C/SCA/9773/201[SECTION] [ENTITY] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9773 of 201[SECTION] With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 101[SECTION]3 of 201[SECTION] With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 101[SECTION][SECTION] of 201[SECTION] With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10461 of 201[SECTION] With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10882 of 201[SECTION] With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11013 of 201[SECTION] With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11016 of 201[SECTION] With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11207 of 201[SECTION] With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 71[SECTION]0 of 201[SECTION] In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9773 of 201[SECTION] FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY]
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
YES 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT] NO or any order made thereunder ?
HC-NIC Page 1 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 [ENTITY] Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 22 Respondent(s) Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], MR [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATES for the respective Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS [ENTITY] for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. [SECTION] - 23 MR [ENTITY], MR [ENTITY], MR [ENTITY], MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATES for the Respect respondents NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 03/0[SECTION]/2016 CAV COMMON JUDGMENT 1 Sincetheissuesraised,inallthecaptionedwritapplications,are more or less the same, those were heard analogously, and are being disposedofbythiscommonjudgmentandorder.
2 Forthesakeofconvenience,theSpecialCivilApplicationNo.9773 of201[SECTION]istreatedastheleadmatter.
3 Bythiswritapplication,underArticle226ofthe[ACT]of India,thepetitionerdesirousofseekingappointmentonthepostofthe "[ENTITY]" in the grantinaid colleges within the [ENTITY]hasprayedforthefollowingreliefs:
"17(A) Bepleasedtoadmitthispetition, HC-NIC Page 2 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 (B) bepleasedtoissueawritofmandamusorawritinthenatureof
mandamusoranyotherappropriatewrit,orderordirectionquashingand setting aside the decision of the respondent authorities in rejecting the application of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of [ENTITY];
(C) Bepleasedtoissueawritofmandamusorawritinthenatureof mandamusoranyotherappropriatewrit,orderordirectiondirectingthe respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointmenttothepostofAdhyapakSahayak.
(D) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, be pleasedtodirecttherespondentauthoritiestostaythefurtherrecruitment processfortheAdhyapakSahayakinEconomicssubject.
(E) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, be pleasedtodirecttherespondentauthoritiestokeeponepostof[ENTITY] vacant in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar District for the petitioner;
(F) Bepleasedtopasssuchotherandfurtherordersasmaybedeemed fitandproper."
4 Thecaseofthepetitionermaybesummarizedasunder:
4.1 The respondent No.1 - [ENTITY] issued a public advertisementdated29th April,201[SECTION]forfillingup496vacantpostsof the"AdhyapakSahayak"inthegrantinaidcollegessituatedintheState ofGujarat.
4.2 Theadvertisementstatedthattherecruitmentprocesswouldbe undertakenaccordingtotheUniversityGrantsCommissionRegulations of 2009 and the resolutions issued by the Education Department, GovernmentofGujarat,fromtimetotime.
4.3 Withrespecttotheeducationalqualifications,theadvertisement stated that a candidate must possess minimum [SECTION][SECTION]% in the relevant subject at the Post Graduation level with a good academic record accordingtotheUniversityGrantsCommissionRegulations,2010.
HC-NIC Page 3 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 4.4 The Government Resolution dated 14th September 2011, with respecttothecentralizedrecruitmentoftheAssistantSupervisorsinthe NonGovernmental grantinaid colleges, provides that the minimum educationalqualificationforthepostoftheAssistantProfessorwouldbe asprescribedintheU.G.C.Regulations,2010.TheU.G.C.Regulations, 2010 prescribes that a candidate must possess minimum [SECTION][SECTION]% in the relevant subject at the Post Graduation level with a good academic recordamongstotherthings.
4.[SECTION] Itisthecaseofthepetitionerthathebeingeligible,accordingto the [ACT], applied for the post of the Assistant ProfessorinthesubjectofEconomics,forwhich,total86postswereto befilled.ItishiscasethathecompletedhisB.Com.intheyear2007 fromtheDelhiUniversitywithEconomicsastheprincipalsubject.He studied Micro Economics in the first year, Macro Economics in the secondyearandIndianEconomicsandStatisticsinthethirdyearofthe Graduation.Thereafter,hegotenrolledforthePostGraduationinM.A. withEconomics.Hestudies16subjectsofEconomics(foursubjectsper Semester). It is his case that he was awarded the Degree of M.A. in EconomicswithaGoldMedalintheyear2010.
4.6 ThepetitionerthereafterappearedintheNationalEligibilityTest in the subject of Economics, and cleared the same in the year 2012. Thereafter,heenrolledhimselfinthecourseoftheMasterinPhilosophy (M.Phil.) in the subject of Economics, which is considered as an advancedPostGraduateResearchDegree.Hecompletedthesaidcourse intheyear2013.ThepetitionerwasawardedtheDegreeofM.Phil.in theyear2013.
4.7 ThepetitionerthereaftergotenrolledforPh.D.intheyear2013, HC-NIC Page 4 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 andisworkingwithhisthesisinthesubjectofEconomics.
4.8 [ENTITY] subjectofEconomics,oncontractualbasis,intheGovernmentcollege.
4.9 It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the application madebyhim,forthepostoftheAssistantProfessor,inthesubjectof Economics,hewascalledforverificationofthedocumentson22ndMay, 201[SECTION].Atthattime,theapplicationofthepetitionerwasrejectedonthe groundthatthepetitioner'sU.G.DegreeisintheCommerce,whereas thePostGraduationDegreeisintheArts.
4.10 It is his case that at that point of time, there was no addendumoramendmentbroughtoutintheadvertisementorinanyof theGovernmentResolutionsinthatregard.
4.11 ItishiscasethatthedecisionoftheSelectionCommittee wasnotbaseduponanyformal/writtendecisiontakenbyanyauthority, exceptbytheofficeoftheCommissionerofHigherEducation,whichis neithertheappointingauthoritynorthecompetentauthorityinlawto laydownanyqualificationsatitsownwhims.
4.12 Hence,thispetition.
[SECTION] Sofarastheotherpetitionersareconcerned,thepositionisas statedhereinbelow.
6 SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO.12042OF201[SECTION]:
Qualificationsofthepetitionerisasunder:
Nameofthe Degree at Degree at NET/SLAT M.Phil Ph.D petitioner under Post Graduation Graduation HC-NIC Page [SECTION] of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 level Level [ENTITY] with M.Com in SLAT Inmanagement Nil Ramubhai Commerce Commerce Commerce (which is a Patel branch of Commerce) AccordingtotheofficeoftheCommissionerofHigherEducation, the petitioner was holding the required qualifications and was also includedinthemeritlistforbeingappointedasan"AdhyapakSahayak" in the Commerce subject, but while assessing the marks, as per the resolutionbearingNo.NGC1120103269Bdated14thSeptember,2011, accordingtotheCommissionerofHigherEducation,hewasnotentitled tofivemarksfortheM.PhilDegreeeventhoughhepossessesthesaid degree,andthejustificationsoughttobeofferedisthatthepetitioner shouldhaveanM.PhilDegreeinCommerceandnotinManagement. Therefore, while calculating the marks, out of 110, despite he was awarded only 40.28 marks instead of 4[SECTION].28 marks as claimed (at Annexure:'F'tothispetition,page40).
7 SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO.10882OF201[SECTION]:
Subject Commerce Qualification 1.U.G.InBBA(percentage[SECTION]8.37%)
2.P.G.(M.Com)inMarketing(percentage[SECTION]9.00%)
3.GSET(AccreditedbyUGC)inCommerce OtherExperience 1)AtpresentworkingasfulltimeProfessorinthesubject ofCommerce(Management)inRajkotKelvaniMandal. AppointmentwasapprovedbySaurashtraUniversity.(10 yearsoftotalteachingexperience)
2)PublishedbookwithISBN
3)ResearchpublishedinJournal
4)Computerlinteracy
[SECTION])PursuingPh.d.
Ground for ThatUGinBBAandPGinCommerce.
rejection of HC-NIC Page 6 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Application 8 SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO.101[SECTION]3OF201[SECTION]:
Name of the Degree at Under Degree at Post NET/SLET or petitioner Graduationlevel Graduationlevel Ph.D Deepaben B.Com (Advance M.Com.Statistics SLETCommerce Natwarlal Accountancy & Solanki Auditing) Badalkumar B.Com (Advance M.ComStatistics SLETCommerce Puranmal Accountancy & Mehta Auditing) Vishvanath B.Com (Auditing & M.Com. Advanced NET in Yuvrajbhai Auditing Statistics Commerce & Borse Management) and NET in double Graduation Populationstudy inStatistics
9 SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNO.101[SECTION][SECTION]OF201[SECTION]:
Nameofthepetitioner Degree at Under Degree at Post NET/ SLET or Graduationlevel Graduationlevel Ph.D. Dr.[ENTITY] B.B.A. M.Com.Commerce Ph.D. Commerce SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONERS:
10 TheactiononthepartoftheofficeoftheJointCommissioner,in notconsideringtheapplicationsofthepetitionersforappointmenton thepostsofthe"AdhyapakSahayaks"onthegroundthatalthoughthe petitioners have applied for a particular subject, yet as they are not possessing the requisite qualifications at the Under Graduation, Post Graduation levelaswellasPh.D.,M.Philinthatparticularsubject,is arbitrary, illegal and not in consonance with the [ACT] ("the Regulations of 2010", for short) andResolutions/AdvertisementoftheStateGovernment.
HC-NIC Page 7 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 11 ItwasnotopenfortheofficeoftheJointCommissioner,Higher Education,tochangetherulesofthegameonceithadstarted.Asper the advertisement, the required educational qualifications of the candidatewerethatthecandidatemustpossessaminimum[SECTION][SECTION]%inthe relevant subject at the Post Graduation level with a good academic recordaspertheRegulationsof2010.Inthepresentcase,theofficeof the Joint Commissioner, on the basis of the recommendations of the ExpertCommitteeconstitutedtolookintothegrievances,hasdeviated fromthe educational qualifications byinsisting fordegreesatthe UG andPGlevelinthesamesubject.
12 Theactiononthepartoftheofficeofthe JointCommissioner, HigherEducation,iswithoutjurisdiction,inasmuchastheofficeofthe JointCommissionerhasnopowertocomeoutwithsucharequirement inviewoftheEntry2[SECTION]oftheconcurrentlist,whichissubjecttothe Entry 66 of the Union List of the [SECTION] of the [ACT].ThedecisionoftheExpertCommitteehasnotbeentranslatedinto anyGovernmentResolution,andthus,thesameisnotintunewiththe [SECTION]ofthe[ACT]ofIndiarenderingitnugatoryintheeye oflaw.
