Delhi High Court
Shailja Bahuguna vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: April 18, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3806/2018 & CMs 15099-100/2018
SHAILJA BAHUGUNA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.Singhdev and Mr. Tarun
Verma, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for
respondents No.1 & 3-UOI & SSC
Mr. Apoorv Kurup and Mr.Girijopoti Koushal,
Advocates for respondent No.5-UGC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Question of equivalence of Degrees is essentially the subject matter
of this petition. For the post of Research Assistant, petitioner had applied
and as per Select List (Annexure P-14), petitioner is at No.1 and as per
the Communication of 16th /19th February, 2018 (Annexure P-15), post of
Research Assistant was offered to petitioner subject to submission of
Equivalence Certificate.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to
Communication of 19th July, 2016 of respondent-University Grants
Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC') wherein it is stated that
equivalence of Degrees / Diplomas / Certificates, etc., is not determined
by UGC. Alongwith this writ petition, information brochure of
Association of Indian Universities (hereinafter referred to as 'AIU') is
appended as Annexure P-16 colly., which spells out the role of
respondent-AIU. Paragraph No.4 of this information brochure of AIU
reveals that AIU is not involved in the equivalence of Degrees offered by
Indian Universities, but it impresses upon the Member Universities of
AIU to recognize each others' Degrees in order to save the students from
hassles.
3. Reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon decision of
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 6100/2012 titled Ms. Nisha v.
Union of India and Others, rendered on 26th November, 2012. Attention
of this Court is also drawn to Communication of 21 st March, 2018
(Annexure P-17) by respondent-Staff Selection Commission to second
respondent wherein it is stated that petitioner has been recommended by
the Commission by observing that her educational qualification satisfies
the essential qualification as required by the RR of the above post and so,
petitioner's nomination, as recommended by the Commission, cannot be
withdrawn. However, it has been left to the User Department, i.e. second
respondent, to take the final call. Learned counsel for petitioner submits
that the follow-up action on Communication (Annexure P-17) is not
known till date.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
to dispose of this petition with direction to second respondent to
effectively consider Communication of 21st March, 2018 (Annexure P-
17) and to act upon it within a period of four weeks and to convey its
outcome to petitioner within a week thereafter. It is made clear that in
case second respondent chooses not to permit petitioner to join as
Research Assistant, then the reasons be spelt out and promptly
communicated to petitioner, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies
as available in law, if need be. Till the needful is done, one post of
Research Assistant in Un-reserved category be not filled up.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 18, 2018
s
