Assistant Professor recruitment through a written test followed by interview was challenged as contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. The court found no irreconcilable conflict with the State recruitment scheme and dismissed the petitions.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14040/2021
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12080/2020
Mahendar Singh Bairwa S/o Shri Chitir Lal Bairwa, Aged About 35 Years, Category Sc, R/o Qtr No. E-2, 132 Kv Gss, Vidhyut Colony, Bhinmal Bypass Road, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
(2 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12318/2020
Ladu Ram S/o Shri Mana Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Category Sc, R/o Village Dilipgarh, Tehsil Bijowa, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12689/2020
----Petitioners
(3 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
Higher Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Nikhil Jain,Mr. Nihar Jain |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s)- | : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG |
| State | Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Mr. Rajat Arora |
| For Respondent- RPSC |
: Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit |
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
REPORTABLE Judgment Reserved on :: 03/12/2021 Pronounced on :: 04/01/2022 By the Court: (Per Akil Kureshi, CJ):
These appeals arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may record the facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 14040/2021.
(4 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
RPSC, are not in consonance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’, for short) in its latest regulations.
“good academic record means an average of atleast 55 percent marks in 3 examinations proceeding to masters degree with atleast 50 percent marks in graduation and any one of the secondary/high school/higher secondary/ senior secondary or equivalent grades in the points scale wherefrom grading system is followed without including any grace marks and/or rounding of to make it 55 percent or 50 percent as the case may be”.
(5 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
of 1986’) which pertains to the method of recruitment and service conditions of various teaching staff in the Government colleges, one of the posts being that of Lecturer which is now re-designated as Assistant Professor. As per the Schedule to the said Rules of 1986, the minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment for the said post is “as laid down from time to time by the University of Rajasthan”. The State Government amended the said Rules of 1986 vide notification dated 31.01.2018, by which the definition of term ‘Regulations’ has been inserted as to mean the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulation, 2010 as amended from time to time and as adopted by the State Government. Vide this amendment, the existing Schedule to the Rules of 1986 has also been substituted. This Schedule provides method of recruitment, minimum qualifications and experience for direct recruitment etc. for different teaching posts in the Government colleges, one of them being Assistant Professor. The minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment provided in this Schedule is same as advertised by RPSC in its advertisement dated 18.12.2020.
(6 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
However, at this stage we may record that these Regulations among other things, provide for recruitment and qualifications of various teaching posts in the universities and colleges. The concept of a good academic record does not find place in these Regulations. The Regulations prescribe the criteria for short-listing the candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in universities and colleges and further provide that such shortlisting would be only for interview and the selection should be based on the performance in the interview.
(7 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
(8 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
UGC Regulations, 2018 in order to highlight that for the post of Assistant Professor in colleges, the Regulations provide for shortlisting of the candidates on the basis of allotment of marks as prescribed. Thereafter, the selection has to be based only on oral interview. In the present case, the RPSC has not followed this pattern. Instead, a written examination is conducted for all eligible candidates which will be followed by oral interview. This is directly in conflict with the UGC Regulations, 2018. He submitted that in case of conflict between the Central legislation and the State legislation in a subject contained concurrent list, the Central legislation must prevail. The UGC Regulations being the Central legislation, the State legislation must yield to the UGC Regulations.
(9 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
advocated by the petitioners. The method of holding written test followed by oral interview is therefore just and proper and in any case not impermissible as per the existing statutory framework.
(10 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
“Note: The Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for Universities, and Appendix II (Table 3B) for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only, and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview.”