13 The members of the Committee are not experts in the field of education, and in such circumstances, acceptance of the recommendations dated 9th June, 201[SECTION] of the Expert Committee is misplaced. The recommendation of the Expert Committee is in the natureofdeviationandagainstthespiritoftheRegulationsof2010,and thus, bad and without authority. There exists variance in the recommendationdated8th June,201[SECTION]andtherecommendationdated 9thJune,201[SECTION]oftheExpertCommittee.Therecommendationdated8th June,201[SECTION]shouldbefollowedasthesameisintherightearnestandin HC-NIC Page 8 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 tunewiththeregulationsapplicableinthematterofappointmentofthe "AdhyapakSahayak".
14 Intheearlierrecruitments,therequirementofpossessingdegrees, attheUGandPGlevel,inthesamesubject,wasnotmadeapplicable, andforthefirsttime,sucharequirementhasbeenintroducedandthe insistenceofwhichisdetrimentaltotheinterestofthepetitioners.The saidactiononthepartoftherespondentsauthoritiesisarbitraryand illegal.
1[SECTION] The Universities have permitted the candidates to change the streambygivingadmissionatthePostGraduationlevelinthedifferent subjects,andthus,nowitisnotopentotheStateGovernmentnotto accept the qualifications / degrees possessed by the candidates in differentdisciplinesattheUG,PGandPh.D.level.
STANCEOFTHESTATEGOVERNMENT:
16 OnbehalfoftherespondentNo.2,anaffidavitinreplyhasbeen filed duly affirmed by the Joint Director (College), Office of the Commissioner,HigherEducationinteraliastatingasunder:
"6 Isayandsubmitthatsofarastheadvertisementdated29.04.201[SECTION] is concerned, the same was issued by the Commissioner of Higher Educationfor496vacantpostsof"AdhyapakSahayak"inthegrantinaid collegesagainsttheNOCissuedbytheCommissionerofHigherEducation, GandhinagaraspertheconsentgivebythecollegeGoverningBodyforthe centralizedrecruitmentinvarioussubjectsofArts,CommerceandHome Science Stream. I say and submit that the deponent herein provides a platform for the recruitment to the posts of [ENTITY] by conducting CentralizedOnlineSelectionProcedureforthepostsagainst whichclearNOCisgrantedbytheCommissionerofHigherEducation.I sayandsubmitthattheentireselectionprocedureisbasedonCentralized HC-NIC Page 9 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Recruitment Process subject to the policy and instructions given by the GovernmentofGujarattimetotime.
7 Isayandsubmitthatpursuanttotheadvertisementissuedbythe respondent herein, the petitioner applied for the post of [ENTITY].ThepetitionerpossessesqualificationsofB.Com., M.A. and M.Phil. the petitioner is studying for Ph.D, but is yet to be completed.
8 Isayandsubmitthatpursuanttotheadvertisementissuedbythe respondent authorities, the petitioner applied for the post of [ENTITY] for the subject of Economics. I say and submit that all the candidates are required to submit their applications online and submit their details. Accordingly, the petitioner also submitted his application online.
9 I say and submit that when the petitioner was called for verificationandscrutiny,itwasfoundthatthepetitionerdidnotpossess the degrees to meet with the qualification required. The petitioner possessesagraduatedegreeofB.Comwhereas,hehasobtainedmasters degreesinArtsi.e.M.A.withEconomicsandM.PhilinEconomics.
10 I say and submit that upon scrutiny it was found that the combination of degrees that the petitioner possesses is that of different disciplinei.e.GraduationinCommerceDisciplineandPostGraduationin ArtsDiscipline.Isayandsubmitthattherecannotbeanyrestrictionby theauthoritiesifanyindividualwantstostudyorobtainahigherdegree in another discipline. However, when the question comes to teach the students any particular subject, the respondent authorities can have preference to choose such candidates who have specialization in the concernedsubjectintheirUnderGraduateandPostGraduatelevel.The petitioner herein has altogether obtained different degree in a different discipline i.e. of B.Com whereas, he has done Post Graduation in altogetheradifferentdisciplinei.e.M.A.inArts.
11 I say and submit that though the petitioner possesses Masters Degree inrelevantsubjecti.e.Economics, itisrelevant tonotethatthe petitionerhasnotstudiedEconomicsorhavenotspecializedinEconomics attheundergraduatelevel.IsayandsubmitthatasAdhyapakSahayak for Economics, the petitioner would be required impart education and teachEconomicstothestudentsofundergraduatelevel.Therefore,when thepetitionerhimselfhasnotstudiedthesubjectofEconomicsathisunder graduatelevelforspecialization,acorequestionwhichcameupbeforethe authoritiesforconsideringtheapplicationofthepetitionerwasthathow canthepetitionerteachthesubjectwhenhehimselfhasnotstudiedthe sameindepthorviaspecialization.
HC-NIC Page 10 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 12 Isayandsubmitthatmerelybecausethepetitionerhasstudiedthe subjectatthispostgraduatelevelforaperiodof2years,thepetitioner cannot claim his application to be considered for appointment as [ENTITY] in Economics. I further say and submit that the petitioner is required to teach the subject at under graduate level and therefore, the authorities would expect to appoint such candidates who havespecializationintheconcernedsubject.Theauthoritiesarerequired tolookfromthepointofviewofstudentsatlargetowhomtheAdhyaka Sahayakwouldbeimpartingeducation.Therefore,whenthequestionof future of the students is concerned, the authorities can expect higher standardsforsuchposts.
13 I say and submit that there were few such cases as that of the petitioners which had come up before the authorities. Therefore, the grievances which were received at the selection committee were placed before the Expert Committee which comprised of following members havingexpertise:
(1)JointCommissionerofHigherEducation(G.S.) ([ENTITY] ([ENTITY]& ([ENTITY]. ([ENTITY] IsayandsubmitthattheExpertCommitteeinitsmeetingheldon 0806201[SECTION]and09.06.201[SECTION]heldthattheminimumprovisionsunderthe NOC Regulations, 2010 should be applied but with placing greater emphasis on relevance to the subject at UG and PG levels. The Expert Committeealsorecommended thatthecandidateisexpectedtoteachat UG level hence, a UG Degree also in the relevant subject should be emphasized over and above the provisions of UGC. A copy of the proceedingsofthegrievanceRedressalCommitteeheldon08.06.201[SECTION]and 09.06.201[SECTION]isannexedherewithandmarkedasAnnexureRI.Isayand submitthatthepetitionerwasaccordinglyinformedaboutthedecisionof theExpertCommittee.
14 I say and submit that based upon the recommendations of the ExpertCommittee whichalsoemphasized ontheDegree intherelevant subjectaswellasforplacingrelianceontheconcernedUGandPGDegree reliance on the concerned UG and PG Degree apart from the [ACT].
1[SECTION] I say and submit that when it comes to teaching and under graduate the respondent authorities are bound to maintain higher standardssofarasthequalificationsoftheAdhyapakSahayakconcerned.
HC-NIC Page 11 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 The [ACT] provide for minimum qualifications to be followedbytheauthoritieswhilerecruitingthecandidates.Theauthorities based ontherecommendations oftheExpertCommittee have opted for relevanceintheconcernedsubjectswithhigherstandards.
16 Isayand submit that the entire selection procedure isbased on Centralized Recruitment Process subject to the policy and instructions givenbytheGovernmentofGujarattimetotime.Thepetitionerbywayof thepresentpetitionhassoughtdirectionfromtheHon'bleCourttostay theentireselectionprocess.Thepresentrecruitmentprocessisgoingonfor 496postsindifferentsubjects.Suchamassivedriveforrecruitmentmay notbestayedatthebehestofthepetitionerwhodoesnotmeetwiththe requiredcriteriaonaccountofhisqualifications."
17 OnbehalfoftherespondentsNos.1,2and3,anaffidavitinreply hasbeenfileddulyaffirmedbytheJointDirector(College),Officeofthe Commissioner of Higher Education, Gandhinagar, inter alia stating as under:
"1 Istate thatIamfiling thepresentaffidavitonlywithaviewto placeonrecordcommunicationdated11.08.201[SECTION]oftheUniversitydated 11.08.201[SECTION] of the University Grants Commission addressed to the CommissionerHigherEducationpursuanttotheorderdated30.07.201[SECTION] passedbythisHon'bleCourtinthegroupofpetitions.
2 I say and submit that this Hon'ble Court had vide order dated 30.07.201[SECTION]directedtheCommissionerofHigherEducationtotakeupthe issuewiththeUGCandseekitsopinionorclarificationsinthesubject.The Hon'bleCourthadalsodirectedtheUGCtoplacethereportonrecordfor its perusal since UGC is joined as a party respondent in some of the petitions.IsayandsubmitthattheHon'bleCourthaddirectedtheState Governmenttoframeanappropriatequerywithallnecessaryinformation and forward the same to the UGC with a copy of each of the writ applications.TheHon'bleCourthaddirectedtheUGCtostudythequeryof the State Government and to give its report on or before 12 th August, 201[SECTION].
3 I say and submit that pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Court,theCommissionerofHigherEducationhadforwardedthequeries ineachofthepetitionswithspecificqueriesandcopiesofwritpetitionsfor theperusaloftheUGCon03.08.201[SECTION].
4 IsayandsubmitthattheUGCVhasvideitscommunicationdated 11.08.201[SECTION] given a report addressing to the Commissioner of Higher Education which the deponent herein places on record by way of the HC-NIC Page 12 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 presentaffidavit.Acopyofthereportdated11.08.201[SECTION]issuedbytheUGC isannexedherewithandmarkedasAnnexureRI."
18 Ms. [ENTITY], the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearingfortheStaterespondentmadethefollowingsubmissions:
18.1 TheRegulationsof2010aremandatoryinnatureandtheState Government andits authorities are boundtofollow the same.In the presentcase,thereisnoquestionofanyaddition,changeorraisingof the qualifications for the post of the "[ENTITY]". However, whatwasimplicitintherequirement,hasbeenmadeexplicit.Inother words,theCommitteeofExpertsconstituted,videorderdated6thJune, 201[SECTION],hasclarifiedtheissuetotheeffectthatitshouldbemandatoryfor the candidate concerned topossess degreesatthe UG, PGandPh.D. level in the same subject. The committee was of the opinion that promotionofqualityinHigherEducationmustbegiventhetoppriority.
