Delhi High Court
Anita Ghosh vs Shri Ram College Of Commerce & Ors. on 23 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) Nos. 2846/1996 & 4896/1997
% 23rd August, 2013
1. W.P.(C) 2846/1996 (I j)
ANITA GHOSH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Mr.
D.S.V.Krishnajee, Mr. Atanu
Mukherjee and Ms. Sushma, Advs.
VERSUS
SHRI RAM COLLEGE OF COMMERCE & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Mr. Ritika
Nagpal, Adv. for R-3/SRCC (college)
Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Adv. for R-
4.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Mamta
Tiwari and Mr. Shashank Shekhar,
Advocates for R/UGC.
2. W.P.(C) 4896/1997 (i.k)
KULJEET KAUR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma, Adv.
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.P.S.Ahulawalia, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Sushma , Adv. for R-4.
WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 Page 1 of 24
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Mamta
Tiwari and Mr. Shashank Shekhar,
Advocates for R/UGC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Both these connected writ petitions are being disposed of by
this common judgment inasmuch as whereas petitioner-Ms. Anita Ghosh in
W.P.(C) 2846/1996 seeks appointment to the post in question of a Lady
Lecturer in Physical Education of Shri Ram College of Commerce
(hereinafter referred to as „College‟), the petitioner-Smt. Kuljeet Kaur in
W.P.(C) 4896/1997 was already appointed to the post in question on
3.8.1995 after interviews were conducted on 2.8.1995. The petitioner in
W.P.(C) 2846/1996 Ms. Anita Ghosh seeks cancellation of the appointment
of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur and consequently of her- Ms. Anita Ghosh‟s being
appointed to the post in question. Smt. Kuljeet Kaur in her petition
challenges the actions of the University Grants Commission in denying her
the relaxation in obtaining NET qualification, and which was obtained by
her after about a year of her being appointed.
WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 Page 2 of 24
2. The facts of the case are that the College in 1995 inserted an
advertisement for appointment to the post of Lady Lecturer in Physical
Education. Interviews were conducted on 2.8.1995 and Smt. Kuljeet Kaur
was appointed on being placed at serial no.1 in the selection list. Smt.
Kuljeet Kaur however did not have the NET (National Eligibility Test)
qualification which was required for being appointed as a Lecturer. The
Selection Committee therefore directed that exemption qua NET
qualification be sought by the College from the University Grants
Commission (UGC) as regards Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. The College accordingly
wrote to the University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "University") its
letter dated 19.1.1996, and the University forwarded the request to UGC by
its letter dated 20.2.1996 for relaxation of NET qualification in respect of
Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. The college wrote another letter dated 9.2.1996 to UGC
in which the following special reason/merit for selection was given for
appointing Smt. Kuljeet Kaur:-
"2. Special reason/merit for selection:
(a) Worked as Lecturer in Physical Education in Kamla Nehru
College from July to September, 1989 on ad-hoc basis.
(b) Worked as Lecturer in Physical Education in Laxmi Bai
College for two months (February to March, 1990) in ad-hoc basis.
(c) Worked as Lecturer in Physical Education on temporary basis
w.e.f. August, 1991 to January, 1994 in Vivekanand College duly
WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 Page 3 of 24
recommended by the prescribed Selection Committee. She should,
therefore, be exempted from the requirement of NET."
3. This aforesaid letter was followed by the college by its another
letter dated 5.6.1996 in which the following qualifications and experience of
Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was given, and request was made for giving exemption
from NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, and which reads as under:-
"While we await your approval, We would like to state that the appointment
of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur was cleared by the duly constituted selection committee
and the following details regarding the achievements of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur
(as proved by her were made available to the Selection Committee that had
recommended her appointment.
Secure first division at her Degree examination in Physical Education and
secured first division at her Master‟s Degree examination in physical
Education. She was awarded a silver medal.
She obtained Diploma in Hockey from National Institute of Sports in 1989.
She is qualified coach and national level Umpire of Hockey.
She has an M.A. degree in Hindi.
Participated in orientation courses conducted by the Centre for Professional
Development in Higher Education in 1993.
