Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Arvind Kumar
2005 Latest Caselaw 1799 Del

JUDGMENT

Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.8.2002 by which he has been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal) applied for posts of Lecturer advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). True copy of advertisement is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition.

4. The writ petitioner was nominated for provisional appointment to the post of PGT /Lecturer(History) by the DSSSB vide letter dated 19.11.1999. However, it was subsequently observed that he did not fulfilll the educational qualification as per the recruitment rules for the post of PGT(History). Hence, the candidature/nomination of the writ petitioner for the post of PGT(History) was cancelled with the prior approval of the competent authority by their letter dated 21.3.2000 which is Annexure P-8 to the writ petition.

5. It is stated in paragraph 4 (L) of the writ petition that the petitioner came to understand that his appointment to the post of PGT(History) has been denied to him on the ground that his degree is not MA in History but MA in History of Art.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.

7. The short question in this case is whether MA degree in History of Art can be treated as equivalent to MA degree in History. We are of the opinion that it cannot. History of Art is very different from history. History of Art is only a very small part of History. Consequently, MA in History of Art cannot be treated as MA in History, unless the equivalence is granted by the competent authority concerned. The burden of showing such equivalence is on the petitioner, but he has failed to discharge this burden. Hence, the writ petition should have been dismissed, and was wrongly allowed by the learned Single Judge.

It is not for this court to accord equivalence in degree. There must be judicial restraint in such matters, and the Court should not step into the executive or legislative domain, vide Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. S.P., and M.I. Hussain v. N. Singh (DB).

8. In the Counter Affidavit, it is stated by the respondent that the Board does not undertake any scrutiny of applications for eligibility before the written examination/screening test, and the applicants are allowed to appear in the examination/screening test at their own risk. The candidature remains provisional subject to eligibility having been verified after the test. Consequently, merely because the candidate was allowed to appear in the written examination/test/interview, it should not be presumed that he/she is eligible. The Board reserved the right to cancel his/her candidature at any stage, if the application was not as per the provision of the recruitment rules or the advertisement. At the time of screening of the certificates of the petitioners educational qualification, it was found that he had obtained the degree of MA in History of Art and not of MA in History. Hence, the petitioner was not qualified as per the recruitment rules vide Annexure R-4 and consequently his nomination for the post of Lecturer in History was cancelled vide letter dated 21.3.2000 (Annexure R-5). It is stated in the counter affidavit to the writ petition that the subject taught in History of Art deals with History of painting, Art, Kala and Sculpture, and these subjects are not taught in the respondent school in Class 11th and 12th for which the post of Lecturer (History) was advertised.

9. It is well settled that in academic/educational matters, this Court should not ordinarily interfere, but they should be left for the concerned authorities to decide vide M.I. Hussain v. N. Singh and Ors. (LPA 1650/2005) decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 7.11.2005. In paragraph 47 of the said judgment, the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University AIR 1986 SC 1448 (vide paragraph 7), J.P. Kulshreshtra v. Allahabad University (paragraph 1), University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao , etc. have been referred to.

10. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.