Dismissed

Lalit Kumar v. Hp University

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Sept 2021CWPOA/553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged appointment of Mrs. Sheba Parmar, alleging she simultaneously pursued two PG degrees violating university ordinances. Court examined eligibility criteria and university ordinances, concluding no bar existed for joining new PG courses after first course duration elapsed, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed with vacating of interim orders, if any. No order as to costs.

Lalit Kumar Vs Hp University — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 3^rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

¶6

CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.553 OF 2020

¶7

Between:-

¶8

LALIT KUMAR S/O SH. HARAI SINGH VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GUMMA, TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI (HP)

¶9

……….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MR. DEVENDER K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY, SUMMER HILL, SHIMLA-4 THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

¶13

2. SELECTION COMMITTEE, INFORMATION SCIENTIST (LIBRARY) UNDER INFLIBNET PROGRAMME, THROUGH ITS CONVENER.

¶14

3. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY, SUMMER HILL, SHIMLA-4 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4. MS. SHEBA PARMAR D/O SH. M.S. PARMAR, PINE VILLA, NEAR SHIV MANDIR, SUMMBER HILL, SHIMLA-1.

¶16

.…….RESPONDENTS

¶17

(MR. SURENDER VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 3; MRS. RANJANA PARMAR, SENIOR ADOVCATE WITH MR. KARAN SINGH PARMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 4)

¶18

¶19

___________________________________________________________

¶20

RESERVED ON: 05.08.2021

¶21

Whether approved for reporting: Yes

¶22

This petition coming on for pronouncement of

¶23

judgment on this day, the Court delivered the following:-

¶24

J U D G E M E N T

¶25

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

¶26

Respondent-University vide advertisement No. 03/2011 advertised various posts including one post of Information Scientist (Library) in the pay scale of `2200-4400 (UGC). Last date for submission of the applications for the post in issue was 25.11.2011. Essential qualifications prescribed for the post in issue were as under:-

¶27

“a) B.E. (Computer) or

¶28

b) Master degree in Computer Application (MCA) or c) Master’s degree in Library and Information Science (M. Lib. I.Sc.) and Post Graduate diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) or

¶29

d) Bachelor’s degree in Library and Information Science (B.Lib. or B.Lib. I.Sc.) with three years experience in the field and post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA)”

¶30

¶31

All degrees/diplomas shall be from recognized University/Institution with minimum 55% marks. Copy of the essential qualification prescribed by recruitment branch of respondent university is annexed herewith as annexure A/1 for the kind perusal.

¶32

According to the petitioner, he being eligible applied for the post in issue and was invited for interview, which was held on 17.10.2012. According to him, information gained by him under the Right to Information Act demonstrated that the committee of the University submitted its recommendations on 17.10.2012 and recommended the name of respondent No. 4 for being appointed against the post of Information Scientist (Library) without verifying the validity and genuineness of the documents submitted by the said respondent. Respondents No. 1 to 3 did not announce the result of the post till 27.01.2016 for the reasons best known to them. The Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 27.01.2016 accepted the recommendations of respondent No. 2 whereby said selection committee had recommended the name of respondent No. 4 for appointment against the post in issue. Copy of the relevant proceedings is appended with the petition as Annexure A-4.

¶33

¶34

When the petitioner came to know about the acceptance of the recommendations of appointing respondent No. 4, he inquired about his comparative merit vis-a-vis respondent No. 4.

¶35

His case is that respondent No. 4 has obtained degrees in three courses within a span of five years, which according to him, is not permissible.

¶36

Thus, as per the petitioner, name of respondent No. 4 has been recommended by the respondent-University by ignoring the provisions of the Act and Ordinances of the Himachal Pradesh University, especially Ordinance 3.3(a)(1), in terms whereof, no student shall be allowed to join two full time regular Degree courses of study simultaneously. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 could not have completed her M.A. (English) and Master’s of Computer Applications simultaneously, and besides this, the time period for doing B.Tech. degree is also overlapping, which she had obtained from IGNOU. On these bases, the petitioner has prayed that the recommendations made by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure A-3, wherein the name of respondent No. 4 has been recommended for appointment against the post of Information Scientist (Library), be set aside and respondent No. 2 be directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.

¶37

¶38

In response to the averments made in the petition, the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 is that respondent No. 4 completed her B.A. in April, 2003, thereafter, she joined M.A. (English) in July, 2003 and she appeared in the 4^th Semester exams thereof in June, 2005. Respondent No. 4 completed her M.A. (English) in November, 2006 as a private candidate, and thereafter, she improved her scores in June, 2007, in terms of provisions of Ordinance 6.23 of the First Ordinance of the Himachal Pradesh University. Respondent No. 4 joined Master’s of Computer Applications (MCA) course, which is of three years duration, in June, 2005 and she completed the same in June, 2008 from the IGNOU. Respondent No. 4 completed her Bachelor’s of Information Technology (BIT) course in December, 2006 from IGNOU as a correspondence student. As per respondents No. 1 to 3, respondent No. 4 did not complete two degree courses simultaneously as alleged except BIT correspondence course from IGNOU, for which there was no restriction from the respondentUniversity.