Participated in National Seminar on relevance of Physical Education and
Sports in educational curriculam in 1993.
Experience
Lecturer in Physical Education, Kamla Nehru College, July-September, 1989
on ad-hoc basis.
Temporary Lecturer (on leave vacancy), Vivekananda College, constituted
Selection Committee, and fulfilled the eligibility conditions prevalent at that
time according to the rules and regulations of University of Delhi.
Lecturer in Physical Education (Guest Lecturer), Shri Ram College of
Commerce, June 1994 to March, 1995, and on ad-hoc basis from April, 1995
to August 2, 1995.
WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 Page 4 of 24
Had ranging experience of umpiring and supervising various national and
international matches namely, Indo German Hockey Test for Women held at
Delhi in 1993, and Indo Australia Hockey test for Women held at Delhi in
1994. At national level she has umpired the matches in North-Zone inter-
varsity hockey championship for Women held at Delhi University in 1989,
Senior-National for Women held at Gurgaon for the year 1990 and
Hyderabad in 1991. She also umpired the matches in Hissar 1990 and Delhi
1995 (Sub-Juniors).
Coached Delhi State and Delhi University team in the year 1990. Manger of
Delhi Hockey team in third federation cup held at Delhi in 1993. She was
Liaison Officer with India Team in Third Intercontinental Cup for Women in
1989.
Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur has been outstanding sports person having the represented
Delhi State Hockey Team in National Championship for „Seven Years‟ from
1982 to 1987 and 1990.
She was member of Indian Universities Hockey Team in the 1987.
Represented Delhi State Hockey Team in National Games in the year 1988.
Was declared best Full Back Award in 30th Senior National Championship.
Represented Delhi University Hockey team in All India Inter-varsity
Championship in 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 (as a captain) and 1985-86 as a
captain and represented Punjabi University Team in the year 1987 and got
third position.
Awarded University Colour, 1982-83.
Attended Indian Hockey Coaching Camp in the year 1984-85.
She represented Daulat Ram College and Government College of Physical
Education, Patiala, in Handball (1984-85, 1985-86), Cricket (1987), and
Athletics (1985-86, 1987) and secured first three positions in Inter College
Tournaments.
In view of her experience and performance as stated above, she was found to
have a clear edge over candidates with NET qualification, and was, therefore,
selected unanimously through the duly constituted Selection Committee. We
hope that the condition of clearing the National Eligibility Test (NET) could
in her case be relaxed so as to enable the College to regularize her
appointment."
WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 Page 5 of 24
4. UGC however rejected the request for exemption from NET
qualification of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur and accordingly wrote its letter dated
24.5.1996 to the University, which reads as under:-
"F.1-3(4)/95 (PS) 24 May, 1996
The Registrar
University of Delhi
Delhi.
Sub: Proposal of Shri Ram College of Commerce for exemption from
NET in respect of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur for appointment of Lecturer in Physical
Education.
********
Sir,
With reference to your letter No.CB-I/96/49756 dated 29th
February, 1996 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Commission
regrets its inability to agree to the proposal for exemption of NET in respect of
Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur for appointment of Lecturer in Physical Education since as
per information submitted by the University a number of NET qualified
candidates were available and the selected candidate had no special
qualification/experience with her.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Dilbagh Singh)
Under Secretary"
5. A reference to the letter dated 24.5.1996 of UGC shows that
two reasons were given for not granting exemption to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur.
First reason was that NET qualified candidates were available. The second
reason is that Smt. Kuljeet Kaur had no special qualifications/experience
with her ie if there were special qualifications/experience NET exemption
could have been granted. It may be noted that UGC did not say that why the
qualifications/experience of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur given in the letters dated
9.2.1996 and 5.6.1996 were not enough and what else was required for
meeting the „special qualifications/experience‟ aspect. Qua this second
reason it may be noted that on a pointed query to the counsel for the UGC, it
is conceded that there is nothing on record filed by the UGC which shows
that UGC prescribed any special qualifications/experience for a Lady
Lecturer of Physical Education, and which can be sufficient for giving
exemption from NET qualifications. Also, on a further pointed query,
counsel for the UGC could not show any document that UGC was acting in
terms of a particular declared/stated policy which delienated specific criteria
when exemption can be granted from NET qualification and when
exemption cannot be granted.
