific parameter, the candidate is enjoined to fulfill all the requirements permissible under the Advertisement.

This Court while deciding the present case has also to bear in mind that the candidate, who happens to be the petitioner herein is not a rustic but a well-educated person, who seeks to serve the general public, while imparting education while adorning the post of Associate Professor, thus any laxity or lethargy would not be appreciable in this regard.

Now, the question arises as to whether mere giving details in the online application form would be itself sufficient in the background of the experience-cum-relieving letter. A close reading of the Experience -cum- Relieving Letter appended as Annexure-4 at page-32 of the paper book reveals that though it is being titled as experience-cum-relieving letter, but it sans a particular details, which is germane for award of the marks, i.e., with relation of the pay-scale/ consolidated salary, which is required in terms of Clause 10.0(b) of the UGC Guidelines, 2018. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that he would make available the experience certificate containing the pay-scale, but it would not be of any help to the writ petitioner, particularly when the documents, which is being submitted online is to be produced in original at the time of the interview, as the law is very clear that eligibility on the basis of the document is to be determined on the date of the application and it cannot be replaced that too in the wake of the provisions contained under Clause 10.0(b) of the U.G.C. Guidelines and the General Instructions contained in the Advertisement itself.

Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner next contended that when the website was open at the time of the filling the online application form, there was no provision with regard to the submission for uploading the experience certificate.

This Court made a pointed query to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as to whether there is any averment in the writ petitioner, to which Sri Ajay Kumar could not give any reply. Thus, this Court in the absence of any pleading set forth in the writ petition is not going into the said issue. The view of this Court is further fortified from the series of the judgments in the case of Yogesh Kumar (supra), Nitin Pandey (supra) and Dr. Ishita Singh (supra).

This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case finds no reason, whatsoever, to defer from the proposition of law culled out in the aforesaid decisions.

The mention slip filed on 16.08.2023 is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.8.2023

N.S.Rathour