Namita Singh vs University Of Delhi & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 7197 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.2674/2016

%                                                     1st December, 2016

NAMITA SINGH                                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate with Ms.
                                         Chandini Mehra, Advocate and Mr.
                                         Suman Kumar, Advocate.
                          versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.                                ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate with Ms. Simran Jeet, Advocate for respondent No.1.

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 questions the actions of the respondent no.2/college

whereby the respondent no.2/college claims that the petitioner has not been

appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (History) with the respondent

no.2/college.

2(i) Petitioner pursuant to the advertisements issued by the

respondent no.2/college dated 4.2.2014 and 14-21.2.2014 applied for one of

the post in the advertisement being the post of Assistant Professor (History).

Petitioner after selection by the Selection Committee was given an offer of

appointment for the post of Assistant Professor (History) in terms of letter

dated 5.8.2015 of the respondent no. 2/college, and which letter reads as

under :-

"SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJI COLLEGE (For Women) (University of Delhi) PUNJABI BAGH (West), New Delhi-110026 Ref. No. SPMC/APPtt/2015/529 Dated: 5/8/2015 Ms. Namita Singh E-88, 1st Floor Kirti Nagar New Delhi-110015 Mobile-9711749306

Dear Sir/Madam, I am pleased to inform you that on the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee, it has been decided to offer you an appointment as Assistant Professor in the Department of History under general category in this college on the following terms and conditions subject to the approval of the Governing Body of the college and subject to the University of Delhi recognizing you as a teacher of the University.

1. You will be on probation for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of your joining the appointment and this probationary period may further be extended by not more than 12 months by the Governing Body.

2. You will receive an initial pay of Rs.15600 + Rs.6000 AGP p.m. in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100 + Rs.6000 AGP. In addition to pay, you will receive DA, CCA & HRA according to the rules in force in the Delhi University from time to time.

3. On confirmation, you will be entitled to contribute towards NPS-2004 as applicable for Delhi University and its college's employees from time to time.

4. You will be expected to do teaching and research work as may be assigned to you from time to time.

5. In all matters relating to leave and conditions of service, you will be governed by the Ordinance and the Rules in force in the Delhi University from time to time.

6. You will be required to enter into an Agreement of Service with the College Governing Body. A copy of the form of Agreement of service can be obtained from the office.

7. Your appointment is subject to your being found medically fit for which you are required to produce a Fitness Certificate from CMO of the WUS Health Centre, University of Delhi or Professor/Associate Professor/Asstt. Professor of any of the Medical Colleges.

8. The appointment is further subject to verification of your qualifications etc. as mentioned in your application.

9. If you have not qualified NET examination and the appointment is offered to you on the basis of Ph.D degree you are required to submit a certificate from the University from where you had been awarded Ph.D. degree that you fulfill all conditions as laid down by UGC under Regulation 2009. If the offer of appointment, under the above terms & conditions is acceptable to you, you are requested to submit your original certificates/testimonials to the office immediately.

Yours faithfully Sd/-

Principal Copy for information to:

       1.      Section Officer (A/Cs)
       2.      Librarian."                                       (underlining added)


(ii)           Para 8 of the aforesaid offer letter dated 5.8.2015 makes it clear

that the appointment of the petitioner is subject to verification of petitioner's

qualifications as mentioned in the petitioner's application.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she joined the respondent

no.2/college, but, the respondent no.2/college put on the notice board a

notice dated 14.10.2015 stating that petitioner's entry into the college is

banned because she was not appointed to the respondent no.2/college. This

notice dated 14.10.2015 reads as under:

" SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJI COLLEGE (For Women) (University of Delhi) PUNJABI BAGH (West), New Delhi-110026 Ref. No. SPMC/2015/841 Dated 14/10/2015 OFFICE ORDER Ms. Namita Singh r/o E-88, First Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015, was never appointed in this college and her entry in the institution amounts to trespassing and unauthorized. Her entry in the college is banned and prohibited. She cannot enter in the institution for any purpose without the written permission of the undersigned. This has to be followed strictly.

Sd/-

                                                                        PRINCIPAL
     Copy to
     1. Attendant Staff Room
     2. Care Takers
     3. Chowkidars"                                        Phone: 25224499
                                                           Fax: 25221672

4. A similar notice dated 14.10.2015 was also issued to petitioner

on account of petitioner unauthorizedly entering into the staff council

meeting on 13.10.2015 and this communication reads as under:-

" SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJI COLLEGE (For Women) (University of Delhi) PUNJABI BAGH (West), New Delhi-110026 Ref. No.SPMC/2015/847 Dated 14/10/2015 Ms. Namita Singh E-88, First Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.