6. The College was not satisfied with the rejection of UGC and
therefore it wrote its letter dated 12.6.1996 again reiterating the request to
give permission for appointment to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur by granting
exemption from NET qualification. The University had written to the
College a letter dated 21/29.6.1996 informing the College to send full details
of specific cases to UGC because it appeared that some cases have been
considered unfairly by the UGC.
7. The relevant fact to be noted at this stage is that Smt. Kuljeet
Kaur obtained NET qualification on 10.12.1996, and, for which the NET test
was conducted earlier in June, 1996 by UGC.
8. This aspect of NET qualification of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was
informed by the College to the University by its letter dated 12.12.1996 and
UGC was also accordingly informed by the letter of the College dated
13.12.1996.
9. UGC however once again declined to grant exemption for NET
qualification to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur and so informed the University by its
letter dated 13.1.1997 which reads as under:-
"F.1-3(4)/95 (PS)
13 Jan 1997
The Registrar
University of Delhi
Delhi-110007.
Sub: Proposal of Shri Ram College of Commerce for exemption from
NET in respect of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur, Department of Physical Education.
*******
With reference to your letter No.F.CB-I/96/9128 dated 20th June, 1996 on
the above subject, I am directed to say that the University/College has not
given any special and valid justification for selecting Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur as out
of 12 candidates who appeared in the interview, 5 were NET qualified and 2
were exempted from NET.
The Commission regrets its inability to grant exemption to Mrs. Kuljeet
Kaur from NET examination.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(Dilbagh Singh)
Under Secretary"
10. A reference to the aforesaid letter shows that there was a
noticeable change in the stand of the UGC. Whereas in the earlier rejection
letter dated 24.5.1996 two reasons of sufficient number of NET qualified
candidates being available and Smt. Kuljeet Kaur lacking special
qualifications/experience were given, in the subsequent letter of the UGC
dated 13.1.1997 only one reason was given for declining exemption and
which was that NET qualified candidates were available. Though I will deal
with this aspect at a subsequent stage when I deal with the arguments which are
urged on behalf of the UGC and Ms. Anita Ghosh, it would be relevant to
mention that pursuant to orders which were passed in W.P.(C) 4896/1997,
UGC was again directed to consider the case of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur inasmuch as
various other persons‟ cases were brought to the notice of the Court where
NET exemptions were granted. But, the UGC yet continued its persistent
stand of denying exemption from NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur
and which details will be adverted to a little later.
11 (i) On behalf of Ms. Anita Ghosh, it was very strenuously argued
that there was no question of appointment of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur who was not
qualified in terms of the UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding minimum
qualifications for appointment as lecturers in Universities and Colleges as
Smt. Kuljeet Kaur did not have NET qualification and which qualification
Ms. Anita Ghosh had in terms of the notification dated 21.6.1995, an
amendment was made to the 1991 UGC Regulations whereby there was no
need of clearing NET examination for those persons who had submitted
Ph.D thesis or passed M.Phil examination by 31.12.1993, and Ms. Anita
Ghosh had obtained Ph.D qualification by 31.12.1993. It is accordingly
argued that the Selection Committee had no option but to choose Ms. Anita
Ghosh who was a qualified candidate and the Selection Committee
committed an illegality in choosing Smt. Kuljeet Kaur who was an
unqualified candidate.
(ii) On behalf of UGC, its counsel argued before me that UGC was
justified in rejecting the request of the College and Smt. Kuljeet Kaur
seeking exemption from NET clearance and so communicated by the two
letters dated 24.5.1996 and 13.1.1997. The decision taken by UGC on
12.12.1997 rejecting the case of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur for the third time was
also reiterated. In sum and substance, what is argued on behalf of UGC is
that UGC consists of expert persons, and since such expert persons have
taken a decision not to grant exemption from NET qualification to Smt.