Thecommitteeobservedinitsreportdated9thJune,201[SECTION]asunder:
"The committee addressed the individual grievances received at the selection committee. The grievances were identified and resolved in accordance with the policy prescribed under [ACT], and definition ofdegree asper UGC Act, 19[SECTION]6, and GoI notification onthe NomenclatureofDegreesintheGazettedated11.7.2014.Thecommittee heldtheviewthatpromotionofqualifyinhighereducationmustbeatthe toppriority.ItwassuggestedthattheAsst.Professortobeselectedislikely tobeappointedatanyofthecolleges.Thecommitteeheldtheviewthat the minimum provisions under the [ACT] should be appliedbutwithplacinggrateremphasisonrelevancetothesubjectatUG andPGlevels.ThecandidateisexpectedtoteachatUGlevel,hence,aUG degreealsointherelevantsubjectshouldbeemphasizedoverandabove theprovisionsoftheUGCregulations,2010.Thecommitteealsosuggested that the PG degree as well as NET/SLET examination must be in the relevantsubjectasperUGCregulation."
18.2 A bare perusal of the aforesaid recommendation by the HC-NIC Page 13 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Expert Committee would indicate that the minimum standards prescribed under the Regulations of 2010 should be applied, but by placinggreateremphasisontherelevanceofthesubjectattheUGand PGlevel.Thequalificationsrequiredwereverymuchimplicitwhichwas madeexplicit,andthus,itcannotbesaidthattherehasbeenanychange intherulesafterthegamestarted.
18.3 Theopinion/clarificationoftheExpertCommitteedated 9th June, 201[SECTION], is purely in tune with the objective sought to be achieved,i.e.maintainingthestandardsofHigherEducation.Thesaid opinionissupportedbythenotificationissuedbytheUniversityGrants CommissioninMarch,201[SECTION],publishedintheGazetteofIndia,on14th July,2014,indicatingspecificationofthedegrees.Thesaidnotification, inter alia, provides the broad disciplinewise nomenclature of the degrees at all level of the Higher Education. Along side the nomenclatureofthedegrees,theminimumentrylevelqualificationsand duration of programmes have been categorically provided. The said notification has compartmentalized all the disciplines, and thus, renderingthetransferprohibited,fromonedisciplineattheUGlevelto the other discipline at the PG level. To illustrate, if a candidate concerned is desirous of pursuing his/her studies in the discipline of MasterofCommerce,theninthatcase,theentrylevelqualificationis compulsorilytheBachelorofCommerce.
18.4 TheaforesaidstanceoftheCommitteeissupportedbythe UniversityGrantsCommission,whichisclearfromtheclarificationgiven byitvideletterdated11th August,201[SECTION],categoricallystatingthatthe relevanceofthesubjectorinterdisciplinarynatureofsubjectisrequired tobedecidedbytheconcernedUniversity/appointingauthoritywith the helpofsubjectexperts inthe concerned/relatedfieldasperits HC-NIC Page 14 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 requirement.Inthisviewofthematter,whenthedeterminationofthe normsfortheappointmentofteachersattheUGlevelistotallyleftto theappointingauthority,itisnotpermissibleandopenforanyoneto raise any grievance about the prescription clarified by the Expert Committee.
18.[SECTION] Theobjectbehindinsistingforsuchrequirementistosee that the teacher, who is to teach the students at the UG level, is equippedandpossesses the expertise in thatparticular subject.If the teacher concerned is not possessing the said requirement or has not undertakenthestudiesattheUnderGraduatelevelandPostGraduate levelinthesamesubject,thenhe/shewillnotbeinapositiontoteach thesubjectindepthandwithclarity,whichwouldbedetrimentalinthe interestofthestudentcommunityatlarge.
18.6 Any University permitting candidate to change the discipline at the PG level, is purely a discretion of the University governedbytherespectivestatutestoprescribeitsmodeandmannerof theadmission.However,thechangeofdisciplinebytheUniversityatthe PG level, is no bar for the State Government to insist for particular qualifications for the purpose of appointment of the "[ENTITY]" in the grantinaid colleges. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to confuse the issue of pursuing studies for a professional requirementononehandandforacademicrequirementontheother.It isfundamentalthatifacandidatewantstopursuehis/hercareerinthe academic, then the candidate concerned should possess the requisite qualifications as per the specification of degrees provided by the University Grants Commission vide its Notification of March 201[SECTION], published in the Gazette of India in July 201[SECTION]. In other words, the discretionoftheUniversitygrantingadmission,attheUGlevelorPG HC-NIC Page 1[SECTION] of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 level, for the purpose of studies on one hand and prescription of requirementbytheStateGovernmentontheother,forthepurposeof appointment,aretotallytwodistinctanddifferentaspectsnotcapableof beingmixedup.Permittingtheinterdisciplinaryeducationiswithinthe domainoftherespectiveUniversitiesandthatcannotimpingeuponthe authorityoftheStateGovernmenttoprescribequalificationswhichdo notrecognizetheinterdisciplinaryqualifications.
18.7 TheColleges/Universitieshavenotobjectedtoorraised any doubt and/or grievance as regards the qualifications prescribed and/or appointment procedure. In that view of the matter, the petitionershavenofundamentalright,muchlessanylegalrighttoinsist for the prescription of qualifications of their choice. Further, the petitioners have prayedfora mandamus without indicating anylegal rightintheirfavourvisaviscorrespondingdutyonthepartoftheState Government to fulfill the same. In the absence of such legal right in favourofthepetitionersandcorrespondingdutyonthepartoftheState Government,thisCourtmaynotentertainthewritapplications.
19 Thelearnedcounselappearingforthepetitionersplacedreliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Krushna ChandraSahuv.StateofOrissa[199[SECTION](6)SCC1].
20 On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, reliance has beenplacedonthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofStateof TamilNaduv.S.V.Bratheep[(2004(4)SCC[SECTION]13].
21 Havingheardthelearnedcounselappearingforthepartiesand havingconsideredthematerialsonrecord,theonlyquestionthatfalls formyconsiderationiswhetherthepetitionersareentitledtothereliefs HC-NIC Page 16 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 prayedforinallthewritapplications.
22 Itisnodoubttruethatintheadvertisementitwasonlystatedthat thecandidatesshouldpossessminimum[SECTION][SECTION]%intherelevantsubjectat thePostGraduationlevel.Itappearsfromthematerialsonrecordthat theconcernedadvertisementinvitedonlineapplicationsfor496postsof the"AdhyapakSahayak"for14subjectsinthegrantinaidcolleges.
23 Inall,1731applicationswerereceivedfortherespectivesubjects asunder:
(i) Commerce-464applications, (ii) Statistics-3[SECTION]applications, (iii) Economics-1[SECTION]7applications (iv) English-114applications (v) Gujarati-398applications (vi) Sanskrit-183applications (vii) Geography-7applications (viii) PoliticalScience-14applications (ix) HomeScience-1[SECTION]applications (x) History-98applications (xi) Sociology-118applications (xii) IndianCulture-0application (xiii) DefenceStudy-7applications (xiv)Psychology-121applications. 24 The scrutiny committee of the office of the Commissioner of
HigherEducationscrutinizedthedocumentsduringtheperiodbetween 21st May, 201[SECTION] to 27th May, 201[SECTION]. Out of 1731 applications, 134 applications wereoutrightrejectedasthecandidatesconcernedwere HC-NIC Page 17 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 notfulfillingtheeligibilitycriteriaprescribedbytheUniversityGrants Commission.
2[SECTION] Itappearsthatallofasudden,anissuecroppedupastowhat wouldbethepositionifacandidateispossessingthePostGraduation Degree in the relevant subject with minimum [SECTION][SECTION]%, but the relevant subjectforthePostGraduationlevelwasnotthesubjectattheUnder Graduationlevel.
26 Byorderdated6thJune,201[SECTION],anExpertCommitteeconsistingof five members was constituted to address the issue and consider the grievances,whichwereraisedbythepetitionersduringthestageofthe verificationofthedocuments.Itappearsthaton8thJune,201[SECTION],outof four members, only two members could remain present. The proceedingsoftheGrievanceRedressalCommitteedated8thJune,201[SECTION] areasunder:
"ProceedingsoftheGrievanceRedressalCommittee FormedbytheCommissionerHigherEducation(GS)forappointmentof AdhyapakSahayakseatingIIondate0806201[SECTION]3.00pmatKCG, AhmedabadOffice The expert committee to address the issues raised as grievance during the document verification of selection for the post of [ENTITY] was formed vide the CHE order dated 0606201[SECTION]. The committeemettodayandthefollowing memberswhohavesignedwere presentatthemeeting.
1.Dr.[ENTITY],JtCommissioner,Comm.HigherEducation(GS)
[ENTITY],SchoolofCommerce,kGujaratUniversity,Ahmedabad
3. Prin. [ENTITY], Principal, MP Shah Arts and Science College, Surendranagar
[ENTITY],FormerRegistrar,MSUniversity,kVadodara
[ENTITY],Registrar,HNorthGujaratUniversity,Patan.
HC-NIC Page 18 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Themembersat2and3werepresentandsubmittedtheirviews, whereas remaining members requested foranother date. Itwas decided thattheproceedings shallbecontinued atnextmeeting on0706201[SECTION] withthisresolution being read.The committee addressed theindividual grievances received at the selection committee. The grievances were identifiedandresolvedinaccordancewiththepolicyprescribedunderthe UGCregulations2010,anddefinitionofdegreeasperUGCAct,19[SECTION]6,and GoInotificationontheNomenclatureofDegreesintheGazettedated11 Jul2014.Alsointhelargerinterestofthehighereducationsystemand promotionofqualitywasgivenprimeimportanceinrecommendingjustful solutiontothegrievances.Thefollowingrecommendationweremadewith regardedtonatureofgrievancessubmittedbythecandidates.
1.BBAdegreeisnobarforCommercewithPGandNET/PhDareinCommerce
[ENTITY]/PhDinGujaratiisacceptableforGujaratisubject
3.MAdegreeinEnglishbackedbyBcomorBscisnoteligibletoeachinEnglishsubject
4.DegreeofPhDinManagementwithbackgroundonBcomandMcomshouldbe eligibleinCommerce
[SECTION].DegreeofBcom,Mcom(Stat)andSLETinCommerceareeligibleforCommerce
6.DegreeofMBA/MPMisnoteligibleforthesubjectCommerce
7.DegreeofPhDisacceptedevenifisfromanyfaculty,providedisintherelevant subject
[ENTITY]/GSETinPopulationStatisticsiseligiblefor subjectStatisticsconfinedtoCommerce/Artsfacultyonly Prof.[ENTITY]."