You took an unauthorized entry in the Staff Council meeting held on th 13 October 2015 in Hall II and put your name and signature on the official document of members present list. This act on your part amounts to trespassing and an act if mischief and deception, which is not expected from an educated person like you. This action calls for further strict legal action, however taking

a lenient view; you are strictly warned against such activities. This is in your interest. Your entry in the college is banned and prohibited.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL"

5. Petitioner had by her earlier letter dated 11.10.2015 asked the

respondent no.2/college to issue her the appointment letter, i.e the petitioner

admitted that the final letter of appointment was not issued, and this letter

dated 11.10.2015 reads as under:

"Principal Shyama Prasad Mukherji College, University of Delhi, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026

Date: 11th October, 2015 Subject: Re: Release of Salary

Dear Ma'am This is in consequence to the reply (bearing "Ref. No. SPMC/2015/759" dated 22/09/2015) to my letter to you dated 17th September 2015. The said reply stated that offer letter issued to me by the college was subject to verification of my qualifications/certificates and fulfilling other conditions. I humbly request you to please complete the verification of my qualifications/certificates along with other condition as soon as possible and issue me the Appointment letter and salary as I had joined the college on 10th August by completing all necessary procedures and have been reporting to duty every day since then. The delay is unnecessary as the same procedure has been duly completed with others who joined with me. Ma'am, please try to understand that Delhi is an expensive city and survival costs involved are very high. Please take required steps and complete related steps as soon as possible.

With due regards Sd/-

Namita Singh Assistant Professor Shyama Prasad Mukherji College,

University of Delhi, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026

Residence at E-88, First Floor Kirti Nagar, New Delhi Delhi Contact-9711749306" (underlining added)

6. Respondent no.2/college contends that the petitioner was not

eligible for being appointed as an Assistant Professor (History) in the

respondent no.2/college because the petitioner's scores which were

calculated by the Screening Committee as per the application submitted by

the petitioner for calling her for the selection process including the interview

was on the basis that the petitioner received 61 marks as per the guidelines

of respondent no.1/University of Delhi, but the petitioner was wrongly

marked by the Screening Committee to have 61 marks whereas petitioner

should only get 51 marks because the petitioner was wrongly given 10

marks for the M. Phil qualification as in the application petitioner had filled

in a column that petitioner was having M. Phil qualification. It is the case of

the respondent no.2/college that as per the guidelines issued by the

University of Delhi dated 13.10.2015, a person can be called for the

interview for the post of an Assistant Professor (History) only if the

candidate scores a minimum of 60 marks as per the system of marking given

in this circular dated 13.10.2015, and once out of the 61 marks allotted to

the petitioner, 10 marks wrongly given with respect to M. Phil. qualification

are removed, then the petitioner would only get 51 marks and hence the

petitioner was disqualified even to be called for the interview what to talk of

her selection. The relevant Rule 7 and the assessment sheet handed over to

the court by the respondents during the course of the argument as to how

petitioner was wrongly given 61 marks read as under :-

"7. For appointment in the Colleges, all candidates securing 60 points and above shall be called for interview for posts of Assistant Professors. A minimum of 50 candidates for the first vacancy and 20 candidates for every additional vacancy shall be called for interview in order of their ranks in the list prepared by the Screening Committee on the basis of points scored by the candidates. In case the minimum number of candidates as specified above is not available, the benchmark of 60 points may be progressively lowered as required, until the minimum eligibility as specified in Ordinance XXIV is reached so that this minimum number of candidates shall be called for interview.

Shyama Prasad Mukherji College

ASSESSMENT SHEET FOR APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENT FACULTY Points are to be filled as per University of Delhi (DU) Notification

Name in Full: Namita Singh Academic Qualifications:

Examinations Year Subjects Division/Grade University Points

Bachelor's 2007 History III DU --

Degree

History

Ph. D. Date of Date of Thesis Title University Points award Registration

Other Distinctions

Total Points on basis of Academic Qualification(S.No.2) 26

* Year refer to the award of Degree.

3. (a) Whether qualified UGC/CSIR-NET/SLET/SET: Yes No

(b) Whether qualified NET with JRF: Yes No

4. Teaching Experience:

S. Name of the Designation Nature of Class Period Points No. University/College and Scale of Appointment Taught (Max.

                                                           Unde     Post-   From     to
                                    hoc/Tempora                                            points
                                                           r-       Grad
                                    ry/Permanent           Grad     uate
                                                           uate

1.      Shivaji College                    Ad hoc                           24/7/    10    3
                                                                            13       /9/


2.      Satyawati                          Ad hoc                           10/9/    Ti
                                                                            13       ll




     Total Teaching Experience                             Total Points of the basis of    03
                                                           Teaching Experience (S.
Yr..................M.....9........Days......                                    No.4)

5. Provide a complete list of publications with full bibliographic details, ISSN/ISBN number and impact factor of journals. If available (Books authored/edited, chapter in books, research papers in journals, conference proceedings or book review or popular article in relevant area).

