Delhi High Court
Chetan Yadav vs Delhi Technological University & ... on 30 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 30, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10076/2017 & CM 41182/2017
CHETAN YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.P. Sinha, Advocate
versus
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR..Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Advocates for respondent
No.1-DTU
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. In this petition, benefit of relaxation of 5% marks is sought by
petitioner by virtue of being an OBC candidate and in terms of the
University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.) (hereinafter
referred to as the UGC Regulations, 2010). The precise stand taken on
behalf of respondent-University is that the UGC Regulations, 2010 do
not bind respondent-University as it does not receive any grant or aid
from respondent-UGC.
2. In terms of last order, learned counsel for respondent-DTU has
produced in a sealed cover petitioner's result of Screening Test held on
26th November, 2017 and on opening the said sealed cover, it is found
that petitioner has qualified for Presentation and Interview, which has to
take place today and tomorrow i.e. 30th November and 1st December,
2017. The result of petitioner in respect of aforesaid Screening Test is
taken on record without creating any equity in favour of petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no rejoinder is required
to be filed.
4. This petition is being taken up for final hearing as it needs to be
decided on priority as to whether petitioner ought to be permitted to
appear in Presentation and the Interview for the post of Assistant
Professor in Management Discipline, which is slated for today and
tomorrow i.e. 30th November and 1st December, 2017.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner asserts that the question which falls
for consideration in this petition is whether the UGC Regulations, 2010
are directory or of mandatory nature qua respondent-University. It is
pointed out that respondent-University has accepted the UGC
Regulations, 2010. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to the
UGC Regulations, 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.) to point out that these
Regulations apply to every institution established under the Central Act,
Provisional Act or the State Act. It is pointed out that the UGC
Regulations, 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.) have been framed in
consultation with the All India Council for Technical Education
(hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE') and so, respondent-University is
bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.). Attention
of this Court is also drawn by petitioner's counsel to respondent-
University's Advertisement for recruitment to faculty positions
(Annexure P-2) to point out that the essential qualification for
recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor is a Ph.D. Degree in
conformity with the UGC Regulation on Minimum Standards and
Procedure for the Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree, Regulation 2009 (for
short UGC's Ph.D. Regulations, 2009).
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent-University that
respondent-University is fully funded by Government of NCT of Delhi
and is governed by its own Statute of 2009 (Annexure R-1), which is in
consonance with AICTE, which does not provide for any weightage of
marks for OBC category candidates. So, it is submitted on behalf of
respondent-University that petitioner is ineligible for Screening Test,
Presentation and the Interview. It is pointed out by learned counsel for
respondent-University that eligibility conditions as prescribed in
respondent-University's Notification of 12th April, 2017 (Annexure R-2)
prevails and since petitioner does not possess the essential qualification
as required by the aforesaid Notification (Annexure R-2), this petition
deserves to be dismissed. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for
respondent-University upon Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani
Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 363 to submit that
the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory in nature for the University or
the Colleges and other Higher Institutions, which are under the purview
of State Legislation. It is also submitted by learned counsel for
respondent-University that the AICTE Regulations, 2009 nowhere
provide for 5% weightage in marks in OBC category. So, rejection of
this petition is sought by learned counsel for respondent-University.
7. Learned counsel for respondent-UGC submits that the UGC
Regulations, 2010, as amended vide Notification of 11th July, 2016,
gives discretion to the University/Colleges to give relaxation of 5% of
marks in case of OBC candidates also. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for respondent-UGC that the consultation as referred to in the
UGC Regulations, 2010 pertaining to minimum qualification for
appointment of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges provides for the extent of coverage, but does not denote
effective consultation with the specialized bodies/universities, like the
respondent-University and AICTE. So, it is submitted that the
Advertisement (Annexure P-2) governs the eligibility of petitioner.
8. Upon hearing and on perusal of Advertisement (Annexure P-2),
amended UGC Regulations, 2010, material on record and the decision
cited, I find that respondent-University is a State Institution, which has
not adopted UGC Regulations and so, it is not bound by the amended
UGC Regulations. It is matter of record that respondent-University has
its own set of Regulations, which are in consonance with the AICTE,
which is a specialized body. Pertinently, AICTE Regulations do not
provide for 5% weightage in marks to the OBC candidates. Supreme
Court in Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) has categorically declared that the
UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory for appointment of Teachers and
Academic Staff in Centralized Universities and Colleges and the
Institutions deemed to be universities, whose expenditure and
maintenance is met by UGC. Indisputably, respondent-University is
totally State funded and it does not receive any grant or aid from
respondent-UGC and so, the UGC Regulations, 2010, as amended in the
year 2016, are directory in nature and not mandatory or binding upon
respondent-University.
9. Merely because UGC Regulations of 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.)
refer to Universities established under the State Act, they would not
govern respondent-University as it is totally State funded and the
Regulations formulated by it are in consonance with AICTE. Reference
to the Regulations formulated in consultation with the AICTE and the
UGC Regulations, would not bind respondent-University to grant 5%
weightage to petitioner, who is an OBC candidate. Since petitioner does
not fulfil the essential qualifications, therefore, petitioner is ineligible to
appear for Presentation and Interview for the post of Assistant Professor
in respondent-University.
10. Mere clearance of Screening Test does not create any right in
favour of petitioner as in the interim order of 24th November, 2017, it has
been so clarified. Since the essential qualifications as provided in the
Advertisement (Annexure P-2) are not fulfilled by petitioner, therefore,
petitioner cannot be allowed to now appear for the Presentation and
Interview for the post in question.
11. In view of aforesaid, finding no substance in this petition and the
application, they are dismissed while leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
s
