Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh vs Vice-Chancellor And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1727 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioner is a Reader and an aspirant for the post of Professor in Commerce, Department of Delhi University. An advertisement was issued by the University on 20.1.2001 inviting applications for the post of Professor. The qualifications prescribed amongst other things required 10 years experience in post-graduate teaching or 15 years at under-graduate level. Petitioner applied for the post and so did respondents 6 & 7. He was not called for interview but the other two respondents were interviewed and considered for selection to the post. He complained about his exclusion and claimed that respondent 6 & 7 were junior to him and inferior in merit and thus, there was no justification for leaving him out of the interview. After his representation bore no fruit, he has filed this petition for direction to official respondents to call him for the interview and to consider him for selection and appointment to the post.

2. Petitioner asserts that he was eligible for the post and possessed prescribed qualifications. But stand of official respondents 1 to 4 is that he did not possess the requisite teaching experience and, therefore, could not figure in the short listed candidates for interviwe. Only respondents 6 & 7 were found to be satisfying the requirement.

3. It appears that petitioner's teaching experience was under cloud both at post-graduate level or at under graduate level. But that apart petitioner has staked his whole claim on the amended UGC regulations dated 4.4.2000 under which he asserts to be eligible.He maintains that these regulations were mandatory in nature and had to be followed and implemented by official respondents. It is also pointed out by him that they had done so which was evident from their subsequent advertisement notice dated 9.2.2000 in which they had adopted the revised qualifications prescribed for the post of Professor in Commerce. It is also claimed by him that the revised qualifications prescribed by the UGC were approved by the Academy and the Executive Council of the University. All told, he asserts that the amended UGC regulations prescribed revised qualifications had come into force from 4.4.2000, few months after the advertisement notice inviting applications for the post and in any case official respondents had conducted interview on 12.7.2001 and these regulations were adopted then by them for filling up other posts of professor. Therefore, all that he wanted was that his credentials and qualifications be tested and scrutinised in the light of the revised qualifications prescribed by UGC in amended regulations dated 4.4.2000.

4. Official respondents have adopted a half backed approach. Firstly, they have contested the mandatory nature of UGC regulatiions. But being confronted with their own action of having adopted the revised qualifications for the post of Professor even in their subsequent advertisement notice dated 9.2.2000, they had no way to further resist petitioner's claim on this count.

5. That apart, we found this to be a controversy about nothing in the light of the new facts and circumstances of the case. All that petitioner wanted was to be called for interview and to be accorded consideration for selection to the post. He could not be denied this if after scrutiny he was found to be eligible for the post under the revised UGC regulations adopted by the University and in any case his participation in interview would not guarantee his automatic selection.

6. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of by providing as under:-

"Respondent/University is directed to take steps to re-examine petitioner's eligibility afresh in the light of revised UGC regulations dated 4.4.2000 through its Screening Committee or otherwise uninflunced by any other procedure prescribed or suggested by respondent No. 4 on the subject matter and to pass appropriate orders for calling him for interview if found so eligible and then to further consider him for selection/ appointment for the post of Professor in Commerce Department on merit and suitability in accordance with rules and along with other contenders R6 & 7. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within two weeks from receiot of this order and requisite follow-up action taken thereafter to complete the selection process within two months thereafter."