Kuljeet Kaur, hence the decision of such expert body must be respected by
the Courts, and that the Courts should not substitute its own opinion for that
of the experts.
12. Let us firstly take the argument which has been urged by the
counsel for Ms. Anita Ghosh before this Court. Of course, there is no doubt
that on the date when interviews were conducted Smt. Anita Ghosh had the
necessary qualifications, however, in my opinion, it is incorrect for the
counsel representing Ms. Anita Ghosh to argue that Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was
unqualified. Of course, in a relative sense Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was
unqualified, however, it is not as if Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was unqualified in an
absolute sense. This I say so because it is not disputed that UGC has been
giving ex-post facto approvals, after selection of candidates by the Colleges,
with respect to exemption from NET qualification or extension of time for
obtaining NET qualification. The necessary power of UGC to grant
exemption is contained in the proviso to Regulation 2 of the 1991
Regulations. These Regulations read as under:-
"9.0 UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges.
To be Published in the Gazette of India on 5th Oct. 1991
Part III Section 4
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi-2.
No.F.1-11/87 (CPP) 19th Sept. 1991
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of
Section 26 read with Section 14 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956
(3 of 1956), and in supersession of the Regulations issued under University
Grants Commission letter No.F.1-93/74 (CPP) Part (v) dated 13th June, 1983
and Notifications No.1-93/74 (CP) dated 19th February, 1985 and 26th
November, 1985, the University Grants Commission hereby makes the
following regulations, namely:-
1. Short Title, application and commencement:
(i) These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission
(Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of
the University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991.
(ii) They shall apply to every University established or incorporated by
or under a central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution
including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the
Commission, in consultation with the University concerned under Clause (f)
of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every
institutions deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act.
(iii) They shall come into force with immediate effect.
2. Qualifications:
No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any of
institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under
clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in
an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a
subject if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the
appropriate subjects as provided in the Schedule I.
Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be
made by a University in regard to the posts under it or any of the institutions
including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under clause (f) of
Section 2 of the aforesaid Act or by an institution deemed to be a university
under Section 3 of the said Act with the prior approval of the University
Grants Commission.
Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases
where selections through duly constituted selection committees for making
appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement
of these regulations.
3. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with
recommendations of the Commission; as per provisions of Section 14 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956:
If any University Grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any
college referred to in sub-section (50 of Section 12-A in contravention of the
provisions of that sub-section of fails within a reasonable time to comply
with any recommendations made by the Commission under Section 12 or
Section 13, or contravenes the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) of
clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 25 or of any regulations made under
clause (c) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26, the Commission after
taking into consideration the clause, if any, shown by the University for such
failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the grants
proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission.
Sd/-
(Y.N. Chaturvedi)
Secretary
To:-
The Manager,
Govt. of India Press,
Faridabad."
13. I may at this stage, hasten to clarify that what is meant by "prior
approval" in the proviso to Regulation 2 is a prior approval in the sense that
till that approval is granted by UGC, the appointment of the Lecturer will
not be confirmed. Putting it differently, appointment can take place however
the appointment will be a regular and valid appointment only on approval
being given by UGC to the appointment. It is for this reason that UGC has
been, „post-selection‟, granting and declining NET exemptions to various
candidates, and as is being set out below. Therefore, I cannot agree with the
submission made on behalf of Ms. Anita Ghosh that the College had no right
to appoint Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, and the College had no option but to appoint
Ms. Anita Ghosh as she was the qualified candidate. Since a subsequent
approval can bring validity to the appointment, it cannot be said that a
person who does not have NET qualification has absolutely no right to be
appointed to the post. Proviso to Regulation 2 as stated above is a complete
answer to the arguments raised on behalf of Ms. Anita Ghosh.
