Dr.puroshattam Lal Chandrakar Vs The Vice… — Writ and Judicial Review

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Order reserved on : 22.11.2023

¶5

Order delivered on : 20.02.2024

¶6

WPS No.5143 of 2012

¶7

Dr. Puroshattam Lal Chandrakar S/o Shri Babu Ram Chandrakar, aged about 45 years, Resident of HIG-20, Parijat Castle, Ring Road No.2, Police Station – Civil Line, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Vice-Chancellor, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, Police Station – Amanaka, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Registrar, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, Police Station – Amanaka, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Commissioner, Secretariat of Higher Studies, Science College, Raipur, Police Station – Amanaka, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The Secretary, Secretariat of Governor, Raj Bhawan, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Dr. VK Patel, S/o GP Patel, aged about 42 years, post-Assistant Professor, Address for Correspondence/Resident of DP Vipra College, Police Station–Tarbahara, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate.

¶17

For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. RK Mishra and Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocates. For State : Ms. Beenu Sharma, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶18

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶19

C A V Order

¶20

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the

¶21

2

¶22

respondent authorities whereby they have not issued call letter and denied participation of the petitioner in the interview for the post of Associate Professor at Geography Department in Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur.

¶23

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the State of Madhya Pradesh and after bifurcation of the State, he is working on the post of Assistant Professor, Geography in CM Dubey Postgraduate College, Bilaspur. The Registrar of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University published an advertisement dated 12.8.2011 inviting applications from the qualified and experienced employees of Central Government or State Government or Central/State Universities or institution of Higher Education for appointment on various posts on deputation basis including one post of Associate Professor (Geography) reserved for OBC category, for which the petitioner submitted his application well within time. However, despite the petitioner being well qualified and experienced for the said post, no call letter was issued to him and the respondent authorities called respondent No.5 for interview for the said post on 5.11.2012. The petitioner having come to know about this appeared before the authorities and made oral representation but when his request was not acceded to, he submitted a detailed representation before the Dy. Registrar Dr. JL Gangwani. Next day i.e. on 6.11.2012 also the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.1 vide Annexure P/3. However, no action has been taken on his representation, hence this petition for the following reliefs:

¶24

3

¶25

“i. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record.

¶26

ii. To issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to issue interview call letter and to conduct the interview of the petitioner.

¶27

iii. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to pass any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having possessed the requisite qualification and experience applied for the post of Associate Professor (Geography) reserved for OBC category well within time along with the necessary documents. As such, the petitioner ought to have been issued a call letter for the purpose of interview but no such letter was issued to him which shows malafide intention of the respondent authorities to deprive the petitioner of the said post whereas they have entertained the applications of other persons who are less qualified in comparison to the petitioner. Though the petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities on the date of interview without there being any call letter and made oral representation of his grievance, but they refused to consider his case. The action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the recruitment rules prescribed under UGC Regulations. In fact, in order to give benefit to respondent No.5, who is less qualified, the petitioner has been deprived of participation in the interview.

¶29

4

¶30

Reliance has been placed on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Jagdeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3018 .

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 strongly opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of Associate Professor (Geography) as he was not having good academic record required as per Revised Ordinance-4 for the said post. The respondents informed the petitioner while answering to his representation that he is not qualified for the post of Associate Professor (Geography) for want of good academic record as per Revised Ordinance-4 and that he did not apply through proper channel.

¶32

For the purpose of selection on the post of Associate Professor (Geography), there should be a good academic record for the same as per Revised Ordinance-4 approved in the Coordination Meeting of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur on 6.6.2012. However, the petitioner passed 12^th Board Examination with 3^rd division (41.70%). Secondly, he did not apply for the said post through proper channel. Therefore, his candidature was not considered and no call letter was issued to him for interview.

¶33

Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Prit Singh Vs. SK Mangal and others 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714 and the order of this Court in the matter of Dr. Mrs Bhawna Nigam and others Vs. State of CG and

¶34

5

¶35

others reported in (2015) 1 High Court Cases (Chh) 513 : 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 148 .

¶36

Learned counsel appearing respondents No. 3 & 4/State submits that no specific pleadings or allegations are there against the respondents No. 3 & 4 and the main contesting party in this case is respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondents No. 3 & 4 are formal party. However, she submits that the present petition is devoid of any merit and as such, liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶38

It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the State of Madhya Pradesh and after bifurcation of the State, he was working on the post of Assistant Professor (Geography) in CM Dubey Postgraduate College, Bilaspur (CG). He applied for the post of Associate Professor on deputation which was published in advertisement dated 12.8.2011 but no call letter was issued to him and respondent No.5 was called for interview against the said post on 5.11.2012.

