Dr. Anil Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 1319 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Dr. Anil Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 4 July, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                 NAINITAL
    Writ Petition (S/B) No. 346 of 2024

Dr. Anil Verma                                   ... Petitioner

                           Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.                ... Respondents

   Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
   Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Brief Holder, for the State.
   Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, for the Public
   Service Commission.
   Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, for the UGC.


                     JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

"i. a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/list dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure No.

8) qua the petitioner passed/issued by the Respondent no. 3 declaring the petitioner Roll no. 516077 as disqualified for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) for Government Degree Colleges on the ground that his Ph.D. in Agricultural Chemicals has not found to be similar to the concerned subject Chemistry and thus rejected his candidature for recruitment process and interview.

ii. a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 3 to calculate and add 25 marks of Ph.D. degree of the petitioner Roll no. 516077 treating the same to be possessed by him on the last date of submitting the application and treating the petitioner to be eligible for the post of

Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in Government Degree colleges and also permit him to participate in the interview."

2. Petitioner obtained Post Graduate Degree in Agricultural Chemicals from G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. He also possesses Ph.D. degree in the same subject. He applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry), pursuant to an advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar. His candidature has been rejected on the ground that he is ineligible for appointment as Assistant Professor (Chemistry), as the qualification required for appointment to the said post is M.Sc. (Chemistry).

3. According to petitioner, he studied Agricultural Chemicals, Organic Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry during post graduation and his course curriculum was the same as that of M.Sc. (Chemistry), therefore he cannot be treated as ineligible for appointment as Assistant Professor (Chemistry).

4. Learned Counsel for the Public Service Commission has drawn our attention to the list of candidates, who were found ineligible, issued by the Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 22.5.2024. Perusal of the said list reveals that petitioner was given opportunity to submit representation against the decision taken by

the Commission, who declared him ineligible, and the question as to whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the qualification required for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) was sent to the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has opined that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not equivalent to the qualification required for appointment as Assistant Professor (Chemistry).

5. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Admittedly, petitioner is having Post Graduate Degree in Agricultural Chemicals, which he obtained from an agricultural university. Public Service Commission is holding selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in Govt. Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges, where agriculture is not taught to the students. The qualification possessed by the petitioner may be very relevant for students of Agricultural Science, however, the qualification possessed by the petitioner may have little or no relevance to the students studying in Govt. Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges.

6. Since the issue of equivalence was referred to an Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has given its opinion that based on the qualification possessed by the petitioner, he cannot be appointed as Assistant

Professor (Chemistry) in Govt. Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The law is well settled that the scope of judicial review against the opinion given by the Expert Committee is extremely limited. It is in the exclusive domain of the Expert Committee to take decision as to whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the qualification advertised for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry). Opinion of the Expert Committee in academic matters should not be interfered with unless it is found to be wholly arbitrary. Thus we refuse to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

4.7.2024 Pr