Delhi High Court
Dipin Arora vs Shivaji College Throug Its ... on 8 July, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: July 08, 2011
+ LPA No. 564/2011
DIPIN ARORA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Mr.Preet Pal
Singh and Mr.Rohit Nagpal,Advs.
Versus
SHIVAJI COLLEGE THROUG ITS PRINCIPAL & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate for R-3.
Ms.Ferida Sararawala, Adv for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1 Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
DIPAK MISRA, CJ
In this intra-court appeal, the sustainability of the order dated
24.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.10720/2009 is
called in question.
2 Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual matrix that is required to be
exposited is that the respondent No.1, Shivaji College, affiliated to the
University of Delhi, the respondent No.3 herein, on 13.5.2008 brought out
LPA 564/2011 page 1 of 5
an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Administrative
Officer of the college. The said advertisement stipulated the eligibility
criteria stating that a candidate must have good academic record plus
Master's degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent Grade B in
the UGC Seven point scale.
3 In pursuance of the said advertisement, the appellant applied and he
was issued admit card for the written test held for the said post and
subsequently was called for the interview by the Selection Committee
constituted for the said purpose and got selected for the post in question.
He was offered the said post on 29.12.2008 and joined the college on
30.12.2008. It is worth noting, the appointment was subject to "approval of
the Governing Body of the College and the respondent No.3 University of
Delhi". When the approval of the university was sought, the University by
its letter dated 16/19th June, 2009 opined that the appointment was not in
order as he did not possess the Master's Degree with 55% marks and asked
the College to dispense with his services after following the due process of
law.
LPA 564/2011 page 2 of 5
4 On 19.6.2009, the Deputy Registrar of the College issued a direction
to dispense with the services of the appellant. A detailed
representation/reply was filed by the appellant. At the stage of show
cause, the petitioner approached the Writ Court and the learned Single
Judge on 7.8.2009 passed an order of status quo as a consequence of which
he was allowed to continue.
5 The question that emerged before the learned Single Judge was
whether the appellant did have the requisite qualification. Another
ancillary issue that was raised before the learned Single Judge was
whether the appellant had an equivalent degree to the Master's Degree.
6 The learned Single Judge adverted to the issue of equivalence and
came to hold that the appellant has not brought any material on record to
show that the diploma obtained by the appellant was treated as equivalent
to degree of Post Graduation by the University. The learned Single Judge
referred to the decision rendered in Basic Education Board, UP v. Upendra
Rai (2008) 3 SCC 432 and opined that laying down the principle of
equivalence is fundamentally an administrative decision which is in the
sole discretion of the authority. That apart, the learned Single Judge
LPA 564/2011 page 3 of 5
opined that a diploma can never be equivalent to a Degree. To arrive at the
said conclusion, the learned Single Judge relied on the decision in Tirath
Raj v. MCD 68(1997) DLT 635 wherein it has been held that there is a
difference between a Degree and a Diploma. Reliance was also placed on
the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shailendra Dania v. S.P.Dubey
(2007) 5 SCC 535. It was also contended before the learned Single Judge
that once he had been selected and appointed, the University cannot
exercise the power to cancel the appointment. The learned Single Judge
placed reliance on Mahatma Gandhi University v. Gis Jose (2008) 17 SCC
611 and Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur JT 2010 (7) SC
179 and expressed the view that the appointment being void ab initio, no
right accrued in favour of the persons concerned and there is no estoppel
on the part of the public authority from enforcing a statutory provision.
8 We have heard Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned counsel for the
appellant.
9 Having perused the order of the learned Single Judge, we have no
scintilla of doubt that the appellant does not meet the basic eligibility
criteria inasmuch as the requirement was for a post graduate degree or an
LPA 564/2011 page 4 of 5
equivalent qualification. The appellant had only a diploma in his favour.
There is a distinction between a degree and diploma. When he did not
have the basic eligibility criteria, the order of appointment was void ab
initio. That apart, the appointment was subject to approval of the
University. When the University found that the appellant did not meet the
eligibility criteria, directed the college to terminate the services. No error
can be found with the said order. The principle of estoppel cannot be
attracted in that regard. Thus, the order of termination cannot be found
fault with and giving stamp of approval to the same by the learned Single
Judge is absolutely impeccable.
10 In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and,
accordingly, the same stands dismissed in limine.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 08, 2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
sv
LPA 564/2011 page 5 of 5
