Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O Omprakashji Mishra vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 24 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1285.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1285/2013
PETITIONER: Sachin s/o Omprakashji Mishra
Aged about 40 years,
R/o In front of Ranilaxmi Bai Park,
Main Road, Chikhaldara, Tq. Chikaldara,
District Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Mantaralaya Annex, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Vidarbha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through
its President, Khamgaon, Tq. and District
Buldhana.
3. G.S. Science, Arts and Commerce College,
through its Principal, Khamgaon, Tq. and
District Buldhana.
4. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University through
its Registrar, Tapovan Road, Amravati.
5. Vikram University, Ujjain through its Registrar,
Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.
6. University Grants Commission through its
Chairman, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi - 02.
Intervenor : 7. Bharat Sureshrao Jawajale (Jawajale)
r/o Gangotri Nagar, Tapovan Gate, Amravati
Distt. Amravati.
(Add res. No.7 as per Court order
dt. 8.7.13)
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 00:34:06 :::
wp1285.13.odt
2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri U.N. Vyas, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. G.R. Tiwari, AGP for respondent no.1
Shri S.J. Kadu, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3
Shri A.J. Gilda, Advocate for respondent no.7/intervenor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 24.04.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication of the Assistant Registrar of the respondent no.4 -
University, dated 25.2.2013 asking the respondent no.3 - College to send
the proposal of the respondent no.7 for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor in the subject of Hindi.
The respondent no.2 - College published an advertisement
on 14.6.2012 inviting applications for appointment on several posts, one
of them being the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Hindi. The
petitioner along with the respondent no.7 and others applied for the said
post that was earmarked for the open category. The petitioner possessed
M.A. and M. Phil. qualification at the relevant time. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner was registered for Ph.D. in the year 2007
and on 16.10.2010 he was awarded Ph.D. by Vikram University. As per
the advertisement, a candidate desirous of seeking appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor was required to possess a good academic
record at the master's degree level and apart from fulfilling the aforesaid
wp1285.13.odt
qualification, he/she was also required to have passed NET/SET
examination. The condition of passing the NET/SET examination was
however relaxed in the case of a candidate who possessed a Ph.D. degree
in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009.
According to the petitioner, though the petitioner had
secured the Ph.D. degree from Vikram University there was a
correspondence between the Vikram University and the University Grants
Commission (U.G.C.) and the actual Ph.D. degree in accordance with the
Regulations of 2009 was not issued in favour of the petitioner till the
petitioner was interviewed in pursuance of the advertisement. The
petitioner's name was placed at serial no.1 in the list of preferences and
the name of the respondent no.7 was placed at serial no.2. Since the
petitioner had not passed the NET/SET examination, the petitioner was
asked to produce the Ph.D. degree as per the Regulations of 2009 which
the petitioner could not produce at the time of the interview. The next
candidate in the order of merit, that is the respondent no.7 was
considered by the College for appointment and proposal for grant of
approval to the appointment of the respondent no.7 was sent by the
College to the University. The petitioner has challenged the action on the
part of the respondent no.2 in selecting and appointing the respondent
wp1285.13.odt
no.7 while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.
Shri Vyas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised
three grounds in support of the prayers made in the writ petition. It is
stated that the respondent no.2 could not have asked for a Ph.D. degree
as per the Regulations of the year 2009 if the candidate did not possess
the NET/SET qualification and any Ph.D. degree should have been
accepted. Secondly, according to the petitioner, there was a
correspondence exchanged between the Vikram University and the U.G.C.
and though at the time of the interview the petitioner did not possess the
Ph.D. degree certificate as per the Regulations of 2009, the petitioner was
subsequently awarded the same in the year 2014. It is stated that the
respondent no.2 ought to have waited till the petitioner secured the
requisite certificate as per the Regulations of the year 2009. Thirdly, it is
stated that the respondent no.7 has passed the NET examination by
securing the benefit available to the candidates belonging to the reserved
classes and since the percentage that is liable to be secured by the
reserved category candidates at the NET/SET examination is less than the
percentage that is required to be secured by the open category candidates,
the candidature of the respondent no.7 could not have been considered
for the post that was earmarked for the open category.
wp1285.13.odt
We find that there is no merit in any of the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner for seeking the relief claimed. In the
advertisement, it is clearly mentioned that if the candidate does not
possess the NET/SET qualification the candidate would be required to
possess the Ph.D. degree certificate as per the 2009 Regulations. The
petitioner applied in pursuance of the advertisement without challenging
the same. If the petitioner is of the view that the said condition ought not
have been incorporated in the advertisement, it was necessary for the
petitioner to challenge the advertisement before participating in the
selection process. It is well settled that a candidate participating in a
selection process cannot question the process at a subsequent stage. It
would be necessary to refer to the judgments, reported in (2009) 3 SCC
227 (Amlan Jyoti Borooah...Versus...State of Assam and others),
(1997) 4 SCC 426 (University of Cochin, Represented by Its Registrar,
University of Cochin...Versus...N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others) and
(2011) 1 SCC 150 (Vijendra Kumar Verma...Versus...Public Service
Commission, Uttarakhand and others) in this regard.
We do not find any merit in the second submission made on
behalf of the petitioner for challenging the appointment of the respondent
no.7. Admittedly, on the date of the interview, the petitioner did not
possess the NET/SET certificate or the Ph.D. degree certificate as per the
wp1285.13.odt
Regulations of the year 2009. The petitioner claims to have secured the
Ph.D. degree from Vikram University. At the relevant time, when the
petitioner was interviewed in the year 2012, the petitioner did not possess
the Ph.D. degree certificate, as per the Regulations of the year 2009
though some correspondence was exchanged between the Vikram
University and the U.G.C. whether the Ph.D. as per the Regulations of
2009 could be awarded to the students of the Vikram University. The
petitioner received the Ph.D. degree certificate as per the Regulations of
the year 2009 nearly two years later after the interviews were conducted.
The respondent no.2- College could not be expected to wait till the
dispute between the University and the U.G.C. is settled and a candidate
is in a position to produce the degree certificate. On the date of the
interview and even for a considerable time thereafter the petitioner did
not possess the Ph. D. degree certificate as per the Regulations of the year
2009. The petitioner therefore cannot blame the respondent no.2 for
selecting the next candidate in the order of merit, that is the respondent
no.7 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi.
Just like the other two grounds, we are also not inclined to
accept the third ground raised on behalf of the petitioner for challenging
the impugned action. Admittedly, the respondent no.7 possesses the NET
qualification. While securing the NET qualification the respondent no.7
wp1285.13.odt
has availed the concession or benefit pertaining to the qualifying marks
on the basis of the reservation. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that
since the respondent no.7 has passed the NET examination by securing
the benefit pertaining to the qualifying marks for passing the examination
as a reserved category candidate he can never compete for a post
earmarked for the open category, on the basis of the NET certificate so
secured. In our view, the benefit of earmarking lesser qualifying marks for
passing the NET/SET examination is granted to a class of people who
belong to the reserved classes and that is not granted to the reserved
classes, qua a post. It cannot be said that when a post is earmarked for an
open category, a candidate that has secured the NET/SET certificate on
the basis of the qualifying marks meant for the reserved category cannot
be permitted to apply for a post meant for the open category. Upholding
such a submission of the petitioner would have the effect of withdrawing
the NET qualification possessed by the respondent no.7 when his claim is
liable to be considered for an open category post.
Since there is no merit in any of the three submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as
to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
