Delhi High Court
The University Of Delhi vs Mr. Pratap Singh Bisht & Anr on 15 July, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: July 13, 2015
% Judgment Delivered on: July15 , 2015
+ LPA 363/2014 & CM 8277/2014
THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Saurabh Banerjee and
Mr.Sumit Nagpal, Advocates.
versus
MR. PRATAP SINGH BISHT & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Sinha and Ms.Nupur
Grover, Advocates for
Respondent No.1.
AND
+ LPA 380/2014 & CMs. 8959/2014 & 10871/2014
SHRI SHAMBHU SHARAN MISHRA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.P.S.Bindra and Mr.Ravi
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
SHRI PRATAP SINGH BIST & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Pankaj Sinha and Ms.Nupur
Grover, Advocates for
Respondent No.1.
Mr.Saurabh Banerjee and
Mr.Sumit Nagpal, Advocates
for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Pratap Singh Bist, respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition being
WP(C) No.1387/2012 inter alia seeking setting aside of the appointment of
Shambhu Sharan Mishra, the appellant in LPA No.380/2014 as Assistant
Director and a direction to appoint him as Assistant Director. The said writ
petition was allowed vide the impugned order dated 1 st April, 2014 quashing
the appointment of Shambhu Sharan and directing appointment of Pratap
Singh as Assistant Director of Directorate of Hindi Medium Implementation
(DHMI), University of Delhi. Hence the two appeals before this Court one
by Shambhu Sharan and other LPA bearing No.363/2014 by University of
Delhi.
2. Learned Single Judge held that the issue before it was that despite the
availability of Pratap Singh, a candidate who fulfilled all essential eligibility
criteria, appointment could have been given to Shambhu Sharan after
relaxing the eligibility criteria.
3. Applications were invited by the University of Delhi vide
advertisement dated 31st May, 2011for the post of Assistant Registrar,
DHMI and the advertisement clarified that application form and details
regarding qualifications can be obtained from Room No.205, New
Administrative Block, University of Delhi and the same are also available at
the University Website www.du.ac.in . The eligibility criteria laid down for
the post of Assistant Director, DHMI under VH category as both the
candidates i.e. Pratap Singh and Shambhu Sharan were visually handicapped
is as under:-
"ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
(a). A master's degree in Hindi or English or Sanskrit or any of
the social science subjects with adequate knowledge of
English and Hindi with atleast 55% marks or an equivalent
grade of B in the seven point scale with letter O,A,B.C.D,E
& F. (5% relaxation for SC/ST/PWD category).
(b) At least three years teaching experience or research work
relating to the field of promotion of Hindi language/high
standard translation/book publishing work in Hindi.
It is however, pertinent to note here that the essential
requirement (b) i.e. 3 years experience can be relaxed to
deserving PWD candidates as per Govt. of India
instructions.
(c) AGE LIMIT: 45 years.
DESIRABILITY
a. M. Phil or Ph.D. with relevant published work.
b. Experience in book promotion, printing and publication in
promotion of Hindi language for higher education."
4. The comparative chart of educational qualifications and marks
obtained of Pratap Singh and Shambhu Sharan is as under:-
1. Pratap Singh Bist B.A. (H.) 1993 III Div. 49% Delhi Presently working
M.A. 1997 II Div. 52% CCSU, as TGT in
(HISTORY) Meerut Directorate in
B.Ed. 1994 II Div. 48% CCSU, Education since
Meerut 20.01.1997
2. Shambhu Sharan B.SC. 1990 57.3% Ranchi Two years
Mishra M.A.(Labour 1993 I 61% Patna experience as
& Social Resource Teacher
Welfare) in National
B.Ed. 1994 I 63% Patna Association for the
Blind from July,
2000 to 17th Nov.
2002.
5. Learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment held that Pratap
Singh possessed all the requisite qualifications and in view of the availability
of a candidate duly qualified possessing all essential qualifications, the
University of Delhi could not have considered and appointed Shambhu
Sharan by giving him relaxation in the experience. Pursuant to the
advertisement dated 31st May, 2011, three applications were received all in
VH category as the advertisement was issued specifically for the VH
category. However the screening committee shortlisted only two candidates
i.e. Pratap Singh and Shambhu Sharan. Learned Single Judge held that
Shambhu Sharan was awarded 61% marks in his Masters i.e. M.A. (Labour
& Social Welfare) which was above 55% marks or equivalent Grade of B
whereas in case of Pratap Singh he had passed out his MA (History) with
52% marks and thus a relaxation of 5% marks in Masters was given and
only thereafter his aggregate arose beyond 55% marks.
6. Learned Single Judge grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that
the University of Delhi granted him relaxation of 5% of marks to Pratap
Singh. As a matter of fact the eligibility requirement of a candidate who is
from SC/ST/PWD category is 55% - 5% i.e. 50% marks. A bare reading of
the essential requirement would show that 50% marks was the requirement
for appointment to the post of Assistant Director in case of SC/ST/PWD
candidates.
7. Learned Single Judge also noted that Pratap Singh had experience of
teaching as TGT for a period of more than 3 years i.e. since January 20,
1997 till October 11, 2011 whereas Shambhu Sharan had experience of
teaching as a resource person in the National Association for the Blind.
Though learned counsel for the Pratap Singh has stressed on the fact that the
experience of Shambhu Sharan is less than 3 years, learned counsel for
Shambhu Sharan urged that the experience of Pratap Singh as TGT was in a
school whereas that of Shambhu Sharan is in the University. We find merit
in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that even if Pratap
Singh has experience of more than 3 years but the same is in the school
teaching as TGT whereas the experience of Shambhu Sharan was 2 years in
the University and thus granted him relaxation of one year. Both the
candidates being not eligible on this count the University committed no error
in granting relaxation of 1 year for teaching in University which was duly
provided in the essential requirements i.e. 3 years experience can be relaxed
for deserving PWD candidates as per Govt. of India instructions.
8. In light of the position aforesaid, we find force in the stand of
University of Delhi in its counter affidavit that the expert Selection
Committee while assessing the comparative merit of the candidates found
Shambhu Sharan far more meritorious than Pratap Singh and thus relaxed
the requirement of having 3 years experience in promotion of Hindi
Language for higher education. The selection committee also noted that
Shambhu Sharan had secured much better marks in graduation and post
graduation than Pratap Singh.
9. It is well settled that the decision of the expert body should not be
interfered in writ jurisdiction lightly unless the same suffers from gross
illegality, arbitrariness or is mala fide. (See AIR 2013 SC 141 Sajeesh Babu
Vs. N.K. Santhosh & Ors.).
10. Consequently, the appeals are allowed setting aside the impugned
judgment dated 1st April, 2014 passed in WP(C) No.1387/2012. Appeals
and applications are disposed off.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
JULY 15, 2015
'v mittal'