(11 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
Table 3B referred to this note reads as under:-
Table:3B
Criteria for Short-listing of candidates for Interview for the Post of Assistant Professors in Colleges
| S.N . |
Academic Record | Sco | re | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Graduation | 80% & Above =21 |
60% to less than 80% = 19 |
55% to less than 60% = 16 |
45% to less than 55% = 10 |
| 2. | Post-Graduation | 80% & Above =25 |
60% to less than 80% = 23 |
55% (50% SC/ST/OBC creamy laye to less than 20 |
in case of (non- r)/PWD) 60% = |
| 3. | M.Phil | 60% & above=07 |
55% to less | than 60% | = 05 |
| 4. | Ph.D. | 25 | |||
| 5. | NET with JRF | 10 | |||
| NET | 08 | ||||
| SLET/SET | 05 | ||||
| 6. | Research Publications (2 marks for each research publications published in Peer-Reviewed or UGC- listed Journals) |
06 | |||
| 7. | Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience (2 marks for one year each)# |
10 | |||
| 8. | Awards | ||||
| International/National Level (Awards given by International Organisations/ Government of India/Government of India recognised National Level bodies) |
03 | ||||
| State-Level (Awards given by State Government) |
02 |
However, if the period of teaching/post-doctoral experience is less than one year then the marks shall be reduced proportionately. Note:
| (A) (i) |
M.Phil.+ Ph.D. | Maximum | - 25 Marks |
|---|---|---|---|
| (ii) | JRF/NET/SET | Maximum | - 10 Marks |
| (iii) | In awards category | Maximum | - 03 Marks” |
(12 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
(13 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
Central statute or under it have to be applied with by the State while making admissions. It may in addition lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down. Thus once the minimum standards are laid down by the authority having the power to do so, any further qualifications laid down by the State which will lead to the selection of better students cannot be challenged on the ground that it is contrary to what has been laid down by the authority concerned, the action of the State would be valid because it does not adversely impinge on the standards prescribed by the appropriate authority. Following observations made be noted:-
“47. There are, however, two cases where there are observations to the contrary. One is the case of the State of M.P. Vs. Nivedita Jain, a judgment of a Bench of three judges. In this case the Court dealt with admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the medical colleges of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Rules framed by the State provided for a minimum of 50% as qualifying marks for the general category students for admission to the medical colleges of the State. But for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes the minimum qualifying marks were prescribed as 40%. Later on the minimum qualifying marks for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes were reduced to 0. The Court observed:
That it was not in dispute and it could not be disputed that the order in question was in conflict with the provisions contained in Regulation 2 of the Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council."
But it held that Entry 66 of List-I would not apply to the selection of candidates for admission to the medical colleges because standards would come in after the students were admitted. The Court also held that Regulation 2 of the Regulations for admission to M.B.B.S. courses framed by the Indian Medical Council, was only recommendatory. Hence any relaxation in the rules of selection made by the State Government was permissible. We will examine the character of the
(14 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
(15 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
would score on the basis of his or her academic performance in various stages. For example if a candidate has secured above 80 percent marks in graduation, 21 marks would be awarded to the candidate; those who have scored between 60 and 80 marks in the same examination, 19 marks would be awarded and so on. For all candidates with Ph.D. degree 25 marks would be awarded. Extra marks would be provided for research publication, for teaching experience and awards given at the national and international level and state level. This exercise is to be conducted for the purpose of short-listing the candidates for interview. The note makes it clear that once the candidates are shortlisted, their scores, as provided in table 3B would lose its significance. The selection would be made only on the basis of performance in the interview. Though this exercise of awarding scores is prescribed in table 3B, there is no cut-off provided for short-listing. In other words, there is no clarity under the Regulations as to in what manner the candidates would be short-listed once the scores are assigned as provided in the concerned table.
(16 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
noted, UGC regulations have not provided any cut-off for shortlisting the candidates on the basis of scores to be allotted in terms of the table. Even if we permit the degree of latitude to the recruiting agency and expect calling for oral interview candidates 5 times the number of notified vacancies, this would require conducting the oral interview close to 5,000 candidates. The method of written test followed by oral interview adopted by the State Government cannot be seen as irreconcilable conflict with the UGC Regulations. When the note contained in the UGC Regulations refer to purpose of awarding the scores only for short-listing, the essence is that once this task of short-listing is over, these marks shall carry no further significance. The stress therefore is not on the selection to be based only on oral interview; the stress is that the purpose for assigning scores prescribed in the table is for the purpose of short-listing only.
