Shri Hans Raj vs Bhim Rao Ambedkar College & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1831 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 3965/1999

%                                                        3rd March, 2015

SHRI HANS RAJ                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Dr. M.P. Raju, Advocate.


                          versus

BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR COLLEGE & ORS.       ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms. Prerna Shah Deo, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner who was appointed as a Lecturer (Hindi) in terms of

the minutes of the Selection Committee dated 28.5.1995 of the respondent

no.1-college/Bhim Rao Ambedkar College, impugns the action of the

respondent no.1/college vide its letter dated 8.2.1997 in terminating the

appointment of the petitioner. Appointment of the petitioner was terminated

inasmuch as petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria of 55% marks at

the Master's Degree level and no relaxation to the petitioner as an SC

candidate was granted.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in fact appointed in

terms of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee of the

respondent no.1/college on 28.5.1995 as an SC candidate. It subsequently

transpired that when the Selection Committee met on 28.5.1995 it had to

consider the applicable statutory regulations being UGC Regulations, 1991

regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in

Universities and Colleges (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1991 Regulations')

and as per Clause 2 of these regulations, a person who is appointed to a

teaching post in a college must fulfill the requirements as to qualifications

for the appropriate subjects specified in Schedule I. Clause (3) A of

Schedule I requires that the minimum qualifications for the post of a

Lecturer were that the candidate must have a good academic record with at

least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level. Under the proviso to Clause 2

of the 1991 Regulations, relaxation could be granted in the qualifications

with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

3. The issue in the present case is that whether there is any prior or

post facto approval of the UGC, and, even if there is no prior or post

approval of the UGC whether the UGC was justified in refusing to grant

relaxation of 5% marks to the petitioner and so conveyed to the petitioner by

the UGC vide UGC's letter dated 13.1.1997. This letter of UGC dated

13.1.1997 reads as under:-

     " OB/15/20.1.97                          January, 1997
     No.F.1-1/96 (PS)                         13 JAN 1997

     The Registrar,
     University of Delhi
     Delhi-110007.

Subject:- Proposal received from Bheem Rao Ambedkar College, Delhi for relaxation in percentage of marks at P.G. level in respect of Shri Hans Raj, Lecturer in Hindi.

Sir, With reference to your letter No.F.CB-J/96/NET/3642 dated 26th April, 1996 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the University/College has not given any special and valid justification for selection Shri Hans Raj, Lecturers in Hindi as out of 105 candidates who appeared for interview, 84 were NET qualified which implies that they had more than 55% marks. Apart from this, there were candidates who were exempted from NET and have more than 55% marks at Master level.

The Commission regrets its inability to grant relaxation in percentage of marks at Master level to Shri Hans Raj.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(DILBAGH SINGH) Under Secretary"

4. The issue with respect to grant of relaxation as per Clause 2 of

the 1991 Regulations would be if there were no sufficient number of

candidates available with 55% marks at the Master's Degree level. In such a

case, UGC obviously could have considered an issue of relaxation of the

qualifications. Also, before this Court does so of granting relaxation or

before the UGC could have done so, there were required to be pleaded by

the petitioner and also substantiated by the petitioner that the selection

process for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) which culminated in

terms of the minutes of meeting of the selection committee dated 28.5.1995,

all the SC candidates who were called for consideration did not meet the

55% marks criteria at the Master's Degree level.

5. A reading of the entire pleadings in this petition; be it the writ

petition or the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner; does not show that

there exists pleading showing what was the reason on the basis of which the

petitioner claimed that he was entitled to relaxation except that the

petitioner only stated that the petitioner is an SC candidate. Simply stating

that the petitioner is an SC candidate is not a good enough ground for grant

of relaxation inasmuch as if there were sufficient number of candidates

available in the selection process for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in the 1995

selection process, then, the Selection Committee actually ought to have

appointed a person being an SC candidate having 55% marks at the Master's

Degree level. A reading of the record shows that five SC candidates

appeared for selection, but what was the position of marks of these SC

candidates at the Master's Degree level is not found in the writ petition.

Hence it cannot be said that none of the candidates called in the SC category

failed to meet the criteria of 55% marks at the Master's Degree level and

hence petitioner was entitled to relaxation because there were no other

eligible candidates.

6. For completion of narration, I must state that the National

Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had passed an order

dated 23.2.1998 in favour of the petitioner by giving directions for the

petitioner to be absorbed by the respondent no.1-college, however, this order

of the National Commission for SC and ST was set aside in terms of the

order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4835/1998 (as

informed to this Court by the counsel). The writ petition was disposed of by

an order dated 12.9.2002 and the order of the National Commission for SC

and ST was not binding. This would be in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST

Employees' Welfare Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and

Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 606. Accordingly, the petitioner can derive no benefit of

the order of the National Commission for SC and ST dated 23.2.1998.

7. In view of the above, since there are statutory requirements of

every candidate in terms of the 1991 Regulations for being considered to

have a minimum of 55% marks at the Master's Degree level, and no

relaxation is shown which can be granted in favour of the petitioner or that

there exists a general order entitling relaxation to SC candidates of 5%,

petitioner cannot be granted the relief prayed in this petition. I may also, at

this stage, add that counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance

upon the UGC circular dated 23.8.1982 that 5% relaxation at the Master's

Degree level has to be granted to an SC candidate, however, this

administrative circular will no longer be available and applicable after

promulgation of the statutory 1991 Regulations of the UGC inasmuch as

once statutory regulations occupy the field, an earlier office memorandum of

the UGC cannot be read to confer automatic general relaxation to each and

every SC candidate. I also reject the contention of the counsel for the

petitioner that because of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, a 1982

circular will prevail over the statutory provisions being the 1991 Regulations

which have specifically come into force as regards eligibility requirements

and which regulations required that every candidate who is appointed to a

teaching post in a University or college to have at least 55% marks at the

Master's Degree level. Obviously, the object of law is that there should be

persons having minimum qualifications for teaching inasmuch as the

question of the future of the students who are being taught, is concerned.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the

same is therefore dismissed. No costs.

MARCH 03, 2015                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne