Shri S.P. Jain S/O Late Baru Mal ... vs Guru Govind Singh Indraprashtha ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 1095 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This writ petition challenges, inter alia, exclusion of the petitioner from consideration for selection to the post of University Librarian in the respondent/University. Mr. Saxena, counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite of the clear guidelines of the University Grants Commission (UGC), the respondent has not followed the guidelines while calling candidates for interview which was held on 27.10.2001. Notice of this petition was issued on 21.12.2001 and interim order was passed by this Court that if any appointment is made by the respondent/University to the post of Librarian, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and the aforesaid facts shall also be intimated to the candidate who was selected by the respondent/University. Learned counsel for the respondent says that selected candidate has been informed of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that 27 candidates including the petitioner applied for the post, out of which 11 candidates were called for interview and all 11 candidates who were called, have fulfillled the criteria. The eligibility criteria for the post of Librarian is to the following effect :

"(i) Librarian

(i) Master's degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentation with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC seven point scale and consistently good academic record."

3. It is the case of the respondent that all the 11 candidates who were called for interview fulfillled the qualification prescribed by the UGC and the petitioner did not fulfill the laid down qualification and, therefore, was not considered for being called for interview. Earlier petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit in support of the petition, whereby the petitioner has contended that UGC has laid down certain guidelines in case of a candidate who was a Ph.D. and in this connection attention of this Court was invited to pages 22 and 23 of the paper-book. Clause 3.5.0 on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is to the following effect :-

"3.5.0 A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D. Degree holders who have passed their Masters degree prior to 19th Sept., 1991."

4. The stand of the respondent with regard to the relaxation is that it is not obligatory on the part of the respondent to allow the relaxation if other candidates were eligible without any relaxation.

5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The reasoning given by the respondent that the petitioner was not eligible as other persons were eligible without relaxation, is devoid of any merit so far as consideration of the candidature of the petitioner is concerned, he was to be considered if he was eligible. It was also contended before me that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was eligible then also it was not obligatory on the part of University to call all the eligible candidates. There is an obvious fallacy in the arguments of the respondent. Either the petitioner was eligible in terms of the rules or he was not eligible. Respondent cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. The petitioner, in terms of the UGC norms and guidelines, was eligible as he was a Ph.D. The petitioner has obtained 53.4% marks in the Master's degree examination prior to September, 1991. The UGC norms prescribes, as has been quoted above, that relaxation of 5% was to be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D. Holder who has passed Master's degree prior to 19th September, 1991. Therefore, judging from any angle the petitioner was entitled for consideration for appointment to the post. If the petitioner would have been considered then it was for the respondent to select the petitioner or not, in view of other eligible candidates who have also appeared for selection and interview. The non-consideration of the petitioner who was otherwise eligible for consideration for selection, vitiates the whole selection process. Therefore, the selection made pursuant to the interview held on 27.10.2001 cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The same is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to re-advertise the post. Petitioner will be at liberty to apply in such an eventuality. The candidature of the petitioner be considered by the respondent.

6. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order. Rule is made absolute.