27 Thus, it could be seen that only one member signed the proceedings,namely,[ENTITY].Thereafter,onthenextdate, i.e. 9th June, 201[SECTION], again the committee met and the proceedings recordedareasunder:
"ProceedingsoftheGrievanceRedressalCommittee FormedbytheCommissionerHigherEducation(GS)forappointmentof AdhyapakSahayakseatingIIondate0906201[SECTION]11.30amatKCG, AhmedabadOffice Theexpertcommitteecalledupontheseconddaytorecommendthe policytoaddressthegrievanceraisedduringthedocumentverificationof selection for the post of [ENTITY] met today. The committee formedvidetheCHEorderdated0606201[SECTION]wasattendedfurtherbythe followingmemberswhohavesignedandwhowerepresentatthemeeting.
1.Dr.[ENTITY],JtCommissioner,Comm.HigherEducation(GS) HC-NIC Page 19 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016
2.Prof [ENTITY], School ofCommerce,k Gujarat University, Ahmedabad (onleave)
3. Prin. [ENTITY], Principal, MP Shah Arts and Science College, Surendranagar
[ENTITY],FormerRegistrar,MSUniversity,kVadodara
[ENTITY],Registrar,HNorthGujaratUniversity,Patan.
Allthemembersexceptat2werepresentanddiscussedtheissuesat length. The committee also read the proceedings of the earlier meeting dated0806201[SECTION]andmaderecommendations.
Thecommitteeaddressedtheindividualgrievancesreceivedatthe selection committee. The grievance were identified and resolved in accordancewiththepolicyprescribedundertheUGCregulation2010,and definition ofdegree asperUGCAct,19[SECTION]6, and GoInotification onthe NomenclatureofDegreesintheGazettedated11Jul2014.Thecommittee heldtheviewthatpromotionofqualityinhighereducationmustbeatthe toppriority.ItwassuggestedthattheAsst.Professortobeselectedislikely tobeappointedatanyofthecolleges.Thecommitteeheldtheviewthat theminimumprovisionsundertheUGCregulations.Thecommitteeheld theviewthattheminimumprovisionsundertheUGCregulations,2010 shouldbeappliedbutwithplacinggreateremphasisonrelevancetothe subjectatUGandPGlevels.Thecandidateisexpectedtooverandabove theprovisionsoftheUGCregulations,2010.Thecommitteealsosuggested that the PG degree as well as NET/SLET examination must be in the relevantsubjectasperUGCregulation.
1.Dr.[ENTITY],JtCommissioner,Comm.HigherEducation(GS)
2. Prin. [ENTITY], Principal, MP Shah Arts and Science College, Surendranagar
[ENTITY],FormerRegistrar,MSUniversity,Vadodara
[ENTITY],Registrar,HNorthGujaratUniversity,Patan."
28 Fromabareperusaloftheopinionofthecommittee,itisclear thattheminimumstandardsprescribedundertheRegulationsof2010 hastobeapplied,butwithplacinggreateremphasisontherelevanceof thesubjectattheUGandPGlevel.
29 On30thJuly,201[SECTION],thisCourtpassedthefollowingorder:
HC-NIC Page 20 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 "Sincetheissuesfallingformyconsiderationinallthecaptioned writapplications, more or less, are the same, those were heard analogouslytodayatlength.
Itappearsthateachofthepetitionersbeforemeappliedonlinefor thepostsofAdhyapakSahayakinthegrantinaidcollegespursuanttoan advertisementissuedbytheCommissionerofHigherEducation,Stateof Gujarat.
Itappearsthatearliersuchrecruitmentswerebeingmadebythe respective grantinaid colleges. However, the State Government, vide EducationDepartmentNotificationNo.NGC1120103269KHdated14th September2011,decidedtohaveacentralizedrecruitmentforthepostsof [ENTITY]. The educational qualification prescribed in the advertisementreferredtoaboveisasunder:
1.CandidatesmustbeanIndianCitizen.
2. TherecruitmentprocesswillbecarriedoutasperUGCRegulations 2009andtheresolutionsissuedbyEducationDepartment,Govt.of Gujarat,fromtimetotime.
3. Only those degree will be considered valid for educational qualification issued by any recognized University which was establishedbyCentralGovt.ofIndiaorStateGovt.throughlegal procedure.
4. Candidatesmustpossessminimum[SECTION][SECTION]%inrelevantsubjectatpost graduatelevelwithgoodacademicrecordasperUGCRegulations 2010.
[SECTION]. CandidatesmusthaveclearedNETorGSETexaminationconducted by UGCCSIR or equivalent Institute. Candidates with Ph.D. Qualification as per [ACT], will be exempted from NET/SLET qualification. Such candidates with Ph.D. Qualification as per University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D.Degree)Regulations,2009havetoproduceacertificatefrom thecompetentauthorityoftherespectiveUniversityinthisregard.
6.The candidates having prescribed educational qualifications as onthelastdateofsubmissionofapplicationshallbeeligible.
The petitioners' candidatures have been rejected mainly on the ground thatalthoughtheypossessedtheminimum [SECTION][SECTION]%intherelevant subjectatthepostgraduationlevel,yettheyhadnotclearedtheirunder graduationfromthatveryrelevantsubject.[ENTITY]insimplewords,ifa candidate hadsecured[SECTION][SECTION]%ormore atthepostgraduation levelinthe subject of Commerce, then according to the State Government as a HC-NIC Page 21 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 condition precedent heshould have done hisundergraduation withthe Commercesubjectitself.[ENTITY]againinotherwords,ifacandidatehas donehispostgraduation withM.Com., heshouldhave donehisunder graduationwithB.Com.Thisisbeingexplainedbywayofanillustration.
TheStateGovernmenthasmadeitveryclearthattheeducational qualifications which have been prescribed in the advertisement is according totherecommendations [ACT]
As on today, each of the petitioners are serving past almost 1[SECTION] yearsintheselffinancedcolleges.Someofthepetitionersdidtheirunder graduation intheCommerce Streamandthereafter thepostgraduation with M.Sc. For example, they cleared B.Com. with Accountancy and Statisticsasasubsidiarysubject,whereasatthepostgraduationlevelthey didM.Sc.withStatistics.Inshort,theydidstudythesubjectofStatistics.
It appears that the State Government thought fit to seek the opinionofanexpertcommittee.Theexpertcommitteeconstitutedbythe StateGovernmentgaveitsfinalopinionasunder:
Thecommitteeaddressedtheindividualgrievancesreceivedatthe selectioncommittee.Thegrievanceswereidentifiedandresolvedin accordance with the policy prescribed under the [ACT], and definition of degree as per UGC Act 19[SECTION]6, and GOI notification onthenomenclature ofdegreesintheGazette dated 11JUL2014. The committee held the view that promotion of quality in higher education must be at the top priority. It was suggested that the Asst. Professor to be selected is likely to be appointedatanyofthecolleges.Thecommitteeheldtheviewthat theminimumprovisionsundertheUGCregulations,2010should beappliedbutwithplacing greateremphasisonrelevance tothe subjectatUGandPGlevels.Thecandidateisexpectedtoteachat UGlevel,hence,aUGdegreealsointherelevantsubjectshouldbe emphasizedoverandabovetheprovisionsoftheUGCregulations, 2010.ThecommitteealsosuggestedthatthePGdegreeaswellas NET/SLETexaminationmustbeintherelevantsubjectasperUGC regulation.
Thus, prima facie, it appears from the opinion expressed by the expertcommitteethatsinceacandidateisexpectedtoteachattheU.G. level,aU.G.degreeintherelevantsubjectismandatory.Theyhavesaidso specifyingthatthiswouldbeoverandabovetheprovisionsoftheU.G.C. Regulations,2010.ThecommitteealsoopinedthattheP.G.Degreeaswell as NET/SLET exams must be in the relevant subject according to the U.G.C.Regulations.
HC-NIC Page 22 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 The stance of the State Government is that since they are the recruitingauthority,theyhavearighttoimposesuchconditionsalthough theymightnotbethereintheadvertisementinsomanywords.[ENTITY] indifferentwords,eveniftheU.G.C.hasnotsaidanythingregardingthe same,itiswithintheirpowertoimposesucharestrictionaftertheissueof theadvertisement.
The principal argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the Government could not have gone beyond what the U.G.C. has recommendedandprescribed.
Primafacie,Iamoftheviewthatinsteadofconstitutinganexpert committee,theStateGovernment, attheearliest,shouldhaveconsulted theU.G.C.inthisregard.
In such circumstances, I direct the State Government i.e. the CommissionerofHigherEducationtoimmediatelytakeupthisissuewith theU.G.C.andseekitsopinionorclarificationonthesubject.Infourwrit applicationsbeforeme,theU.G.C.isapartyrespondentbut,itappears thatthelearnedcounselMr.Mitul[ENTITY]whoordinarilyappearsforthe U.G.C.hasnotreceivedanyinstructionsfromhisclienttillthispointof time.I,therefore,requestedMr.[ENTITY]toimmediatelygetintouchwith theU.G.C.andapprisethemofthecontroversythathascroppedupinthe matter. Mr.[ENTITY] hasassured thathewould speak tohisclient atthe earliestandseetoitthatthenecessaryclarificationismadeinthisregard andcommunicatedtotheStateGovernment.Mr.[ENTITY] reportinthisregardoftheU.G.C.shallbeplacedbeforethisCourtforits perusal.
TheStateGovernmentshallframeanappropriatequerywithall thenecessaryinformationandforwardthesametotheU.G.C.withone copyofeachofthewritapplications.TheU.G.C.shallstudythequeryof theStateGovernmentandshallalsoperusethewritapplicationsfiledby therespectivepetitioners.
TheU.G.C.isrequestedtogivetopprioritytothesemattersandsee toitthatitplaces itsreportonorbefore12 th August201[SECTION]. TheState GovernmentshallseetoitthattheU.G.C.receivesalltherelevantpapers by3rdAugust201[SECTION].Ifnecessary,aspecialmessengerbesenttoNewDelhi.
The matters are treated as partheard. Let these matters appear [ENTITY],J.on19thAugust201[SECTION].
It is further clarified that the Government shall not finalize the process of selection till the final disposal of these writapplications pursuanttotheadvertisementreferredtoabove.
HC-NIC Page 23 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 The Government maybeinahurry tocomplete therecruitment but,atthesame time, hereisalarger question involving thecareer of manysuchcandidateslikethepresentpetitionersand,therefore,thisissue mustbesetatrestonceandforall.
AcopyofthisorderbeprovidedtoMs.[ENTITY],thelearned AGP, for its onward communication and also to Mr.[ENTITY], the learnedadvocateappearingfortheU.G.C. ThisorderhasbeenpassedinpresenceofMr.[ENTITY],JointDirector, CommissionerateofHigherEducation,Gandhinagar.
Directserviceispermitted."
