Dismissed

Krishana Charan Sharma v. U O I and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Jan 2015CW/18483/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court bench dismissed a writ petition challenging a promotion rejection under the Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioner alleged the Selection Committee lacked required subject experts. The court found the Tribunal's reliance on the Scheme's quorum provisions was sound and saw no error to interfere. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Krishana Charan Sharma Vs U O I and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18483/2013. Krishna Charan Sharma. VERSUS UOI & Ors.

¶3

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18483/2013.

¶4

Krishna Charan Sharma. VERSUS Union of India & Others.

¶5

21.01.2015.

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA

¶7

Mr.Ashish Saksena, Counsel for petitioner.

¶8

¶9

Instant petition is directed against order of the ld.Central Administrative Tribunal dt.21.10.2011.

¶10

The petitioner had participated in the selection process held under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) adopted by the NCERT for promotion from the post of Reader to Professor in the Universities. Such of the Teachers with minimum eight years experience as Readers were accepted as eligible criteria for promotion to the post of Professor besides three research publications and other terms & conditions and a Committee is to be constituted as provided u/Reg.52 read with Reg.57 and it will be appropriate to quote the relevant Regulations, required for the present purpose, which read ad infra:-

¶11

“ Regulation 52 – The Chairman of all Selection Committee shall be nominated by the President.

¶12

Regulation 57 – Selection Committee for all posts whose minimum basic pay exceeds Rs.1249/- per month shall consist of:-

¶13

(a) The Director or his nominee - Member - (b) One person nominated by the Member President

¶14

(c) Three persons selected from a Members panel of names prepared by the Establishment Committee, of whom two shall be specialists. (d) The Secretary - Member/ Convener”

¶15

-2-

¶16

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18483/2013. Krishna Charan Sharma. VERSUS UOI & Ors.

¶17

As regards constitution of the Committee, u/Reg.52 the Chairman of all the Selection Committees shall be nominated by the President which, as informed to this court, is President of NCERT and at the same time u/Reg.57 envisages for constitution of the Committee, the quorum of the Committee is constituted of Director or his nominee; one person nominated by the President; three persons selected from a panel of names prepared by the Establishment Committee with a rider that two of them must be specialists; and the Secretary who is Member/Convener.

¶18

In the present matter, the Committee was constituted in terms of Reg.57 before whom the present petitioner appeared and participated but to his misfortune could not be finally selected and recommended by the Committee while adjudging overall suitability for the post of Professor and aggrieved by the same he preferred original application before the ld.Tribunal and his first & foremost grievance was that the Committee was not constituted in accordance with Reg.57 read with the circular of the UGC dt.21.02.2002 to be carried out while exercising for promotion from the post of Reader to Professor under Career Advancement Scheme and it was resolved that at the time of interview it shall be conducted by inviting three experts of the concerned subject and making sure that these three subject experts be different from those who have assessed and evaluated the research publications.

¶19

Emphasis of the petitioner before the ld.Tribunal was that in the quorum which was constituted and before whom he appeared, three subject experts had not participated as members of the

¶20

-3-

¶21

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18483/2013. Krishna Charan Sharma. VERSUS UOI & Ors.

¶22

Committee and indisputably according to him, out of three there were only two subject experts and Mr.M.S.Yadav who is of General Education, in no manner could be considered as subject expert and that being so it was not a properly constituted Committee and the quorum of the constituted Committee mandates that there should be minimum three subject experts as members of the Committee and Mr.M.S.Yadav being not subject expert, constitution of the Committee was not in terms of Reg.57 read with circular of the UGC dt.21.02.2002 and the final decision in holding the present petitioner unsuitable for promotion to the post of Professor certainly vitiates the very recommendations made by the Committee.

¶23

The ld.Tribunal after taking note of the submissions made observed that Mr.M.S.Yadav was member of the Committee and if Reg.57 is taken in its right spirit, constitution of the Committee was proper and the quorum constituted was in accordance with the scheme of Regulations but as regards circular is concerned, it may not supersede constitution of the Committee in terms of Reg.57 and it will not vitiate the recommendations made by the Committee. In addition to it, we further find that there is no provision of constituting quorum of the Committee u/Reg.57 and even if the Reg.57 and the circular dt.21.02.2002 are read together, the question emerges as to whether if only two subject experts had participated as members of the Committee and third subject experts, as alleged in the circular dt.21.02.2002, recused or failed to participate, will it vitiate the proceedings or it may be considered

¶24

-4-

¶25

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18483/2013. Krishna Charan Sharma. VERSUS UOI & Ors.

¶26

that the recommendations are made by the Committee which is not properly constituted.

¶27

In our considered view, in absence of quorum being provided u/Reg.57 if third member had not participated in the Committee which, as alleged by the petitioner, should be a subject expert but as an expert u/Reg.57 who had participated as member of the Committee, the recommendations made by a quorum which mandates Reg.57 and will not vitiate the proceedings, as being prayed for and claimed by the petitioner.

¶28

Counsel further submits that as per Reg.52, the Chairman of all the Selection Committees shall be nominated by the President and his grievance is that the Chairman was not nominated by the President and it vitiated the constitution of the Committee itself.

¶29

In our considered view, the submission made is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that there is no material available on record to support the submission made and at the same time, if constitution of the Committee, as contemplated u/Reg.57, fulfills the mandate, rest all remains procedural and we are not suppose to interfere in the recommendations made by the Committee, as contemplated u/Reg.57 of the scheme of Regulations.

¶30

The ld.Tribunal has also extensively dealt with the questions raised by the petitioner and did not find favour under its order impugned in the instant proceedings and we do not find any apparent or manifest error committed by the ld.Tribunal in the order impugned which requires interference by this court.

¶31

-5-

¶32

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18483/2013. Krishna Charan Sharma. VERSUS UOI & Ors.

¶33

Consequently, the instant petition being devoid of merit,

¶34

accordingly stands dismissed.

¶35

(J.K.RANKA),J.

¶36

(AJAY RASTOGI),J.

¶37

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.

Krishana Charan Sharma v. U O I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishana Charan Sharma v. U O I and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Infratel Ltd. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ram Lakhan Vs State Medical and Healthors

Bhagirath Sharma Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Shankar Lal Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Tanu Chaudhary Vs State Home Departmentors

Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and or