The Division Bench disposed of writ petitions challenging Rule 9(1) regarding teaching experience requirements for Principal posts. The court held the rule valid, relying on an earlier order clarifying experience needs, and declared no interference required.
The petitions were disposed of with no interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.6852 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.5.2010
Dr. Satish Kant and others
-----Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
-----Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present:Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G.Pb. for the State.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.6852 of 1997 and 11095 of 1999.
CWP No.6852 of 1997 (O&M)
2
“a) M.A. Ist Class or High Second Class (50%) in the concerned subject or an equivalent qualification from a Foreign University and eight years teaching experience.
b) Ph.D alongwith 8 years teaching experience.”
CWP No.6852 of 1997 (O&M)
3
“….A bare reading of the plain language used in Rule 9(i) and appendix ‘B’ shows that a candidate must possess both the qualifications namely MA with 8 years’ teaching experience and Ph.D. with 8 years’ teaching experience. The word “or” does not appear between clauses (a) and (b) of appendix ‘B’. If we were to accept the contention urged by Shri Amarjit Singh that a candidate who possesses either of the two qualifications should be treated eligible, we shall have to add the word “or” between clauses (a) and (b). That will not only amount to usurpation of the jurisdiction vested in the rule making authority but will also be contrary to the two well established canons of interpretation i.e (i) that the language of a statute must be given plain and grammatical meaning unless such interpretation leads to anomalous or absurd result or causes grave public mischief; and (ii) that the Court cannot ordinarily add to or subtract from the language of the statute. The function, jurisdiction and duty to supply omissions in the statutory enactments/instruments is of the Legislature or the authority upon whom the power to make rules has been conferred and ordinarily it is not for the Courts to exercise this jurisdiction.
Xx xx xxx xxx
CWP No.6852 of 1997 (O&M)
4
By applying the rule of plain and grammatical construction, it becomes clear that in order to be considered eligible for recruitment as Principal by direct recruitment, a candidate must not only have secured the degrees of MA and Ph.D but he must possess 16 years’ teaching experience out of which 8 years’ experience must be after post graduation and the remaining 8 years after doing Ph.D. The very prescription of 8 years’ teaching experience separately in clauses (a) and (b) shows that the experience gained before acquiring the qualifications of MA and Ph.D cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of recruitment as Principal.”
i) Qualification for promotion was only Masters degree with eight years experience
CWP No.6852 of 1997 (O&M)
5
while qualification for direct recruitment was 16 years experience with Ph.D degree.
ii) The requirement in the rule as interpreted in the earlier DB judgment of this Court of having eight years teaching experience after M.A. and eight years experience after Ph.D was not rational as a person with Ph.D even with 16 years experience will not be eligible.
qualification as rational and valid.
The relevant rule is as under:-
“Qualifications and experience for appointment to the Service: (ii) by direct recruitment, (iii) by promotion
i) By Direct Recruitment:
a) M.A. First Division or High Second Division (50%) in relevant subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign University with 8 years teaching experience. b) Ph.D with 8 years teaching experience.
ii) By promotion:
Experience of working as a lecturer for a minimum period of eight years.”
CWP No.6852 of 1997 (O&M)
6
promotion. Candidate to be appointed by promotion could be treated as a separate category. As regards the anomaly in reading the rule as laying down requirement of eight years experience before Ph.D degree and eight years experience after the Ph.D degree, we are of the view that matter is covered by earlier DB judgment referred to above. It cannot be held that a Ph.D candidate with 16 years experience after Ph.D is excluded. Moreover, the petitioners do not claim to have 16 years experience after Ph.D. Interpretation in the earlier DB judgment does not hold such a candidate to be ineligible. It only says eight years experience after Ph.D is must. We make it clear that a person with 16 years experience with requisite educational qualification will be eligible if eight years or more experience is after Ph.D. It is not necessary
that eight years experience should be prior to Ph.D.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge
May 4, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 9(1) prescribing eight years teaching experience before and after Ph.D. degree for Principal post violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the division bench interpretation regarding teaching experience requirements holds good for direct recruitment.
Whether the petitions challenging the recruitment rules have a legal merit for interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No. 6828 of 1997Relied on¶7
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Satish Kant and others
State of Punjab and others
Adarsh Kumar Goel
Alok Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