30 InresponsetotheorderpassedbythisCourtreferredtoabove, theUniversityGrantsCommissionlookedintothematter,andbyaletter dated 11th August, 201[SECTION] addressed to the Commissioner, Higher EducationOffice,answeredthequeriesasunder:
"Query Clarification
1.IstheStateofGujaratempoweredtoraise UGC has prescribed the minimum thequalifyingstandardsprescribedunderthe qualifications for appointment of teachers regulations? through its petitioners titled "[ACT] on Minimum Qualifications for
2. Is the [ENTITY] empowered to AppointmentofTeachersandotherAcademic incorporate additional qualifying standards staff in Universities and Colleges and over and above those prescribed under the measuresforthemaintenanceofstandardsin regulationsofUGC? HigherEducation2010"amendedfromtime totime.TheAppointingAuthoritymayraise the qualifying standards without deviation from the minimum qualifications prescribed byUGC,ifitsodesires.
3. When [ACT] only provides for The'GoodAcademicRecord'hasbeenleftto minimum [SECTION][SECTION]% at post level in the relevant be defined by the concerned University / subject,doestheStateGovt.havepowersto AppointingAuthority. insist that the candidates must possess qualificationinrelevantsubjectattheunder graduate level? While assessing academic backgroundofacandidateasperTable2(c) of appendixIII should a bachelor degree be consideredornot.Ifconsidered,shouldthat be in relevant subject or any subject or discipline? (SCA No.9773/201[SECTION], 101[SECTION][SECTION]/201[SECTION]).
4. What does relevant subject mean by Therelevanceofsubjectorinterdisciplinary HC-NIC Page 24 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 provision in para 4.4.p? When recruiting a natureofsubjectisrequiredtobedecidedby candidate for 'Commerce' subject; does a the concerned University / Appointing candidate having done MBA (Management Authoritywiththehelpofsubjectexpertsin subject) become relevant subject for the concerned/related field and as per its Commerce?(SCANo.11207/201[SECTION]). requirement. UGC has not prescribed any normsonthesubjectmatter.
[SECTION]. While considering good academic record AsclarifiedunderPointNo.3&4above. when a candidate has changed discipline at different levels of UG/PG/NET/Ph.D; should thatbeconsidered?9SayB.Sc.(Biology)and MA with English NET (English) should this casebeconsidered?
6.IstheStateGovt.empowerednottoaccede The [ACT] are mandatory in to the regulation under local circumstances, nature and are required to be followed in on the condition of bearing entire theirletterandspiritwithoutanydeviation establishmentcost? therefrom.
7.Howmanyofthepetitionerslistedonthe The candidatures mentioned in enclosureH Attachment(H) are fulfilling qualifying have been perused. All the cases pertain to requirements for the post of Assistant relevanceofsubject/interdisciplinarynature Professor in the subject applied under the ofsubjectand'GoodAcademicRecord'.These regulations? casesare requiredtobe decidedasclarified underPointNo.3&4above.
8.Howmanyofthepetitionerslistedonthe Attachment(H)areinrealitysuitableforthe post of Assistant Professor in the subject applied,consideringtheirdifferentsubjectsat UP/PG level and the regulation aimed at promotingstandardsofhighereducation?
9. A declaration on incorporation of AsclarifiedunderPointNo.1&2above. additional selection criteria amounts to 'changeinrulesofthegamesubsequentlyand unacceptableintheeyesoftheUGC?
10.How'goodacademicrecorded'atUGlevel 'Good Academic Record' is mandatorily is defined in the context of present UGC requiredtobeconsideredfortheappointment Regulations? Does Master Degree have any of Assistant Professor. However, relevance relevancewithundergraduatedegreeorboth maybedecidedasclarifiedunderPointNo.1 aretobeconsideredwithnorelevancewith and2above. eachother?
11. For conferring a master degree, is it As per UGC (Minimum Standards of prerequisite that a candidate must hold Instructions for the Grant of the Master's bachelor degree at least in that relevant Degree through Formal Education) subject? Regulations,2003nostudentshallbeeligible for admission to a Master's Degree programme in any of the faculties unless he/shehassuccessfullycompletedthreeyears ofanundergraduatedegreeandasclarified underPointNo.4withregardtorelevanceof subject.
12.WhenNETexaminationisconductedby AsclarifiedunderPointNo.3and4above." theUGC/CSIRinthesubjectof'Mathematical Sciences' covers substantial portion of HC-NIC Page 2[SECTION] of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Statistics, does candidate become eligible in Statisticssubject(a)bywayofhavingpassed NET examination in unrelated 'Population Studies' orNET in commerce subject (b) by wayofexemptionfromNETexaminationon accountofsuchexaminationnotconductedin the subject of 'Statistics'? (SCA No.101[SECTION]3/201[SECTION],10461/201[SECTION]) 31 AbareperusaloftheabovereferredletteroftheUniversityGrants Commissionmakestwothingsclear;first,therelevanceofthesubject needstobedecidedbytheconcernedUniversity/appointingauthority withthehelpofexpertsintherelatedfieldandtheUniversityGrants Commission has not prescribed any norms in that regard. Secondly, according to the University Grants Commission, no student shall be eligible for admission to a Master's Degree programme in any of the faculties unless he/she has successfully completed three years of an UnderGraduationDegreewithregardtotherelevanceofthesubject.
32 Letmeatthisstagedealwiththeprincipalargumentcanvassedby thelearnedcounselappearingfortherespectivepetitionersthatitwas notopenfortheJointCommissioner,HigherEducation,tochangethe rulesofthegameoncethegamehadstarted.[ENTITY]inotherwords, the contention is that in the advertisement, the requirement was minimum[SECTION][SECTION]%marksintherelevantsubjectatthePostGraduationlevel withagoodacademicrecordinaccordancewiththeUniversityGrants [ACT]. In such circumstances, the State Government,onitsown,couldnothavetakenapolicydecisionatthe lastminutethattheUGDegreeandthePGDegreeshouldbeinthesame subject.
33 Itisawellknownprincipleintheservicejurisprudencethatitis HC-NIC Page 26 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 notpermissiblefortheemployertochangetherulesofthegameafter theselectionprocesshascommenced.
34 TheSupremeCourtin RameshKumarv.HighCourtofDelhi& Another,[AIR2010SC3714]heldasunder:
"11. [PRECEDENT], thisCourtconsidered theOrissaJudicialService Rules whichdid notprovideforprescribingtheminimumcutoffmarksininterviewforthe purpose of selection. This Court held that in absence of the enabling provisionforfixationofminimummarksininterviewwouldamountto amendingtherulesitself.Whiledecidingthesaidcase,theCourtplaced reliance upon its earlier judgments in [PRECEDENT]. AIR 1981 SC [SECTION]61; [PRECEDENT]AIR1984SC[SECTION]41;andUmeshChandraShuklav. UnionofIndia&OrsAIR198[SECTION]SC13[SECTION]1,whereinithadbeenheldthat therewasno"inherentjurisdiction"oftheSelectionCommittee/Authority laydownsuchnormsforselectioninadditiontotheprocedureprescribed by the Rules. Selection is to be made giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and if such power i.e. "inherent jurisdiction" is claimed,ithastobeexplicitandcannotbereadbynecessaryimplication fortheobviousreasonthatsuchdeviationfromtherulesislikelytocause irreparableandirreversibleharm.
12. Similarly,[PRECEDENT]The rulesofthegamecannotbechangedafterthegameisover.Thecompetent authority, if the statutory rules do not restrain, is fully competent to prescribetheminimumqualifyingmarksforwrittenexaminationaswell as for interview. But such prescription must be done at the time of initiationofselectionprocess.Changeofcriteriaofselectioninthemidst ofselectionprocessisnotpermissible.
13.Thus,lawontheissuecanbesummarisedtotheeffectthatincase thestatutoryrulesprescribeaparticularmodeofselection,ithastobe givenstrictadherenceaccordingly.Incase,noprocedureisprescribedby therulesandthereisnootherimpedimentinlaw,thecompetentauthority whilelayingdownthenormsforselectionmayprescribeforthetestsand furtherspecifytheminimumBenchMarksforwrittentestaswellasfor vivavoce."
3[SECTION] In [PRECEDENT] Page 27 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 2103], the Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for the employer tochangethecriteriaofselectioninthemidst of selection process. (See also: Tamil Nadu Computer Science BEd Graduate Teachers WelfareSociety(1)v.HigherSecondarySchoolComputer TeachersAssociation&Ors.,(2009)14SCC[SECTION]17;StateofBihar&Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467; and [PRECEDENT].
36 [PRECEDENT]
"Itisnowwellsettledthatordinarilyruleswhichwereprevailingat the time, when the vacancies arose would be adhered to. The qualificationmustbefixedatthat time. Theeligibilitycriteriaasalso theproceduresaswasprevailingonthedateofvacancyshouldordinarily befollowed."
37 Theissueofthechangeofruleofthegamehasbeenreferredto theLargerBenchasisevidentfromthejudgmentinTejPrakashPathak &Ors.v.RajasthanHighCourt&Ors.,[(2013)4SCC[SECTION]40].
38 Iamnotimpressedbythesubmissioncanvassedonbehalfofthe petitionersthatthecaseinhandisonewhereintherulesofthegame werechangedatthelastminute.Therelianceplacedonthedecisionof theSupremeCourtinthecaseofDr.KrushnaChandraSahu(supra)is alsoofnoavailtothe petitioners.In Dr.[ENTITY]), the selection committee, on its own, decided to consider the confidential character rolls of the candidates who were already employed as the Homeopathic Medical Officers as the basis for determining their suitability.TheSupremeCourttooktheviewthatifitwasamerematter HC-NIC Page 28 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 oftransitionfromoneservicetoanotherserviceofthesimilarnatureas, forexample,fromthe Provincial forestservicetotheAllIndia Forest ServiceorfromtheProvincialcivilservicetotheIndianAdministrative Service,theconfidentialcharacterrollscouldhaveconstitutedavalid basis forselection eitheronmeritorsuitability. However,inthesaid case,theappointmentsweremadeonthepostsinaentirenewservice, though the educational qualifications required tobepossessedbythe candidateswerethesameaswhatwasrequiredtobepossessedintheir earlier service.TheSupremeCourtfurtherobservedthat the Director hadneitherissuedanyadministrative instructionsnorhaditsupplied the omission with regard to the criteria on the basis of which the suitabilityofthecandidateswastobedetermined.Themembersofthe selectionboardhadnojurisdictiontolaydownthecriteriaforselection unlesstheywereauthorizedspecificallyinthatregardbytherulesmade underArticle309ofthe[ACT].
