Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/108/2024 on 21 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSB No.108 of 2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned Central
Government Standing Counsel for
respondent No.1/Union of India.
3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel
for respondent No.2-UGC.
4. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
5. Petitioner is serving as a Guest
Teacher in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna
Garhwal Central University since 2008. He
applied pursuant to an advertisement for
regular appointment as Assistant
Professor. He has been denied benefit of
the teaching experience as Guest Teacher
in the selection for regular appointment.
6. According to petitioner, as per entry
7 Table-3A of UGC Regulations on
Minimum Qualifications for appointment of
Teachers and Other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Measures for
the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education, 2018, every person who has
teaching/post doctoral experience, is
entitled to 02 marks for each completed
year of service subject to ceiling of 10
marks.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
also relied upon Clasue-6.0(II) of the
aforesaid Regulation, which provides that
University shall adopt these regulations
through their respective statutory bodies
by incorporating interalia Table-3A at the
institutional level. Thus, he submits that
the benefit conferred upon Guest/Contract
Teachers by entry 7 of Table-3A cannot be
denied to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-
UGC however relied upon Clause 10.0(e)
of the aforesaid Regulation, which provides
that benefit of previous service will not be
available to Guest Lecturers.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that petitioner possesses the
qualification necessary for regular
appointment as Assistant Professor and he
has been taking classes regularly and he
was assigned duties as University
Examiner; all his duties and responsibilities
are the same as that of a regular Assistant
Professor, therefore, denial of benefit of
the entry 7 of Table-3A of the aforesaid
Regulation is unjust and arbitrary.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner has also
relied upon a judgment rendered by
Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court in the case of Geetanjali Tiwari
(Pandey) Vs. Union of India and 4 Others
in Writ-A No.580 of 2023.
10. Learned counsel for respondent-
University however submitted that the
procedure applicable in the Central
University was not followed while
appointing him.
11. Learned counsel for respondents are
granted 4 weeks' time to file counter
affidavits.
12. Two weeks' time, thereafter, is
granted to petitioner to file rejoinder
affidavit.
13. List on 11.06.2024.
14. In the meantime, petitioner shall be
provisionally given benefit of Clause-7 of
Table-3A of the aforesaid Regulation and if
the marks secured by him are sufficient to
call him for interview, then, he shall be
interviewed by the Selecting Committee;
however, his result shall not be declared
without leave of this Court.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
21.03.2024
PN