14. Let us now take the argument of UGC. I may right at the outset
state that this is not the first case where this Court‟s judicial conscience has
been perturbed by the stand taken by the UGC. I hope UGC takes note of
the same very seriously. The reason why this Court is perturbed is that UGC
is an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India,
and, it has to be necessarily guided by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. It has been reiterated on innumerable number of occasions by the
Courts throughout the country that pick and choose action of
instrumentalities of State has to be frowned upon and which takes place
where no criteria is prescribed or a policy declared. In view of the mandate
of Article 14 an instrumentality of State must act with a specific declared
policy. Even if there is no specific declared policy, and cases are taken up
on a case to case basis, then even in such situations, there have to be
specified criteria and guidelines set out so as to avoid arbitrariness and pick
and choose action of the body. I have already stated above that UGC has no
declared policy as to when approval is to be granted or not to be granted for
NET qualification at the relevant times when UGC refused to grant
exemption from NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeeet Kaur on various
occasions. Also, I have already stated above, that UGC has laid down no
specific delineated written criteria as to when there would exist special
qualifications or experience for a candidate to be granted exemption from
NET and such candidate being confirmed as a Lecturer in Physical
Education, to be being granted exemption or not to be granted exemption
from NET qualification. Quite clearly UGC, claiming itself to be an "expert
body", is of the opinion that its actions are not justiciable on the touch stone
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is highly improper and
unacceptable. I do not think that the law states that merely because a body is
an expert body, if such an expert body is an instrumentality of State, such so
called expert body can act without declared guidelines or declared policy or
declared criteria which would guide its actions with respect to grant or non-
grant of exemption from NET qualifications and which has nothing to do
with „expertise‟. That the Courts must have a hands off policy with respect
to a decision of an expert body, is an argument which sounds impressive at
the first blush, however, the arguments which have been accepted by the
Courts with respect to expert bodies are in those cases where expertise is
required and which expertise the Courts cannot effectively scrutinize. When
the issue is of specifying or declaring a criteria or a policy, I do not think
there is an issue of expertise. Having or not having a particular qualification
or experience surely is not a matter of expertise as is being contended on
behalf of UGC. This is hence the reason for this Court‟s consternation and
that the judicial conscience of this Court being perturbed. UGC ought not to
have taken up such a stand, but unfortunately it has, and on whose advice
one however does not know.
15. The absurdity to which UGC has gone in this case will best be
demonstrated by the averments which have been made in the supplementary
affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the UGC on 19.8.2003. I
reproduce this affidavit as under:-
"I A.K. Dogra, Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur
Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-
[1] That I am the Joint Secretary in the University Grants
Commission and as such I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the instant case. Hence, I am competent to swear the instant affidavit.
[2] That this Hon‟ble Court vide its Order dated 05.08.2003 passed in the
aforesaid matter directed the University Grants Commission to file
supplementary affidavit stating among others as to on what circumstances,
the University Grants Commission has exempted Ritu Kohli, Parmesh Datta
and Baljeet Singh from Net Examination.
[3] That the case of Shri Parmesh Dutta for exemption from NET
Examination was placed before the Exemption Committee in its meeting held
on 16.12.1996. After considering the proposal received from Tezpur
University, the Committee agreed to grant exemption from NET
Qualification to Shri Parmesh Dutta in view of his excellent publications and
recommendations of the Selection Committee. A true copy of the minutes of
the meeting held on 16.12.1996 is annexed herewith and is being marked as
ANNEXURE-„A-1‟.
[4] That it is relevant to state that pursuant to the order dated 09.12.1997
passed by the Hon‟ble Court, the case of Shri Parmesh Dutta was again
placed before the Exemption Committee in it‟s meeting held on 12.12.1997.
The exemption committee after considering his case at length gave
justifications/reasons for granting exemption to Shri Parmesh Dutta from
NET. In the said meeting, case of the petitioner was also reconsidered by the
Exemption Committee and ultimately the Committee found that there was no
reason to recommend exemption from NET to the petitioner herein. The
extract of the minutes of the Exemption Committee meeting held on
12.12.1997 has already been extracted in the Counter Affidavit filed on
behalf of UGC at page 76 to 79 of the paperbook hence the same is not being
repeated here in order to avoid repetition.