¶39

By way of rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated his stand and rebutted the stand of the respondent-University.

¶40

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case including the documents which were placed on record from time to time by the parties.

¶41

¶42

The main allegation of the petitioner is with regard to the private respondent gaining qualifications simultaneously, which as per the petitioner, could not have been gained by her. A perusal of the record of the case demonstrates that the private respondent did her 10+2 from the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in March 2000. Thereafter, she completed her Graduation in April 2003. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined M.A. (English) after completing her Graduation in the year 2003. Duration of the M.A. (English) Degree course was of two years. In the year 2005, i.e. after the duration of Post Graduation course was over, respondent No. 4 joined Master’s of Computer Applications course, which she passed out in the year 2008. In this background, when this case was listed before this Court on 29.07.2021, the Court passed the following order:-

¶43

“Heard further.

¶44

The contention of learned Counsel of the petitioner is that as the private respondent has passed her M.A. in English in the year 2007 only, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, she could have passed her MCA in the year 2008 because she cannot do two Post Graduation courses simultaneously. He has relied upon “1^st Ordinance of Himachal Pradesh University in general and Ordinance 3.3(a) in

¶45

¶46

particular”, which provides that no student shall be allowed to join two full time degree courses simultaneously.

¶47

Prima facie, in the considered view of the Court, the term ‘simultaneously’ as contained in ordinance 3.3(a) of the respondent-University, will imply that a candidate cannot take admission in two full time regular degree courses at the same time or in the same academic year(s), but from the contents of said ordinance, it cannot be deciphered that there is a bar that a candidate, who takes admission in one Post Graduation course, cannot take admission in another Post Graduation course without first clearing the course, which has been earlier joined by the candidate, though the period of the course is otherwise over. This observation the Court is making for the reasons that it is not in dispute that after the private respondent completed her Graduation in the year 2003, she joined her Post Graduation Course, i.e. M.A. in English, in the year 2003, duration of which was two years and she joined MCA course in the year 2005, i.e. after the duration of M.A. course was otherwise over.

¶48

¶49

In this backdrop, a query was put to learned Counsel representing the respondent-University that where is the bar contained in the ordinance or otherwise by the respondent-University to the effect that a person who has joined a particular Post Graduation course, cannot join another course without fully completing the first course within the duration concerned.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the respondent-University submits that he may be granted some time to assist the Court on this issue.

¶51

As prayed for, list for continuation on 03.08.2021 on which date, some responsible officer from the respondent-University shall remain present in the Court with relevant Statute/Ordinance/Regulation etc. to assist the Court.

¶52

This was followed by passing of following order by the Court on 03.08.2021:-

¶53

“In response to order dated 29.07.2021, learned counsel for the respondents-University, on instructions received from Additional Controller of Examination, informs the Court that there is no bar upon a candidate joining another Post Graduation Course in

¶54

¶55

case term of the earlier Post Graduation Course being undertaken by the candidate is over, through he may not have successfully cleared the same, provided seeking admission in another course is on the strength of his/her graduation qualification. Statement of learned counsel for the respondents/ University is taken on record. He is instructed to file an affidavit of the competent authority to this effect. As prayed for, list for consideration on 05.08.2021.”

¶56

The affidavit filed by Additional Controller of

¶57

Examination of the respondent-University dated 4^th August, 2021, is quoted herein below:-

¶58

“…. Compliance affidavit in sequel to the order dated

¶59

03.08.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Court

¶60

I Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Sh. Deo Nath Tiwari aged 58 years, R/o Flat No. 6, Block-B Kufta Dhar, Shimla-3, presently working as Additional Controller of Examinations Himachal Pradesh University, being competent officer do hereby solemnly affirms and declares as under:-

¶61

1. That the above said matter was listed before the Hon’ble court for hearing on dated 29.07.2021, and during the course of arguments a specific query was

¶62

¶63

put to the counsel representing university “that where is the bar contained in the ordinance or otherwise by the respondent University to the effect that a person who has joined a particular Post Graduation course, cannot join another course without fully completing the first course within the duration concerned”.

¶64

2. That in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble court, the provision contained in the First Ordinance of Himachal Pradesh University in general and ordinance 3.3(a) which is relevant is examined at length.

¶65

3. That after examination of the abovementioned relevant provision it is submitted that there is no such bar in the ordinance and a student can join another Post Graduate course without completing previous post graduate course after ensuing regular appearance in all the semester in the stipulated duration of the course.

