Ghanshyam Mishra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1368 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 10.3.1998, passed by the Director of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, whereby it did not approve the placement of the petitioner at S. No. 3 in the Panel by the Selection Committee. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 2 to consider his candidature for the post of Lecturership for which he had been interviewed along with other candidates, where for he was placed in the panel by the Selection Committee. Petitioner assails his non-appointment as illegal.

3. Respondent No. 2 had advertised the post of Lecturership in the Hindustan Times on 6.11.1997, inviting applications for the Post of Lecturer (Training). Two posts belong to General Category and one to the Scheduled Caste candidate. The minimum essential qualification prescribed was (i) a good academic record with Post Graduate Degree in First or Higher Second Class; and (ii) Experience of teaching through the Medium of Sanskrit. A Doctorate degree or evidence of research work of equivalent standards was considered a desirable qualification. Pursuant to the advertisement and screening of applications, 20 candidates had been called for interview. The members of the Selection Committee were :-

  1. Dr.K.P.A.Menon                          Chairman 
   Chancellor, L.B.S.R.S.V., New Delhi.

2. Prof.R.P.Srivastava                   Expert
   Head of the Deptt., of Education,
   Jamia Millia Islamia,
   New Delhi.

3. Prof.Vachaspati Dwivedi               Expert.
   Head of the Deptt.of Education.
   Sampoornanad Sanskrit University
   Varanasi. 

4. Prof.Matadin                          Member
   Faculty of Law, Delhi University
   (representative of SC/ST)

5. Dr.K.K.Mishra                         Member Secretary. 
    Director, R.Sk.S.
 

4. The extract of minutes of the Selection Committee relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

"20 candidates were called for interview. 10 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates recommended the following candidates in order of preference for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Training.

Category:-

General (two post):

1. Dr.Nagendranath Jha (S.No.18)

2. Smt.Arti Srivastava (S.No.12)

3. SriGhanshyam Mishra (S.No.16), subject to clearance of NET for which he has appeared).

4. Dr.DeviPrasad Dwivedi

SC (One Post) : No candidate has applied.

It will be again advertised.

The four names in the general category have been recommended keeping in view the vacancies existing as well as anticipating in near future."

5. The above recommendation of the Selection Committee came up for consideration before the Director of respondent No. 2, who discussed the matter with the Chairman. The impugned order notices that Dr. Nagendranath Jha and Smt. Arti Srivastava had been placed by the Selection Committee at S. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Since none had applied for the post of SC, it was to be re-advertised. The impugned order also notices the Committee's empanelment of four candidates under the General category valid for one year. The relevant extract from the impugned order is as follows:-

"It may not be appropriate to approve the candidate at Sr. No. 3 in the panel recommended by the Selection Committee as he has not yet passed the NET of U.G.C. I have discussed this with the Chairman of the Selection Committee Dr. K.P.A. Menon and he has also expressed the same view."

6. It is the above decision of respondent No. 2, which is impugned by the petitioner by this writ petition. He submits that the Selection Committee had duly considered the respective qualifications of the candidates and their experience. Petitioner was possessed of the minimum qualification. He further submits that the other candidate, Dr. Devi Prasad Dwivedi was not even having a doctorate in Sanskrit and was possessed of the same in some other subject. Mr. Pal submits that it was not open to the Director of respondent No. 2 to negate the recommendation made by a duly constituted Selection Committee. He further submits that petitioner had cleared NET Examination in December, 1998.

7. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Director and Chairman of respondent No. 2 can be faulted with for not accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee regarding the empanelment of the petitioner? It would be noticed that the empanelment made by the Selection Committee was subject to, "Clearance of NET for which he had appeared." In my view, respondent No. 2 cannot be faulted with for taking a position that petitioner should not have been empanelled on the basis of a qualification, which he had yet to acquire. It may be noted that on the petitioner's own showing while this recommendation was made in March, 1998, petitioner only acquired a Degree of NET in December, 1998. While Dr. Devi Prasad Dwivedi was holding a Doctorate. Petitioner is stated to have acquired Doctorate only in December, 2000.

In these circumstances, in my view the decision of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan in holding that petitioner ought not to be given the credit of NET Degree, which he did not possess at the time of interview for empanelment cannot be treated as arbitrary or discriminatory. No other point is pressed by counsel for the petitioner.

Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.