39 Inthecaseinhand,theselectioncommitteeundertooktheprocess of recruitment strictly adhering to the criteria prescribed under the resolution dated 14th September, 2011 as well as the advertisement withoutanydeviationoralteringtheStateGovernment'scriteria.
40 According to the Government Resolution dated 14th September, 2011,itistheofficeoftheCommissioner,HigherEducation,whohasto manage the recruitment through the centralized recruitment process, anditowesadutytoseethatatransparentprocedureisfollowedinthe grantinaidcollegesandtherebyofferingallthecandidatesacommon platformforbeingrecruitedinthecollegesoftheirchoice.
41 Withaviewtofacilitatetherecruitmentprocessinatransparent manner,theofficeoftheCommissioner,HigherEducationthoughtfitto HC-NIC Page 29 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 constitute a committee of experts in the field of academics for the purposeofguidanceandopinionhavingregardtothegrievancesraised bythecandidatesasregardsrequirementofpossessingthedegreesat theUnderGraduatelevelandPostGraduatelevelinthesamesubject. Thus,theexpertcommitteemerelygaveitsopinionandclarifiedmaking itexplicit.Itcouldnotbesaidthattheexpertscommitteealteredthe suitabilitycriteriaaftertheselectionprocesshadcommenced.
42 The selection committee has not compromised with the requirementsasprescribedbytheUniversityGrantsCommission.Inmy view,itcannotbesaidthattheopinionoftheexpertscommitteewasa policydecisioninthematterofappointingtheAdhyapakSahayaksand such policy decision should have been in the form of Resolution / Notification undertheprovisionsof[SECTION]ofthe[ACT].Whatwasimplicitintheresolutionof2010readinjuxtaposition withthespecificationsofdegreespublishedintheGazetteofIndiadated 14thJuly,2014wasmadeexplicit.
43 It also deserves to be stated that possessing of minimum [SECTION][SECTION]% marksintherelevantsubjectatthePostGraduatelevelbyacandidate was not the sole criteria, but the requirement was also of a "good academic record" with at least [SECTION][SECTION]% marks in the Master's Degree accordingtotheRegulation4.4.0oftheUniversityGrantsCommission Regulations2010.A"goodacademicrecord"impliestheentirerecord, including the degree at the Under Graduate level, which has to be necessarilyin the relevantsubject.According tothe provisions of the GovernmentResolutiondated14thSeptember2011,theConditionNo.9, PointNo.2ofthetable,10marksaretobegiventothecandidate,ifhe has secured first rank at the Under Graduate level in the University. Thus,thecandidate wouldbeassigned10markshaving securedfirst HC-NIC Page 30 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 rankattheUnderGraduatelevel.Theinsistencefortherequirementof securingadegreeattheUnderGraduatelevelandPostGraduatelevelin the same subject is very much in tune with the regulations of the UniversityGrantsCommissionreadwiththeNotificationissuedbythe University Grants Commission in March 2014 and published in the Gazette of India dated 14th July 2014 indicating specifications of the degrees.
44 Let me quote the relevant portion of the specifications of the degreesasprescribedbytheUniversityGrantsCommission.
"UNIVERSITYGRANTSCOMMISSION SPECIFICATIONSOFDEGREES NEWDELHI,March,2014 NO.F.[SECTION]1/2013(CPPII)-InexerciseofthepowersconferredbysubSection(3) ofSection22oftheUniversityGrantsCommissionAct,19[SECTION]6(3of19[SECTION]6)andin supersession of all earlier Gazette Notification pertaining to specification of degrees,theUniversityGrantsCommission(UGC)withthetheapprovalofthe CentralGovernmentherebyspecifiesthenomenclatureofdegreeforthepurposes ofthesaidsection.
SPECIFIEDDEGREES Broad disciplinewise nomenclature of degrees at all levels of higher education should be taken as the specified degree, which the universities/institutions must adhere to, are given below. Alongside the nomenclatureofthedegrees,minimumentrylevelqualificationsanddurationof the programmes have also been indicated. The information is presented in a tabularforforclarity. Inthebottommostrowofeachtable,nomenclatureof degreesthatarepresentlyinvogueinsomeinstitutionswerefoundtobeneither conventional,norreflectiveofarealinnovationinknowledgeandaredespecified with the suggestion that the same may be restructured/changed as suggested therein.
Arts/Humanities/SocialSciences:
SpecifiedDegrees Level Minimum Entry Abbreviated Expanded Duration Qualification (years) 18 BA/ BachelorofArts/ BACHELOR'S 3 10+2 B.A.(Hons) BachelorofArts(Hons) HC-NIC Page 31 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 19 MA MastersofArts MASTER'S 2 BACHELOR'S 20 BSW BachelorofSocialWork BACHELOR'S 3 10+2 21 MSW MasterofSocialWork MASTER'S 2 BACHELOR'S 22 BRS BachelorofRuralStudies BACHELOR'S 3 10+2 23 MRS MaserofRuralStudies MASTER'S 2 BACHELOR'S EducationTraining SpecifiedDegrees Level Minimum Eligibility Abbreviated Expanded Duration Qualification (years) 24 B.Ed. BachelorofEducation BACHELOR'S 1 BACHELOR'S 2[SECTION] B.El.Ed. BachelorofElementary BACHELOR'S 4 10+2 Education 26 M.Ed. MasterofEducation MASTER'S 1 B.Ed. 27 BPEd Bachelor of Physical BACHELOR'S 1 BACHELOR'S Education 28 MPEd. Master of Physical MASTER'S 1 BPEd Education BPEberestructuredasBPEd MPEberestructuredasMPEd BusinessAdministration/Commerce/Management/Finance SpecifiedDegrees Level Minimum Entry Abbreviated Expanded Duration Qualification (years) 32 B.Com/ Bachelor of BACHELOR'S 3 10+2 B.Com(Hons) Commerce/ Bachelor of Commerce(Hons) 33 M.Com. MasterofCommerce MASTER'S 2 BACHELOR'S 34 BBA BachelorofBusiness BACHELOR'S 3 10+2 Administration 3[SECTION] MBA Master of Business MASTER'S 2 BACHELOR'S Administration Sciences SpecifiedDegrees Level Minimum Entry Abbreviated Expanded Duration Qualification (years) HC-NIC Page 32 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 [SECTION]4 B.Sc. BachelorofScience/ BACHELOR' 3 10+2 B.Sc.(Hons) Bachelor of Science S (Hons) [SECTION][SECTION] M.Sc. MasterofScience MASTER'S 2 BACHELOR'S GuidingPrinciples:
Degreesshouldbespecifiedingenerictermsandtheirnomenclaturesshouldbe such that are generally recognised globally acknowledged and widely accepted and are indicative of the level of the degrees and the broad subject/discipline/knowledgeareuniversity/institution,incurricularinnovation shallhavethefreedomtoindicateuniqueness/specificationinparenthesesagainst thespecifiedgenericdegrees.
GeneralInstructions:
2. [ENTITY]
3. NoUniversityshallconferadegreeinviolationoftheprovisionofthis Notification.ItshallbemandatoryfortheUniversitiestoadheretotheapproved nomenclature of the degree(s) and ensure the observance of the minimum standardsofinstructionsbeforeawardofadegreeashereinafterprescribed.
SpecificationofNewDegrees
7. Henceforth,theUniversitiesshallnotintroduceanynewnomenclatureof degrees unlessthere isaverystrong andgenuine reason. ShouldaUniversity intend to introduce a new nomenclature, it shall approach the UGC for its specification at least six months prior tostating the degree programme along withthedetailsofthecourseofstudyprescribedforthedegreeasapprovedbythe respective academic bodies ofthe university /institutions, such as -Board of Studies,AcademicCouncilandGoverningCouncil.
8. All the Universities (including affiliated colleges thereto) shall observe minimum standards of instructions and prescribed norms for the grant of a degree which shall be imparted by the duly qualified teaching staff and appropriate academic physical infrastructure facilities as prescribed by the concerned statutory/regulating bodies, such as University Grants Commission (UGC), AllIndia Council forTechnical Education (AICTE), Medical Council of India(MCI),PharmacyCouncilofIndia(PCI),CouncilforArchitecture(COA), Bar Council of India (BCI), National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), Dental Council of India (DCI), Indian Nursing Council (INC), etc, in their respectivenotifications/regulations.
9. ThespecifieddegreesofferedbyaUniversityandtheminimumstandards HC-NIC Page 33 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 ofinstructionsandnormsprescribedaslaiddownbytheconcernedstatutory/ regulatorybodies shallbeprominentlypublishedintheadmissionbrochure of concernedUniversity/affiliatedcollegeandshallalsobemadeavailableintheir website."
4[SECTION] In Bihar Public Service Commission v. [ENTITY] and others [(2007) [SECTION] SCC [SECTION]19], an almost identical issue fell for consideration before the Supreme Court. In that case, Ms.[ENTITY] B.Sc. (Honours)intheyear1989inChemistrywithZoologyandBotanyin firstclassfromaUniversityin theStateofBihar.Herprincipal/main subjectinB.Sc.degreewasChemistry,alongwithZoologyandBotanyas subsidiary/optional subjects. An advertisement was issued on 21st December,1999bytheCommissioninvitingapplicationsfromeligible candidatesforappointmenttothepostoftheDistrictFisheriesOfficer cumChief Executive Officer. It was stated therein that the candidate musthavequalificationofB.Sc.,Zoologywithatwoyearsdiplomain Fisheries Science from the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or a graduate degree in Fisheries Science (BFSC) from a recognized University or M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) with Zoology from the Central Institute of Fisheries Education,Mumbai.OnscrutinyofthemarksheetofMs.[ENTITY],itwas foundthatshewasnothavingtheHonoursDegreeinZoologyandwas noteligibleforthepost.Whensheappearedfortheinterview,shewas informed that she was not possessing the requisite educational qualificationsandhercandidaturehadbeenrejected.Sincetherewere many such cases an expert committee was constituted by the Commissiontoconsiderthequestionwhetherastudentcanbecalleda Graduate in Zoology subject if he/she had cleared the degree examinationwithZoologyasasubsidiary/optional subjectandnotas the principal subject. The committee submitted its report on 24th November, 2002. According to the said report, a student would be HC-NIC Page 34 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 consideredaGraduateinthesubjectifhe/shehadobtainedthedegree inthatsubjectattheGraduatelevel.Ms.[ENTITY],accordingtothesaid report,wasfoundineligible.