¶66

4. That on dated 03.08.2021 the said matter was again listed before the Hon’ble Court, and the counsel representing the respondent University on instructions apprized the Hon’ble Court that there is no such bar contained in the ordinance or otherwise by the

¶67

¶68

respondent University to the effect that a person who joined a particular Post Graduation course, cannot join another course without fully completing the first course within the duration concerned. That the Hon’ble Court after taken the statement of the counsel for University on record further directed the University to file an affidavit on the competent authority to this effect.

¶69

That the contents of the abovementioned affidavit contained in para 1 to 4 are correct and true to the best of my personal knowledge as derived from the record and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.”

¶70

At this stage, this Court would like to dwell upon the eligibility criteria spelled out in the advertisement for the post in issue. In terms of Annexure A-1, essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Information Scientist (Library) inter alia were (a) B.E. (Computer) or (b) Master’s degree in Computer Applications (MCA) or (c) Master’s degree in Library and Information Science (M. Lib.or M. Lib. I. Sc.) and Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (PGDCA).

¶71

It is not in dispute that respondent No. 4 has been recommended for appointment against the post in issue on the strength of Master’s Degree obtained by her in Computer

¶72

¶73

Applications. The allegation of the petitioner that the private respondent has done her M.A. (English) and Master’s of Computer Applications simultaneously, is not sustainable. Ordinance 3.3(a) (1) of the Himachal Pradesh University, being relied upon by the petitioner, is as under:-

¶74

“3.3(a):1. No student shall be allowed to join two

¶75

full time regular degree courses of study simultaneously. However, student shall be allowed to join the following certificates/ diplomas/postgraduate diplomas/advanced postgraduate diploma courses, alongwith regular courses including Ph.D. i) Certificate/diploma courses in Foreign Languages (German, French and Russian)/PGDPM & LW. ii) Certificate in Computer Application. iii) Certificate in Computer Programming. iv) Any other part time certificate/diploma/post-graduate diploma/advanced post-graduate diploma degree courses may be introduced by the University or through ICDEOL in future.”

¶76

A perusal of the same demonstrates that in terms of the said Ordinance, no student can join two full time regular degree courses simultaneously. In the considered view of this Court, this means that in the same academic year, no student can

¶77

¶78

join two full time regular degree courses. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 joined two regular full time degree courses, i.e. M.A. (English) and Master’s of Computer Applications simultaneously. Respondent No. 4 joined M.A. (English) course in the year 2003 and Master’s of Computer Applications course in the year 2005.

¶79

The Post Graduation in M.A. (English) is of two years duration. There is no bar that a candidate who has joined a Post Graduation course cannot join another Post Graduation course, after the duration of the first Post Graduation course is over until a candidate successfully clears the earlier course. This means that one candidate who has joined one particular Post Graduation course, irrespective of the fact whether such candidate has successfully passed the first course or not, can join another Post Graduation course after the duration of first Post Graduation course is over and not before it. This is more so for the reasons that admission in Post Graduation courses, especially Master Degree courses, is gained by a candidate on the strength of the Bachelor degree courses.

¶80

In the compliance affidavit, which has been filed by the Additional Controller of Examinations of the respondentUniversity, the stand of the respondent-University is that there is no bar contained in the Ordinance or otherwise that a person who

¶81

¶82

joins a particular Post Graduation course, cannot join another Post Graduation course, without fully completing the first course within the duration concerned.

¶83

In this view of the matter, the objection which has been raised by the petitioner with regard to the qualifications obtained by respondent No. 4 from Himachal Pradesh University in M.A (English) and Master’s of Computer Applications, is not sustainable in law.

¶84

Now coming to the qualifications, which respondent No. 4 has obtained from IGNOU. The stand of the respondentUniversity is that there is no bar as per Ordinances of the University that a candidate pursuing regular Degree courses from Himachal Pradesh University cannot simultaneously join another course with IGNOU. Be that as it may, as it is not in dispute that eligibility of respondent No. 4 does not depends upon said qualification gained by her from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), but the same has been determined on the basis of qualification of Master’s of Computer Applications (MCA), which she gained from Himachal Pradesh University, the issue as to whether the petitioner could have had simultaneously undertaken one course from IGNOU simultaneously or not loses its relevance and significance.

¶85

¶86

Accordingly, in view of the discussion held hereinabove, as this court finds that there is no illegality in the degrees of M.A. (English) and Master’s of Computer Applications obtained by respondent No. 4 from the respondent-University, especially as these degrees were not obtained by simultaneously joining the courses as alleged by the petitioner, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Interim order(s), if any, stand vacated. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶87

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶88

September 03, 2021 (narender

Lalit Kumar v. Hp University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar v. Hp University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Vs Indian Oil Corporation and Another

Rajender Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Alias Golu Vs State of Hp

Anil Dogra Vs Sheela Devi

Sheela Devi Vs Anil Dogra

Tilak Raj Vs State of Hp