[5] That the Exemption Committee in its meeting held on 30.09.1997
considered the proposal received from Delhi University/SGTB/Khalsa
College (Evening) in respect of S. Baljeet Singh for appointment of lecturer,
Department of History for exemption from Net. After considering his case,
the committee agreed to grant exemption from NET qualification to Shri S.
Baljeet Singh after considering the details of the case sent by the College
through the University on 20.05.1997. The Committee noted that out of the
11 candidates interviewed, there were only 3 candidates who could teach
both the required papers namely History of Modern Europe and the Rise of
Modern West. Shri Baljeet Singh was unanimously selected for the post as
he was competent to teach both, Modern Europe and Rise of Modern West.
However, his teaching experience, performance in the interview, good
academic record including Gold Medal at post graduate level and
performance in the interview was also taken into account to grant him
exemption. Thereafter the recommendations of the exemption Committee
was placed before the University Grants Commission in its 371st meeting
held on 15.10.1997 in which the Commission considered the
recommendations of the exemption Committee and approved the
recommendations of the exemption committee. True copy of the minutes of
the meeting of the Exemption Committee held on 30.09.1997 as also true
copy of the minutes of the 371st meeting of the University Grants
Commission held on 15.10.1997 are annexed herewith and is being marked
as ANNEXURE-A-2 „Colly‟.
[6] That it is respectfully submitted that the meeting of the exemption
Committee was again held on 11.10.2000 to re-consider the case of
Exemption in qualification for the appointment as lecturers. In the said
meeting, various items including the case of Ms. Ritu Kohli was placed
before the Exemption Committee and the exemption was pleased to
recommend for Exemption from NET to Ms. Ritu Kohli. It is further
submitted that since the exemption committee did not record reasons for
recommending exemption from NET qualification therefore, it is not clear as
to on what reasoning the Exemption Committee recommended exemption
from NET to the candidates including Ms. Ritu Kohli. A true copy of the
minutes of the meeting of Exemption Committee held on 11.10.2000 is
annexed herewith and is being marked as ANNEXURE. A-3.
[7] That so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, her case for exemption
from NET Qualification was considered by the Exemption Committee on
12.04.1996, 30.08.1996 and 12.12.1997. On 12.04.1996 and 30.08.1996,
when the exemption Committee considered her case for Exemption from
NET, the fact of her clearing the NET Examination held on 30.06.1996 was
not placed before the Exemption Committee. However, on both the earlier
occasions, the Exemption Committee had duly taken note of special reasons
forwarded by the respondent No.3 through the University of Delhi. However
the Exemption Committee in its meeting held on 12.12.1997 while
considering the case of the petitioner herein for Exemption from NET
Qualification, duly took note of the fact that she had cleared the NET
Examination held on 30th June 1996. The Exemption Committee also duly
considered the letter dated 09.12.1997 from the Respondent No.3 which was
received in the office of the Commission on 11.12.1997. It is relevant to
point out at this stage that the special justification for appointment of the
petitioner as lecturer as contained in the letter dated 09.12.1997 of the
Principal of the Respondent No.3 herein is in fact the repetition of the special
reasons contained in the proposal dated 09.02.1996 and 05.06.1996 of the
Respondent No.3 herein. It is respectfully submitted that the only additional
feature of the letter dated 09.12.1997 was a mention of the fact that the
petitioner herein has qualified NET. The extract of the recommendations of
the exemption Committee in respect of the Exemption Committee meeting
held on 12.12.1997 has already been extracted at page 76 to 79 of the paper
book, hence the same is not being repeated here in order to avoid
repetitiveness.
[8] That the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my knowledge. No
part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom."
16. A reading of this supplementary affidavit shows that actions of
UGC go from curious to absurd. First let us take the case of Sh. Parmesh
Dutta. The reason for granting exemption from NET to Sh. Parmesh Dutta is
his excellent publications and recommendations of the Selection Committee.
What are the excellent publications and recommendations of Sh. Parmesh
Dutta which are accepted by the „expert body‟ are not stated and what is the
declared criteria of UGC is admittedly not specified for giving benefit to Sh.