Ms.[ENTITY]challengedthesaiddecisionbyfilingawritpetitionin theHighCourtatPatna.AlearnedSingleJudgedismissedthepetition, but the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the High Court. The CommissionchallengedthesaiddecisionoftheDivisionBenchbefore theSupremeCourt.TheSupremeCourt,whileallowingtheappealfiled bytheCommission,observedinpara8asunder:
"8.Again,itiswellsettledthatinthefieldofeducation,aCourtofLaw cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidatepossessesrequisitequalificationsshouldbetterbeleftto educational institutions [vide University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, (1964)4SCR[SECTION]76:AIR196[SECTION]SC[SECTION]91].Thisisparticularlysowhenitis supportedbyanExpertCommittee.TheExpertCommitteeconsideredthe matterandobservedthatapersoncanbesaidtobeHonoursinthesubject ifattheGraduatelevel,he/shestudiessuchsubjectastheprincipalsubject havingeightpapersandnotasubsidiary,optionalorsidesubjecthaving twopapers.Suchadecision,inourjudgment,cannotbetermedarbitrary orotherwiseobjectionable.ThelearnedSingleJudge,inouropinion,was, therefore,rightindismissingthepetitionrelyingupontheReportofthe Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. The DivisionBenchwasinerrorinignoringthewellconsideredreportofthe ExpertCommitteeandinsettingasidethedecisionofthelearnedSingle Judge.TheDivisionBench,whileallowingtheappeal,observedthatthe 'litmus test' was the admission granted to the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. According to the DivisionBench,ifthefirstrespondentdidnotpossessBachelorofScience DegreewithZoology,theInstitutewouldnothaveadmittedhertothesaid course.TheDivisionBenchobservedthatnotonlythefirstrespondentwas admittedtothesaidcourse,shehadpasseditwith"flyingcolours".Inour opinion, the Division Bench was not right in applying 'litmus test' of admission of the first respondent by Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. The controversy before the Court was whether the firstrespondentwaseligibleforthepostofDistrictFisheriesOfficer,Class II.Thecorrecttest,therefore,wasnotadmissionbyMumbaiInstitution.If the requirement was of Honours in B.Sc. with Zoology and if the first respondenthadclearedB.Sc.HonourswithChemistry,itcouldnotbesaid that she was eligible to the post having requisite educational HC-NIC Page 3[SECTION] of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 qualifications.Bynottreatinghereligible,therefore,theCommissionhad notcommittedanyillegality."
46 Letmegiveafineexampleofacasewhereinitcanbesaidthat theruleofthegamehasbeenchangedafterthecommencementofthe selectionprocess.
47 In MohdSohrabKhanv.AligarhMuslimUniversityandothers [(2009) 4 SCC [SECTION][SECTION][SECTION]], the Aligarh Muslim University issued an advertisement,wherebyitcalledfortheapplicationsforfillingupabout 79postsintheUniversity.Oneofthesaidposts,whichwasadvertised, wasthepostofaLecturerinChemistryintheUniversityPolytechnic, AligarhMuslimUniversity.Thequalification,thatwaslaiddownbythe Universityasessentialqualification,wasafirstclassMaster'sDegreein theappropriatebranchofteachingpostintheHumanitiesandSciences. Both [ENTITY] as also [ENTITY] submitted their applications to be considered as against the said post which was advertised, namely,Lecturer in Chemistry.[ENTITY] hada First Class Master's Degree in Chemistry (Pure) whereas [ENTITY] was holding a First Class Master's Degree in Industrial Chemistry.TheUniversityauthorityacceptedtherecommendationofthe selection committee andissued an order of appointment in favour of [ENTITY]
[ENTITY],beingaggrievedbythesaidorderpassedby theAligarhMuslimUniversityfiledawritpetitionintheHighCourtof Allahabad.ADivisionBenchoftheHighCourtheardthewritpetition and allowed the same holding that the appointment of [ENTITY] minimumqualification.TheHighCourt,whilecomingtothenecessary HC-NIC Page 36 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 conclusion, recorded that the University award degrees separately in boththesubjectsi.e.ChemistryaswellasIndustrialChemistryandboth thesubjectsweredistinctandseparate.BeforetheHighCourt,itwas contendedthattheselectioncommitteebeingconstitutedofexpertson thesubjectswastheonlycompetentauthoritytodecidethataperson holdingaMaster'sDegreeintheIndustrialChemistrywasbestsuitedfor teaching the subject for which the advertisement was issued and the HighCourtshouldnothaveinterferedwithsuchopinionoftheexperts bysubstitutingitsowndecision.ItwasalsosubmittedthattheMaster's DegreeintheIndustrialChemistryisasgoodastheMaster'sDegreein Chemistryforthepostforwhichtheadvertisementwasissued,andthat apersonhavingaMaster'sDegreeintheIndustrialChemistrywasbetter suitedforteachingthesaidsubject.
The Supreme Court, while upholding the decision of the High Court,observedinparas12to22asunder:
"12. Manymorepostsadvertisedinthesaidadvertisementspecifically indicatethatwhenevertheUniversitydesiredtohaveapostfilledupina particular branch of the Humanities and Science Department, it specificallyindicatedassuchinthesaidadvertisement.Ifitwasnecessary for the University to fill up the post from the stream of Industrial Chemistry, itwould have soindicated inthe advertisement itself for in subsequent years, we find specific advertisement has been issued bythe sameUniversityforfillingupthepostofLecturerinIndustrialChemistry byissuinganadvertisementspecificallyinthatregard.
13. ThereisnodoubtwithregardtothefactthatitistheUniversity Authoritywhoknowsbestastowhatistheirrequirement.AligarhMuslim University was founded by Central Act called the [ACT]ItalsohasastatutemadeunderSection28(1)ofthesaid Act.Statute22oftheUniversitydealswiththeBoardsofStudies.Oneof thefunctionsofthesaidBoardofStudiesistorecommendtotheFaculty inthemannerprescribedintheordinances,thefieldofstudyofeachpost atthetimeofitscreation.
14. Statute21ontheotherhanddealswiththepowersandfunctions HC-NIC Page 37 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 oftheFaculties.TheaforesaidrecommendationoftheBoardofStudiesis tobedecidedbytheFacultiesatStatute21oftheUniversityandtherefore, itisconfirmedbytheAcademicCouncilunderStatute19oftheUniversity, andthereforeitistobeapprovedbytheExecutiveCouncilunderStatute 17(2)(1)oftheUniversity.Aftersucharepeatedmultitierexercise,the essential qualification isearmarked for aparticular postand thenitis advertised.Itisalsoestablishedfromtherecordsandthereisnodispute withregardtothefactthatpureChemistryandIndustrialChemistryare twodifferentandseparatesubjects.
1[SECTION]. LearnedcounselappearingforMerajuddinAhmadstronglyrelied upon the course contents. Abare look atthe same would indicate that what is dealt therein is not Industrial Chemistry but Engineering Chemistry.WearenotinformedastowhetherEngineeringChemistryis consideredtobeatparwithIndustrialChemistry.
16. LearnedCounselappearingfortheUniversityonourenquiryfairly statedbeforeusthattheaforesaidpostwhichwasadvertisedtobefilledup in the aforesaid manner is at present vacant and the same is being manned byappointing aGuestLecturerwhoholdsaMastersDegreein pureChemistry.
17. IftherequirementwastohaveapersonhavingMastersDegreein IndustrialChemistry,theninthateventthepostwouldhavebeenmanned throughaGuestLecturerfromtheIndustrialChemistrystream.Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the person holding a Masters Degree in IndustrialChemistrywouldbebettersuitedforappointmentasagainstthe saidpost.
18. Thepostadvertisedwasmeantforapersonbelongingtothepure ChemistryDepartmentforifitwasotherwise,thenitwouldhavebeenso mentioned in the advertisement itself that a person holding a Masters DegreeinIndustrialChemistryshouldonlyapplyorthatapersonholding suchadegree could alsoapplyalong withother persons. Itwasnotso mentioned in the advertisement and therefore, except for [ENTITY], noother degree holder inIndustrialChemistryhadapplied for becomingacandidateasagainsttheaforesaidpost.
19. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular disciplinethatitdesirestohave,butthesamemustbespecificallystatedin theadvertisementitself,sothatthereisnoconfusionandallpersonswho HC-NIC Page 38 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 couldbeintendingcandidates,shouldknowastowhatisthesubjectwhich thepersonisrequiredtoteachandwhatessentialqualificationtheperson mustpossesstobesuitableformakingapplicationforfillingupthesaid post.
20. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of selection of candidates,opinionoftheSelectionCommitteeshouldbefinal,butatthe same time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process during its midstream.MerajuddinAhmaddidnotpossessadegreeinpureChemistry andtherefore,itwasrightlyheldbytheHighCourtthathedidnotpossess the minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturer Chemistry,forpureChemistryandIndustrialChemistryaretwodifferent subjects.
21. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of LecturerinChemistrycouldnothavebeenfilledupbyapersonbelonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Masters Degree holderinthesaidsubjectwouldalsobesuitableforbeingconsidered.
There could have been intending candidates who would have appliedforbecomingcandidateasagainstthesaidadvertisedpost, had they known and were informed through advertisement that IndustrialChemistryisalsooneofthequalificationsforfillingup thesaidpost.TheSelectionCommitteeduringthestageofselection, whichismidwaycouldnothavechangedtheessentialqualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Masters Degree Holder in Industrial Chemistry would be better suitedformanningthesaidpostwithouttherebeinganyspecific advertisementinthatregard.TheveryfactthattheUniversityis nowmanningthesaidpostbyhavingapersonfromthediscipline ofpureChemistryalsoleadstotheconclusionthatthesaidpostat thatstagewhenitwasadvertisedwasmeanttobefilledupbya personbelongingtopureChemistrystream.
22. In Secy., A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, [(200[SECTION])4SCC1[SECTION]4]atpara14itwasheldbythisCourtthatnormsof selectioncannotbealteredaftercommencementofselectionprocessand the rules regarding qualification for appointment, if amended, during continuationoftheprocessofselectiondonotaffectthesame.Furtherat para1[SECTION]itwasheldthatthepowertorelaxtheeligibilitycondition,ifany, to the selection must be clearly spelt out and cannot be otherwise exercised.Thesaidobservationsareextractedhereinbelow:
HC-NIC Page 39 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 "14.TheHighCourthascommittedanerrorinholdingthatthe amendedrulewasoperative.Ashasbeenfairlyconcededbylearned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind thesameisbasedonfairplay.Apersonwhodidnotapplybecause acertaincriterione.g.minimumpercentageofmarkscanmakea legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuanceoftheprocessofselectiondonotaffectthesame.That isbecauseeverystatuteorstatutoryruleisprospectiveunlessitis expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.Unlesstherearewordsinthestatuteorintherulesshowing theintentiontoaffectexistingrightstherulemustbeheldtobe prospective.Iftheruleisexpressedinalanguagewhichisfairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P. Mahendran v. state of Karnataka (1990)1SCC411andGopalKrushnaRathv.M.A.A.Baig (1999)1SCC[SECTION]44.)
