Disposed

Dalpat Dan Charan v. the University Grants Commission and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 May 2018CW/7422/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner in person disposed of his writ petition relying on a precedent regarding relaxation of marks for designated categories based on UGC regulations. The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's issue within 30 days by passing a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's issue by passing a speaking order within 30 days.

Dalpat Dan Charan Vs the University Grants… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7422 / 2018

¶3

Dalpat Dan Charan S/o Shri Chandan Dan, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Booth Rathoran, District Barmer (RaJ.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The University Grants Commission, New Delhi Through Its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

¶7

The State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

25/05/2018

¶14

The lawyers are not working due to abstention from work.

¶15

2. The petitioner in person states that the controversy is squarely covered by judgment of Lalit Kumar Vs. The University Grants Commisison, New Delhi & Anr. (S.B. Civil

¶16

Writ Petition No.7545/2017) (decided on 28.11.2017). The relevant portion of this order reads as follows :-

¶17

“ 13. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited, this Court is of the opinion that in its legislative wisdom, the State has amended the Rule of 1986 vide notification dated 17.06.1993 and has closed all options by adopting

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

the qualification laid down from time to time by the University Grant Commission. The State of Rajasthan has all its prerogative in its legislation but once the legislation itself adopted the UGC qualification then it was not for the State of Rajasthan to contest the case contrary to the terms of the Rules itself.

¶20

14. This Court has seen that Rules of 1986 have given the complete qualification to be laid down as per the University Grant Commission and admittedly the University Grant Commission has vide regulations dated 30^th June, 2010 prescribed for recruitment and qualification in which as per the Regulation 3.3.0 the good academic record of 55 % has been made mandatory for the said post.

¶21

15. The bare reading of Regulation 3.4.1 also makes it clear that in the UGC notification, 5% relaxation is provide for the good academic record for the graduates and the post graduates level and strangely the State has abided some portion of the notification of the Regulation whereas other portion of the notification has been ignored. Admittedly the State utilizing the same Regulation has provided 5% relaxation at post graduates level but ignoring the same notification has denied relaxation at graduate level with no possible reasons for making such discrimination.

¶22

16. This Court has seen that this notification of 2010 was absolutely binding if read in consonance with the rules of 1986 upon the State of Rajasthan and the same is further fortified by the cover note of the NCTE notification particularly condition No.1.2 and condition No. 2 which has been reproduced above which made the condition binding upon any college affiliated with the UGC.

¶23

17. This Court has seen the precedent law cited in which the overall concept of good academic record has

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

been upheld by this Court but at the same time it was held that the good academic record was to be decided by the expert. This Court upheld the expert’s opinion of stipulation of the minimum qualifications for recruitment prescribed. It is no doubt that the University Grants Commission has best experts in the country who have brought together the recruitment and qualification standards which were to be followed by every University and college.

¶26

18. It is not disputed that the all the Colleges of State of Rajasthan are affiliated to UGC. The condition of the advertisement stating that any amendment in the Rules from time to time shall govern the selection process makes it very clear that any changes in the Rules shall be governed even when the selection process is going and thus the notification of 11^th July, 2016 by which University Grants Commission has amended regulation 3.4.1 by extending the scope of relaxation of 5% to the other backward classes (Creamy layer) and the same shall be applicable in the present recruitment process as per the respondent themselves.

¶27

19. Thus in view of the aforesaid observations the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to provide relaxation of 5% marks at UG Level, PG Level and for assessment of good academic record to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and PH Category as being mandated by the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2016. Since already an interim order was operating in favour of the petitioners and they have participated in the selection process for the post and the selections have not culminated into finality therefore the present order shall be applicable for all petitioners only as reinitiating the selection shall be prejudicial to all the participating candidates.”

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

In light of such submission made by petitioner in person, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide the issue of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of 30 days from today while keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent law.

¶30

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶31

sudheer

Dalpat Dan Charan v. the University Grants Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalpat Dan Charan v. the University Grants Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Chander Nai Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Ram Vallabh Vs Bharat Singh and Ors.

Abdul Rasheed and Ors. Vs Lrs of Smt. Ataiya Begum and Ors.

Hadmat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Monika Baghela Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Akashdeep Morya Vs State and Ors.