(17 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
clear case based on the application of one of the three tests arises for determination. Following portion of the judgment need to be noted:-
132.1 The first envisages a situation of an absolute or irreconcilable conflict or inconsistency between a provision contained in a State legislative enactment with a Parliamentary law with reference to a matter in the Concurrent List. Such a conflict brings both the statutes into a state of direct collision. This may arise, for instance, where the two statutes adopt norms or standards of behavior or provide consequences for breach which stand opposed in direct and immediate terms. The conflict arises because it is impossible to comply with one of the two statutes without disobeying the other;
132.2 The second situation involving a conflict between State and Central legislations may arise in a situation where Parliament has evinced an intent to occupy the whole field. The notion of occupying a field emerges when a Parliamentary legislation is so complete and exhaustive as a Code as to preclude the existence of any other legislation by the State. The State law in this context has to give way to a Parliamentary enactment not because of an actual conflict with the absolute terms of a Parliamentary law but because the nature of the legislation enacted by Parliament is such as to constitute a complete and exhaustive Code on the subject; and
132.3 The third test of repugnancy is where the law enacted by Parliament and by the State legislature regulate the same subject. In such a case the
(18 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
repugnancy does not arise because of a conflict between the fields covered by the two enactments but because the subject which is sought to be covered by the State legislation is identical to and overlaps with the Central legislation on the subject.
133. The distinction between the first test on the one hand with the second and third tests on the other lies in the fact that the first is grounded in an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the two statutes each of which operates in the Concurrent List. The conflict between the two statutes gives rise to a repugnancy, the consequence of which is that the State legislation will be void to the extent of the repugnancy. The expression 'to the extent of the repugnancy' postulates that those elements or portions of the state law which run into conflict with the central legislation shall be excised on the ground that they are void. The second and third tests, on the other hand, are not grounded in a conflict borne out of a comparative evaluation of the text of the two provisions. Where a law enacted by Parliament is an exhaustive Code, the second test may come into being. The intent of Parliament in enacting an exhaustive Code on a subject in the Concurrent List may well be to promote uniformity and standardization of its legislative scheme as a matter of public interest. Parliament in a given case may intend to secure the protection of vital interests which require a uniformity of law and a consistency of its application all over the country. A uniform national legislation is considered necessary by Parliament in many cases to prevent vulnerabilities of a segment of society being exploited by an asymmetry of information and unequal power in a societal context. The exhaustive nature of the Parliamentary code is then an indicator of the exercise of the State's power to legislate being repugnant on the same subject. The third test of repugnancy may arise where both the Parliament and the State legislation cover the same subject matter. Allowing the exercise of power over the same subject matter would trigger the application of the concept of repugnancy. This may implicate the doctrine of implied repeal in that the State legislation cannot co-exist with a legislation enacted by Parliament. But even here if the legislation by the State covers distinct subject matters, no repugnancy would exist. In deciding whether a case of repugnancy arises on the application of the second and third tests, both the text and the context of the Parliamentary legislation have to be borne in mind. The nature of the subject matter which is legislated upon, the purpose of the legislation, the rights which are sought to be protected, the legislative history and the nature and ambit of the statutory provisions are among the factors that provide guidance in the exercise of judicial review.
(19 of 19)
[CW-14040/2021]
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
1,13,14,15-Jayesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Was recruitment of Assistant Professors through a written test followed by interview impermissibly in conflict with the UGC Regulations, 2018?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Preeti Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of M.P. And Ors.Relied on¶98
Dr. Preeti Srivastava And Anr. Vs. State of M.P. And Ors., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120. · Who else cites this
Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) And Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal And Anr.Relied on¶116
Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) And Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal And Anr., reported in (2021) 8 SCC 599, · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Dr. Karanjeet Kaur
Dr. Madhu Kumawat
Shravan Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Commissioner, Commissionerate Of College Education, Government Of Rajasthan
Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Akil Kureshi
Sudesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