Parmesh Dutta inasmuch as, and as already stated above, there is no
declared criteria on which the UGC is acting which specifies what will be
the criteria required.
17. Let us further take the case of Sh. S.Baljeet Singh as stated in
the affidavit of UGC. What is stated is that out of 11 candidates
interviewed, there were only 3 candidates who could teach both required
papers namely History of Modern Europe and the Rise of Modern West.
Sh. Baljeet Singh was unanimously selected as he was competent to teach
both. How this is on the basis of any specified criteria is once again not
mentioned, and which is accentuated by the fact that the reason for granting
NET exemption to Sh. Baljeet Singh is being justified also because of Sh.
Baljeet Singh‟s „teaching experience‟, „performance in the interview‟, „good
academic record including gold medal at post graduate level‟ etc. Once
again, how this would satisfy any declared criteria is conspicuous by its
absence and for reasons which are not far to seek because as already stated
above expert bodies or expert body of UGC is surely deciding its own
criteria at its own level in each case without even bothering to bring some
transparency by specifying the criteria for exemption from NET.
18. Even in the case of Ms. Ritu Kohli, and who was granted
exemption from NET, it is an admitted stand that Exemption Committee did
not record reasons for recommending exemption from NET to Ms. Ritu
Kohli, and therefore, nothing is stated in the affidavit.
19. In view of the stand of UGC, and which really paints a sorry
picture of almost autocracy in this body called UGC, what at all needs to be
said further. I would only say that if there is any illegality, this affidavit of
UGC dated 19.8.2003 speaks voluminous enough. I need not say anything
further.
20. Learned counsel for UGC argued by placing reliance upon
P.M.Bhargava and Others Vs. University Grants Commission & Anr.
(2004) 6 SCC 661 that the Courts should not substitute its opinion for the
decision of an expert body. I fail to understand how at all this case can help
UGC because all that is decided in that case is that when a course of
astrology is approved for teaching by an educational institution, then, Courts
cannot decide whether astrology is a subject which ought or ought not to be
taught in educational institutions. Surely in such cases Courts will not
substitute its own opinion, however, in the facts of the present case, and as
stated above, there is no „expertise‟ which is an issue.
21. The question now is that having rejected the arguments of Ms.
Anita Ghosh and UGC what must follow. It was argued that this Court
should again refer the matter back to UGC and should not take a decision on
its own. Of course, normally, once a decision of a body is set aside, such a
body will be again asked to take a decision in accordance with law, however,
in the facts of the present case, where there have been not one but three
decisions of UGC persistently refusing to grant exemption from NET
qualification, I feel that instead of wasting further time, and that too in these
cases which are now over 17 years old, this Court should give its decision
instead of UGC doing so. In my opinion, considering the facts and
circumstances of the present cases, since Smt. Kuljeet Kaur had obtained
NET qualifications within 1 ½ years from the date of original appointment,
and for the NET test which was given within 1 year of the date of
appointment, therefore, in my opinion, the only order which is required to be
passed is that there is no need of giving exemption from NET qualification,
however, the period for obtaining NET qualification of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur is
extended up to 12.12.1996. I have already stated that it is not unknown that
UGC itself has extended the time for various candidates to obtain the NET
qualification. Therefore, if UGC can extend the time for candidates to get
NET qualification, there is no reason why this Court cannot exercise similar
power and extend the time for obtaining of NET qualification. I do so in the
facts of the present case.
22. Accordingly, I hold that appointment of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur to
the post of Lady Lecturer in Physical Education of Shriram College of
Commerce is valid. Smt. Kuljeet Kaur will be taken to have confirmed to
her post from 12.12.1996 and her initial tentative appointment will be valid
on3.8.1995, and till 12.12.1996, when she would stand confirmed to the post
of Lady Lecturer in Physical Education.
23. In view of the above, W.P.(C) 4896/1997 is allowed by
confirming the appointment of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur w.e.f 12.12.1996.
W.P.(C) 2846/1996 of Ms. Anita Ghosh to get her appointment to the post in
question is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. All pending
applications stand disposed of accordingly.
AUGUST 23, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne/ib