S. No. Publication Category Publication Type Max. Points (25)

i Research paper/Review Recognized and Reputed referred 5X5 = 25 Aritcle/Conference Journal with ISBN/ISSN proceeding

Conference proceeding as full length papers, etc. (abstracts not to be included in related area/subject)

ii Books Authored Subject Books (in related area/subject) by International / National level publishers/State and Central Govt. Publication with ISBN/ISSN numbers

iii Books Edited Edited Books/Journals (in related area/subject) by International / National level publishers/State and Central Govt. Publication with ISBN/ISSN numbers

iv Chapter(s) in books Chapters in books (in related area/subject) by International/ National level publishers/State and Central Govt. Publication with ISBN/ISSN numbers (Chapter(s) in self-edited book should not be considered

v. Books/Articles translated and Books/Articles translated and published published by International/National level publishers/State and Central Govt.

                                            Publication    with    ISBN/ISSN
                                            numbers

vi        Books            review/Popular   Books review/ popular article in
          article/Newspaper article (in     newsletter of learned bodies
          related subject)                  /societies/ Newspaper article (all in
                                            related area/subject)






         Total Points as per DU Notification(2+3+4+5)                                33+3=36+25+ 61


                                                                                    Signature"

7. The marks obtained by the petitioner for her educational

qualifications which have been wrongly calculated at 61 of the petitioner

had to be in terms of the guidelines of the University of Delhi dated

13.10.2015 and the relevant para with respect to marking of candidates for

the post of Assistant Professor (History) is as under:-

"(I)(b) Academic Qualifications for Colleges-Maximum 55 points

S. No. Examination Category-I(60%) Category II(>50% but <60%)

2. Post Graduate 16 12(55% eligibility)

3. M.Phil/PG Degree in 10* Professional Courses such as LLM, M. Tech, M.V.Sc., M.D.(in relevant subject)

4. Ph. D. 17*

5. NET/NET-JRF 7/10

"

8. When we compare the marks given to the petitioner of 26 + 7

with respect to educational qualifications, it is seen that out of 26 marks 10

marks have been allotted to the petitioner for having an M. Phil degree.

Once these 10 marks are removed with respect to M. Phil qualifications,

petitioner will only get 16 marks resulting in the petitioner not having marks

above minimum marks of 60%. It may be noted that the petitioner has not

been given any marks in the assessment for her graduation degree because

petitioner passed the graduation course only in 3 rd division, because as per

the marking paragraphs of the guidelines dated 13.10.2015, marks are only

given for graduation degree if the candidate has more than 50% marks while

obtaining graduation degree. Therefore, it is seen that while the requirement

of the candidate has to be at least 60 marks for being called to the interview,

petitioner actually had only 51 marks, and therefore, could not have been

even called for the interview and hence the petitioner could not even have

been selected and appointed to the post in question.

9. The petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit claims that the

petitioner as per the marking in terms of circular of the University of Delhi

dated 13.10.2015, she must get 57 marks, but, no basis is given as to how

petitioner will get 57 marks, and which 57 marks as calculated by the

petitioner is ex facie incorrect because the marks given to the petitioner by

the Screening Committee has already been reproduced above in the form of

a chart as to how the petitioner had got 61 marks, and which wrongly

includes 10 marks for the M. Phil qualification of the petitioner and thus

petitioner's marks must be assessed correctly only as 51. Even for the sake

of argument, if we take the stand of the petitioner as correct that she

receives 57 marks, then, even on this admission, petitioner was disqualified

for appointment for being called in the interview because 57 marks are less

than 60 marks and which 60 marks are the minimum cut off marks for being

called for interview and thereafter for appointment to the post in question.

Therefore, looking at it from any angle, the petitioner did not have the

necessary eligibility criteria for being appointed to the post of Assistant

Professor (History).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance upon

paras 8 and 10 of the Guidelines of the University of Delhi dated 13.10.2015

to argue that the marks given by the Screening Committee should be taken

as final, but, surely the paragraphs 8 and 10 relied upon by the petitioner

would only apply if there is not found to be any error or mistake in the

calculation and giving of marks, but once, there is found an ex facie error in

calculation and giving of marks, paras 8 and 10 will not help the petitioner

because otherwise it would mean that completely wrong calculation given

by the Screening Committee would become final and binding for all times

having effect of appointment of ineligible candidates to the post in question.

11. In view of the above, the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition

for appointment to be granted to the petitioner to the post of Assistant

Professor (History) to the respondent no. 2/college cannot be granted, and

therefore, other consequential reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition,

cannot be granted. Petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for being

called to the interview and consequent appointment to the post in question

and which process was done under a mistake and on realizing of which

mistake, the petitioner's offer of appointment was recalled.

12. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

DECEMBER 01, 2016                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara/Ne