Delhi High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Manisha Rao vs University Of Delhi & Anr on 11 July, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th, July 2012
+ W.P.(C) No. 1062/1998
% DR. (MRS.) MANISHA RAO ....Petitioner
Through: None
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondent
University to (i) include the name of the petitioner on the panel for the
academic year 1997-98 of ad-hoc lecturers in the Department of Economics
of University of Delhi; (ii) appoint the petitioner as ad-hoc lecturer with
immediate effect from August, 1995, except for the period from 27th
August, 1996 to 30th April, 1997 during which the petitioner had got part
time employment; and, (iii) appoint the petitioner as permanent lecturer
against the vacancies in future. Notice of the petition was issued. Though
interim relief of restraining the respondent University from appointing any
other person was also claimed but not granted.
2. It appears that the petitioner had applied to the Department of
Economics of the respondent University for inclusion of her name in the
panel of ad hoc lecturers but the said request was rejected. Accordingly,
vide letter dated 27th November, 1997, the request of the petitioner for
approval to teach in Women's College, Bawana on ad hoc basis was also
rejected.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she has done her M.A. Degree in
Economics with 55.40% marks from M.D. University, Rohtak and
submitted her thesis for Ph.D in the year 1993, which was awarded in 1996;
that she is thus eligible to be appointed as a lecturer in the Delhi University
and its constituent Colleges and in fact had been so appointed on ad hoc
basis. It is further her case that the Head of the Department and the other
senior professors want to appoint their own students and with this intent
they rejected her application. It is yet further contended that as per the
guidelines of the University Grants Commission and other relevant rules,
the eligibility for the post of lecturer is that the candidate should possess
M.A. Degree with at least 55% marks with clearance of NET with
exemption for those who submitted their Ph.D before 31st December, 1993
or were awarded M. Phil Degree before the said date. It is yet further the
case of the petitioner that candidates with only qualification of M.A are
being selected.
The petitioner also alleges favouritism in the preparation of panel of
ad hoc lecturers. It is contended that in the garb of interviews, the higher
qualified persons with degrees of M.Phil and Ph.D are not selected. It is
contended that in accordance with the judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav v.
State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454, the marks allocated to the interview
should not be more than 12.2% and the remaining weightage should be
given to the educational qualifications.
4. The respondent University in its counter affidavit has pleaded that all
appointments in Colleges of the Delhi University, whether of permanent
lecturers or temporary lecturers are made on the recommendations of a duly
constituted Selection Committee consisting of Chairman of Governing Body
of the College, Principal of the College concerned, Teacher in charge of the
subject in the College concerned, University Representative on the
Governing Body of the College concerned, Head of the University
Department concerned and Expert in the subject concerned; that a panel of
experts in each subject is approved by the Academic Council of the
University of Delhi and the College is free to chose anyone from the said
panel; that the appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc/part time lecturer in
Maharaja Agarsain College was not through duly constituted Selection
Committee and thus cannot constitute the basis for subsequent selection as a
permanent or temporary lecturer; that the minimum eligibility condition of
55% marks in MA is rigorously enforced; that the petitioner's Ph.D is from
MD University, Rohtak and that too from Department of Rural
Development and not from the Department of Economics; allegations of
bias are denied by stating that a good proportion of candidates empanelled
on their list have qualifying degrees from Universities other than Delhi
University; that the petitioner was interviewed thrice between the years
1995-1997 by a Committee of senior professors of the Department of
Economics for possible inclusion in the panel for ad hoc appointment as
lecturer in Economics in Colleges of Delhi University but was not found fit
and suitable and not possessing even the most basic knowledge of the
subject; that her answers even to questions pertaining to her Ph.D thesis
were not satisfactory; that the appointments are not made by the Department
of the University but by the Colleges concerned; that the petitioner has
never been empanelled; that mere empanelment does not assure
appointment which has to be after scrutiny by the College having vacancies.
5. Needless to state that the petitioner in her rejoinder has denied all the
averments aforesaid in the counter affidavit and has also filed a certificate of
the MD University, Rohtak to the effect that the Department of Rural
Development was branched out from the Department of Economics and as a
matter of policy all students working under the supervision of teachers who
were allocated to the Department of Rural Development, were also
transferred to that Department.
6. None has been appearing for the petitioner since 4 th September, 2008,
on 17th September, 2008, 3rd January, 2012 and 20th March, 2012. Today
also none has appeared for the petitioner inspite of the matter having been
shown on the Board for sufficiently long time.
7. Considering the fact, that the writ petition is of the year 1998 and the
nature of the relief of appointment claimed therein, it is not appropriate to
await the petitioner any longer and with the assistance of the counsel for the
respondent University who has since appeared, the aforesaid records have
been perused.
8. The respondent University in its counter affidavit has given cogent
reasons for denying the relief to the petitioner. The selection procedure has
also been set out in detail. Though, the petitioner has sought to make
allegations of bias against the respondent University but the same do not
constitute a plea in law, being without any particulars whatsoever. There is
thus no reason for this Court to disbelieve the stand of the respondent
University that the petitioner was interviewed thrice by a Committee of
senior professors of the Department of Economics and was not found
eligible.
9. It is the settled principle of law that this Court would not interfere
with the decision of the experts in the field of education. Moreover nearly
14 years have passed since the filing of the present petition. As per the
petitioner also, the petitioner had no right of appointment and was only
claiming a consideration of her claim for empanelment. Once it is found that
the petitioner has been duly considered by the appropriate
authorities/Selection Committee of the respondent University, no case for
directing fresh consideration also is made out.
10. There is no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 11, 2012
pp..