¶39

According to the respondents, the petitioner passed 12^th Board Examination with 3^rd division (41.70%) and he did not apply for the said post through proper channel, therefore, his candidature was not considered and no call letter was issued to him for interview. The respondents have also filed UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff

¶40

6

¶41

in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 which was published in Gazette Notification dated 18.9.2010. Clause 4.3.0 of the said Regulations prescribes the essential qualification of Associate Professor. Subclause (i) & (ii) of the said clause being relevant is reproduced hereunder:

¶42

“ 4.3.0 Associate Professor

¶43

i.Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines.

¶44

ii. A Master’s Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed).”

¶45

The petitioner has filed various documents and as per document of Annexure-A i.e. letter dated 20.9.2013, the Public Information Officer of the University replied to the application seeking definition of “Good Academic Record”. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:

¶46

“fo’ofo|ky;ksa ,oa egkfo|ky;ksa esa f’k{kdksa ,oa vU; ‘kS{kf.kd LVkWQ lnL;ksa dh fu;qfDr ds fy, ;w-th-lh- }kjk fu/kkZfjr U;wure vgrkZvksa lEca/kh fu;e rFkk mPp f’k{kk ds varxZr ekudkas ds O;oLFkkiu ds fy, vko’;d mi;ksx ij vk;ksx /kkjk fu;eu 2010 esa Good Academic Record dks ifjHkkf”kr ugha fd;k x;k gS bls ifjHkkf”kr djus ds fy;s lEcaf/k fo’ofo|ky; ls lEidZ djs a A

¶47

bl ekeys esa vihyh; vf/kdkjh dk uke Jh mieU;q clq foRrh; lykgdkj ;wthlh gSA”

¶48

7

¶49

The petitioner has also filed additional documents as Annexures P/5 & P/6 which go to show that the respondents/University again published advertisement for the same post of Associate Professor (Geography) and appointed the petitioner on 17.2.2017 under OBC category vide order dated 17.2.2017 (Annexure P/6). The respondents did not rebut these documents. From the above, it is clear that on the previous occasion, the respondents denied the candidature of the petitioner on baseless grounds.

¶50

This Court on 11.2.2013 ordered that any appointment made shall remain subject to the decision of this writ petition . From the documents available on record, it is evident that based on the same certificates and qualification of the petitioner, he was appointed by the respondent authorities on the post of Associate Professor (Geography) at a later stage whereas his candidature for the said post was denied by them on the previous occasion. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on deputation basis on the post of Associate Professor (Geography) as per Regulations, 2010, is not acceptable.

¶51

The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Jagdeep Singh (supra) held in paras 10 & 11 of its judgment as under:

¶52

“10. The case law as relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-State in Delhi Administration’s case (supra) to the effect that there is non-disclosure of pendency of FIR and since the petitioner was not truthful, he cannot be offered appointment, is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the present case,

¶53

8

¶54

the petitioner herein was neither named in the aforesaid FIR, nor summoned or charge-sheeted.

¶55

In the light of the foregoing discussion, denial of appointment to the petitioner herein is held to be unjustified and the said action of the respondents is liable to be set at naught. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. Respondents are directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner herein for the post of Male Constable in the light of his merit position, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is also held entitled to all the consequential benefits in the nature of seniority, pay, leave etc. with effect from the date, when person lower in the merit to him had been so appointed to the post of Constable in the same very process of selection. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner herein shall not be paid the actual arrears of salary for the period in question.”

¶56

In the present case also, as discussed above, the petitioner’s candidature offered for the post of Associate Professor (Geography) pursuant to the previous advertisement, was rejected by the respondents and after about six years, he was appointed on the same post by the respondents on the basis of same certificates and qualification of the petitioner. So the action of the respondent authorities being arbitrary and unjustified is liable to be set at naught.

¶57

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the respondent authorities are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Associate

¶58

9

¶59

Professor (Geography) in the University from the date when other candidates were appointed for the said post pursuant to the previous advertisement dated 12.8.2011 (Annexure P/1) and grant him all the consequential benefits accordingly, except the monetary benefits. The writ petition thus stands allowed to the above extent.

¶60

Sd/ ( Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶61

Khan

Dr.puroshattam Lal Chandrakar v. The Vice - Chancellor And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.puroshattam Lal Chandrakar v. The Vice - Chancellor And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.goreti Minj Vs Lalsai

C.G. State Industrial Devl. Corp. Ltd. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Jogeshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Prasad Ghasia Vs Teeja Bai Sidar and Ors.

Martin Vs Khileshwar Prasad

I. J. Tripathi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh