Near Svm School Shimla Hp vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5170 HP

         IN     THE      HIGH COURT     OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                                   SHIMLA




                                                            .
                            ON THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2022





                                    BEFORE

                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                                       &
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

                      CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4261 OF 2022.





              Between:

              VINEETA SHARMA D/O

              SH. SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,
              SHARMA NIWAS LOWER VIKAS NAGAR

              NEAR SVM SCHOOL SHIMLA HP
              AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.           ....PETITIONER.

              (BY SH. MANDEEP CHANDEL,


              ADVOCATE)

              AND




    1.        STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
              THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY





              (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF
              HIMACHAL PRADESH.





    2.        DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION
              LALPANI, SHIMLA.

    3.        THE SECRETARY (UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION)
              MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVT OF
              INDIA, BAHADUR, SHAH ZAFAR MARG,NEW DELHI.




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2022 20:03:11 :::CIS
                                            2




    4.   HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY
         THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR SUMMER HILL,
         SHIMLA, H.P.




                                                                 .

    5.   HIMACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC
         SERVICE COMMISSION, NIGAM VIHAR,
         H.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.





                                                                    ....RESPONDENTS.
         (SH.ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL
         WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR
         ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL,
         SH. VINOD THAKUR, SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS,





         ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS,
         SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR, SH. YUDHBIR SINGH
         THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERALS AND
         SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW OFFICER

         FOR RESPONDENTS­1 AND 2)

         (SH. PRASHANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE,
         FOR RESPONDENT­3)

         (SH. SURENDER VEMRA, ADVOCATE, FOR



         RESPONDENT­4)

         (WH. VIKRANT THAKUR, ADVOCATE,




         FOR RESPONDENT­5)





                 This petition coming on for admission before notice this day,

         Hon'ble      Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the





         following:

                                       ORDER

Notice. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional

Advocate General, Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. Surender

.

Verma and Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocates, accept notices

on behalf of respective respondents.

2. By way of instant writ petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has

prayed for following main reliefs:

"i That a writ of Certiorari be issued to declare the Clause­7 sub clause (a) (1) of R& P Rules, 2018 for

the post of Assistant Professor, College Cadre,

which provides "Post Graduation with 55% Marks in the relevant subject" as illegal, erroneous being not

in consonance with UGC Regulation/Notification dated 18th July, 2018.

ii. That a Writ of Mandamus be issued by directing

the respondent authorities to substitute/amend the

Essential qualification provided in sub­clause (a)(1) clause 7 of R&P rules with "A Master's Degree with

55% Marks in a concerned/relevant/allied subject" in order to make it in confirmation with UGC Regulation dated 18th July, 2018 which is mandatory and binding in nature.

iii. That a Writ of Mandamus be issued by directing the State Government to form a committee of experts

.

or State equivalence committee and to take a

decision that whether the post graduation in the subjects of Microbiology/Biotechnology can be

stated to be in concerned/relevant/allied subject of Botany, Zoology.

iv. Based on such decision of the State Government

the question of eligibility of the petitioners in terms of the UGC Regulations of 2018 be judged and if the petitioners are found eligible then they be permitted

to participate in the selection process going to be

conducted by the HPPSC vide Advertisement No. 17/04/2022 for the post of AP, Botany. v. Writ of prohibition be issued by restraining the

respondent authorities from conducting the selection process for the post of Botany, College Cadre vide Advertisement No. 17/04/2022 till the

receiving of report of State equivalency committee in

order to determine the eligibility of the petitioners."

3. One Kiran Bala Sharma had approached this

Court by filing CWP No. 2985 of 2022, wherein she had

sought somewhat identical relief(s), which are mentioned

below:

i) Issue Writ of Certiorari to declare the quash clause­7 of the R & P Rules, 2018 (Annexure P/8)

.

for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre)

in view of its being contradictory to the relevant UGC Guidelines. Further, the respondents may be

directed to include the allied subjects i.e. Microbiology and Biotechnology in the column of essential qualification clause 7 of the R& P Rules, 2018 alongwith the relevant subject.

ii) Alternatively, the Respondents may be issued a Writ of Mandamus directing them to exercise the powers of relaxation contained in clause 18 of the

R& P Rules, 2018. Therefore, the respondents may

be directed to allow the petitioner who possesses qualification in allied subjects i.e.Microbiology and Biotechnology to participate in the recruitment

process alongwith candidates possessing qualification in the relevant subjects, i.e. Botany

and Zoology.

iii) That the respondents department may kindly

be directed to constitute a board of Subject Expert for determining the eligibility of the petitioner who

possessed the master degree in allied subjects of Botany and Zoology."

4. The aforesaid writ petition came up before the

Hon'ble Principal Bench on 13.5.2022, when the Hon'ble

.

Principal Bench disposed of the same. Operative portion of

the judgment reads as under: ­

"Having taken note of the fact that representation having been made by the petitioner is still pending adjudication with the authorities/competent

authority, we, without going into the merits of the case, deem it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to concerned authorities/competent

authority to consider and decide the pending

representation, within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant

order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and would also take into

consideration the guidelines framed on issue by the UGC as well as procedure followed for the

recruitment of the Assistant Professor in the Department of Higher Education/colleges in other

states. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved."

5. We see no reason to take a different view and

therefore, the present petition is accordingly disposed of by

.

directing the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioner alongwith Kiran Bala's case within the time

granted by the Court for deciding the Kiran Bala's case.

6. Needless to say, authority concerned while

deciding the case shall afford an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner and would also take into consideration the

guidelines framed on issue by the UGC as well as the

procedure followed for the recruitment of the Assistant

Professor in the Department of Higher Education/colleges

in other states. The pending application(s), if any, are also

disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)

Judge

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge 1st July, 2022.

(krt)