Allowed

Seema Rani v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC14 Nov 2014WPSS/622/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a candidate for the post of Lecturer. The Court found that the petitioner was wrongfully deprived of marks for teaching experience and an M.Ed. qualification, placing her ahead of the selected candidate, and quashed the appointment.

What did the court decide?

The appointment of respondent no.5 dated 12.08.2013 was quashed, and a mandamus was issued to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer. Arts.

Seema Rani Vs State Of Uttarakhand and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (S/S) No.622 of 2014

¶3

Seema Rani …….…Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ……..Respondents

¶4

Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder, present for the State/Respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶5

Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate, present for the respondent no.4. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate, present for the respondent no.5.

¶6

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶7

The petitioner before this Court has challenged, by means of the present writ petition, the appointment of respondent no.5. as a Lecturer in Arts in a private college (though grant-in-aid College), namely, K.L.D.A.V. Inter College, Roorkee, Haridwar.

¶8

A vacancy of Lecturer (Arts) fell vacant in the aforesaid College prior to 5^th June, 2012. On 5^th June, 2012, an advertisement was issued by the Committee of Management of the College. Admittedly, the essential qualification for appointment as Lecturer (Arts) are Masters in the concerned subject, which in the present case is Arts (Drawing and Painting) and B.Ed. As per the procedure, the candidates had to make applications as per the prescribed format and these applications were to be filed in the office of Chief Education Officer which in the present case is the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar and thereafter the applications were to be scrutinized and quality points were given to each of the applicants in case they are found eligible for the post of Lecturer. Thereafter, top 07 candidates who had submitted their names along with the documents were forwarded to the concerned Committee of

¶9

¶10

Management which subsequently examined these 07 candidates by way of a viva-voce and awarded marks out of maximum marks prescribed for the interview. A candidate is evaluated on the basis of his or her academic record, such as (i) High School, (ii) Inter, (iii) Graduation, (iv) Post Graduation, and (v) Training (which in the present case would be B.Ed.). Thereafter, 02 marks are liable to be given to a candidate for each year of teaching experience in secondary classes as a teacher, though the maximum points for teaching experience which would be awarded are 25. If a candidate has got Master’s Degree in Education he is to be given 05 additional quality points. The case of the petitioner is that though she has a teaching experience of more than 12 years and, therefore, was liable to be given 24 marks for her teaching experience she has only been given 08 marks for teaching experience.

¶11

Another grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been given quality points for her M.Ed. for which she was liable to be given 05 additional quality point marks. The fact that such marks were liable to be given to the petitioner is not in dispute as the respondents have not questioned her teaching experience of 12 years or the fact that she has M.Ed. qualification. The reply of the State as well as the Committee of Management is basically evasive on these two issues. The defence taken by the State is that the petitioner had not submitted her teaching experience in a prescribed format. What the prescribed format ought to be has not been explained. The petitioner on the other hand has drawn the attention of this Court to the experience Certificate granted to the petitioner by the District Education Officer wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner has experience of 12 years 04

¶12

¶13

months and 03 days. There is another Certificate which clearly states that the petitioner has joined at her present school at Government Higher Secondary School, Rehabilitated Area, Pashulok, Rishikesh as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) where she has been continuously teaching since 16.05.2008.

¶14

Moreover, the respondents in any case have awarded 08 quality point marks for teaching experience, therefore, they cannot turn around and say that the petitioner has not submitted her teaching experience in a prescribed format because the respondents in any case have awarded some points to her. These quality points though ought to have been 24 and not 08, as the petitioner has a valid certificate to that effect. The fact as to why she was not given quality point marks for her M.Ed. qualification, the reply of Management Committee as well as the other respondents is that these points are not liable to be given to the petitioner as she has already been evaluated and given marks to her for post graduation in “Arts”. This reply again is not acceptable. Post Graduation is, in any case, one of the “essential qualifications” for appointment as a Lecturer. M.Ed. is an additional qualification. The respondents have lost sight of the fact while preparing the reply before this Court that in the final analysis for academic qualification, the petitioner has received 65 quality point marks, the respondent no.5 has received 78.50 quality point marks. Whereas the total marks calculated by the office of the Chief Education Officer in respect of the petitioner are 96.97, the respondent no.5 has 93.73, therefore, the petitioner was ahead of the private respondent, however, private respondent got 17.60 marks in the interview, the petitioner

¶15

¶16

got 12.40 marks in the interview. Therefore, whereas the petitioner’s total marks are 109.37, the total marks of respondent no. 5 are 111.33 and, consequently, she had been selected. However, it is the clear view of this Court that the petitioner, apart from the above points, was also liable to be given 24-8 (which have already been given to the petitioner) = 16 marks for her teaching experience and 05 marks of M.Ed. qualification. Petitioner has been wrongly deprived of 21 marks, 16 for her teaching experience and 05 for her M.Ed. These marks are liable to be added to her gross total of 109.37, which then puts her ahead of all the contestants.

¶17

Three objections have been raised by learned counsel for respondent no.5, (the selected candidate), Mr. D.S. Patni by filing additional counter affidavit, (a) petitioner does not have permanent residence certificate, (b) she was not liable to be given additional marks for M.Ed. as she had already been given marks of Post Graduation and once marks have been given for one Post Graduate certificate, marks for M.Ed. qualification cannot be given, as it is clear from the Government Order, and (c) the advantage of experience in service of 12 years could not be given to the petitioner as her experience certificate was not in a prescribed format and, therefore, marks only for four years’ experience were given.

¶18

These three points raised by the respondent no.5 are of little value for the reasons as indicated there under:(i). As far as permanent residence is concerned, the same is not even an issue. The application form of the petitioner was shortlisted by the Government authorities and they had found the

¶19

¶20

application form of the petitioner valid on the ground of permanent residence. Secondly although the petitioner earlier was residing in Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. but since in 1999, she was married to a person who was residing in the territory of Uttarakhand and after her marriage since her husband is a permanent residence of Uttarakhand in 2008 she was absorbed in Government services in Uttarakhand, therefore, the issue of permanent residence infact is no issue in the present case.

¶21

(ii) As far as five additional marks for M.Ed. qualification are concerned, the marks for such qualification ought to have been given to the petitioner as the same is required under the Government Order. The fact that she was evaluated on the basis of Master in Arts is of little consequence for denying the marks in M.Ed. Master in Arts is the minimum requirement and eligibility for the post of Lecturer and M.Ed. is a specialized degree in Education for which under the Regulations 05 quality marks ought to have been which have been denied to the petitioner.

¶22

(iii) So long as the objection regarding the service experience that the petitioner had not applied in a prescribed format is concerned, what was the prescribed format has nowhere been stated, by any of the parties, whereas the petitioner has clearly stated regarding the experience certificate which is annexed with the writ petition which has been given by the Government authority i.e. District Education Officer. However, the certificate which the petitioner has submitted clearly states that the petitioner is teaching for the last 12 years and it is document which has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, the

¶23

¶24

objections raised by the respondent no.5 are trivial and those objections are hereby rejected.

¶25

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent no.5 dated 12.08.2013 is hereby quashed. A mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer “Arts”.

¶26

No order as to costs.

¶27

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.11.2014

¶28

Seema Rani v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Rani v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

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

Smt Babita Mishra pandey Vs State Of Uttrakhand and Another

Gaurav Rathor Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Ghanshyam Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Harvindra Singh Vs Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and Others

Surendra Prakash Dhyani Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt. Vimla Amoli Vs Vice Chncellor H.n.b. Garhwal Central University and Another