1[SECTION]. Another aspectwhichthisCourthashighlighted isscope for relaxation of norms. Although the Court must look with respect upontheperformanceofdutiesbyexpertsintherespectivefields,it cannotabdicateitsfunctionsofusheringinasocietybasedonrule oflaw.OnceitismostsatisfactorilyestablishedthattheSelection Committeedidnothavethepowertorelaxessentialqualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concernedgetsvitiated. In [PRECEDENT] this Court held that once it is establishedthatthereisnopowertorelaxessentialqualification, theentireprocessofselectionofthecandidatewasincontravention oftheestablishednormsprescribedbyadvertisement.Thepowerto relaxmustbeclearlyspeltoutandcannototherwisebeexercised."
In Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr.) v. State of Orissa, [(199[SECTION]) 6 SCC 1], at para 34 it was held by this Court the SelectionCommitteedoesnotevenhavetheinherentjurisdictionto laydownthenormsforselectionnorcansuchpowerbeassumedby necessaryimplication.Inthesaidcasereferencewasmadetothe [PRECEDENT]
HC-NIC Page 40 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 "By necessary inference, there was no such power in the ASRBtoaddtotherequiredqualifications.Ifsuchpoweris claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviationfromtherulesislikelytocauseirreparableand irreversibleharm.
48 ThedecisionoftheSupremeCourtreferredtoaboveisthebest example,Icanciteoftheprinciplethattheruleofthegamecannotbe changed,aftertheprocessofselectionhascommenced.Inthecasein hand,norulecametobechangedbytheStateGovernmentinthemidst oftheselectionprocess.Aspointedoutbymeearlierthatthedecision hadtobetakenastheissuecroppedupatthelastminute.Itistruethat intheadvertisement,ithasnotbeenstatedthatthedegreeatthePost Graduation level should be the same at the Under Graduation level. However, this, by itself, is not sufficient to say that the office of the Commissioner could not have taken an appropriate decision after seekingopinionoftheexpertsinthefieldkeepinginmindthequalityof HigherEducation.
49 In [PRECEDENT] there nonselection was the result of altering the prescribed mode of selection midway i.e. after the initiation of recruitmentprocesswhichwasimpermissible.Therespondentsfixedthe benchmarkof70marksforthegeneralcategoryand6[SECTION]marksforthe reserved category candidates. It was such fixation of the benchmark which agitated the appellant and according to them it amounted to change selection procedure midway, which is illegal. It was argued beforetheHighCourtofDelhibyfilingawritpetitionthattheselection criteriawaschangedarbitrarilythattooaftertheadvertisementandthe HC-NIC Page 41 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 lawdidnotpermittherespondentstochangetherulesofthegameafter the game had started. On the other hand, it was argued by the respondentsthatsuchacourseofactionwaspermissibleanditwasnot acasewherethemodeofselection,atanytimewaschangedandinsofar asfixationofbenchmarkisconcernedthatwastheprerogativeofthe employer.
TheissuebeforetheSupremeCourtwaswhetherthefixationof thebenchmarkwouldamounttochangeinthecriteriaofselectioninthe midstream when there was no such stipulation in that regard in the advertisements.TheSupremeCourt,whiledismissingtheappeals,held asunderinparas13,14and1[SECTION]:
"13.Instantisnotacasewherenominimummarksprescribedforviva voceandthisissoughttobedoneafterthewrittentest.Asnotedabove, theinstructionstotheexamineesprovidedthatwrittentestwillcarry80% marks and 20% marks were assigned for the interview. It was also providedthatcandidateswhosecuredminimum[SECTION]0%marksinthegeneral category and minimum 40% marks in the reserved categories in the written test would qualify for the interview. Entire selection was undertaken in accordance with the aforesaid criterion which was laid down at the time of recruitment process. After conducting the interview, marks of the written test and viva voce were to be added. However,sincebenchmarkwasnotstipulatedforgivingtheappointment. What is done in the instant case is that a decision is taken to give appointmentsonlytothosepersonswhohavesecured70%marksorabove marksintheunreservedcategoryand6[SECTION]%orabovemarksinthereserved category. In the absence of any rule on this aspect in the first instance,thisdoesnotamounttochangingthe"rulesofthegame".
TheHighCourthasrightlyheldthatitisnotasituationwheresecuringof minimum marks was introduced which was not stipulated in the advertisement,standardwasfixedforthepurposeofselection.Therefore, itisnotacaseofchangingtherulesofgame.Onthecontraryinthe instantcaseadecisionistakentogiveappointmenttoonlythose whofulfilledthebenchmarkprescribed.Fixationofsuchabenchmark ispermissibleinlaw.Thisisanaltogetherdifferentsituationnotcovered byHemaniMalhotracase.
14. Thedecisiontakeninthe instantcaseamountstoshortlistingof candidatesforthepurposeofselection/appointmentwhichisalways permissible.ForthiscourseofactionoftheCCI,justificationisfoundby HC-NIC Page 42 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 the High Court noticing the judgment of this Court in the State of Haryanavs.SubashChanderMarwaha&Ors(1974)3SCC220.Inthat case,Rule8ofthePunjabCivilService(JudicialBranch)ServiceRuleswas thesubjectmatterofinterpretation.Thisrulestipulatedconsiderationof candidates who secured 4[SECTION]% marks in aggregate. Notwithstanding the same, the High Court recommended the names of candidates who had secured [SECTION][SECTION]% marks and the Government accepted the same. However, lateronitchangeditsmindandHighCourtissuedMandamusdirecting appointmenttobegiventothosewhohadsecured4[SECTION]%andabovemarks insteadof[SECTION][SECTION]%marks.Inappeal,thejudgmentoftheHighCourtwasset asideholdingasunder:
"12 It is contended that the State Government have acted arbitrarilyinfixing[SECTION][SECTION]percentastheminimumforselectionand thisiscontrarytotherulereferredtoabove.Theargumenthasno force. [SECTION] is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidateswithminimumqualificationswhomaybeconsideredfor appointment.Thelistispreparedinorderofmerit.Theonehigher in rank is deemed to be more meritorious than the one who is lowerinrank.Itcouldneverbesaidthatonewhotopsthelistis equalinmerittotheonewhoisatthebottomofthelist.Except thattheyareallmentionedinonelist,eachoneofthemstandson aseparatelevelofcompetenceascomparedwithanother.Thatis whyRule10(ii),PartCspeaksof"selectionforappointment".Even asthereisnoconstraintontheStateGovernmentinrespectofthe numberofappointmenttobemade,thereisnoconstraintonthe StateGovernmentinrespectofthenumberofappointmentstobe made, there is no constraint on the Government fixing ahigher score of marks for the purpose of selection. In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintainhighstandardsofcompetencetofixascorewhichis muchhigherthantheonerequiredformereeligibility."
1[SECTION]. AnotherweightyreasongivenbytheHighCourtintheinstant case, while approving the aforesaid action of the CCI, is that the intentionoftheCCIwastogetmoremeritoriouscandidates. There wasnochangeofnormorprocedureandnomandatewasfixedthata candidateshouldsecureminimummarksintheinterview.Inordertohave meritoriouspersonsforthoseposts,fixationofminimum6[SECTION]%marksfor selectingapersonfromtheOBCcategoryandminimum70%forgeneral category,waslegitimategivingademarcatingchoicetotheemployer.In thewordsoftheHighCourt:
"In the case at hand, as we perceive, the intention of the Commission was to get more meritorious candidates. There has HC-NIC Page 43 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 beennochangeofnormorprocedure.Nomandatewasfixedthat a candidate should secure minimum marks in the interview. Obtainingof6[SECTION]%markswasthoughtasaguidelinesforselecting thecandidatefromtheOBCcategory.Theobjectiveistohavethe besthands inthe field oflaw. According tous,fixation ofsuch marks is legitimate and gives a demarcating choice to the employer.Ithastobeborneinmindthattherequirementofthe job in a Competition Commission demands a well structured selectionprocess. Suchaselectionwouldadvancethecauseof efficiency. Thusscrutinized,wedonotperceiveanyerrorinthe fixation of marks at 6[SECTION]% by the Commission which has been uniformly applied. ThesaidactionoftheCommission cannot be treatedtobeillegal,irrationalorillegitimate.
[SECTION]0 Inthecaseinhandalso,itcouldbesaidthattherewasnorule whichcametobechangedwhenthedecisionwastakenthatthesubject attheUGandPGlevelshouldbethesame.
[SECTION]1 Iamnotimpressedbythesubmissioncanvassedonbehalfofthe petitionersthatthedecisioninquestioncouldnothavebeentakenby the office of the Joint Commissioner in view of the [SECTION] of the concurrentlist,whichissubjecttotheentry66oftheUnionlistofthe [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In fact, this contention has been answered by me while dealing with the contention as regards failureonthepartoftheGovernmenttoissuearresolutionunder[SECTION]ofthe[ACT]ofIndia.However,letmedealwiththesamein myownway.
[SECTION]2 It is now well settled that fixation of qualifications of the [ENTITY] in the grantinaid colleges will definitely have relation to standards of education in the institutions for higher education.
[SECTION]3 The issue in hand relates to the competence of the State HC-NIC Page 44 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Government to prescribe eligibility criteria for the purpose of appointment/selectiononthepostsoftheAdhyapakSahayaks.Inother words, whether the State Government was entitled to lay down an eligibility criteria that the candidate must possess degrees at the UG levelandPGlevelinthesamesubject.
[SECTION]4 LetmelookintothefewsdecisionsoftheSupremeCourtinthis regard.
[SECTION][SECTION] Of Course, all the decisions, which I propose to look into, are relating to prescribing conditions or eligibility for the purpose of admissionincollegesrunbytheGovernment.However,theratiowill definitelyapplytothecaseinhand.
[SECTION]6 Inthecaseof (ShriRamKrishnaDalmiav.S.R.Tendolkar)[SECTION], 19[SECTION]9S.C.R.279:A.I.R.19[SECTION]8S.C.[SECTION]38theSupremeCourthasobserved asunder: "[SECTION] forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification.Inotherwordstopassthetestofpermissibleclassification twoconditionsmustbefulfilled,(i)thattheclassificationisfoundedon intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are groupedtogetherfromothersleftoutofthegroupand,(ii)thatdifferentia musthavearationalrelationtotheobjectsoughttobeachieved.Thefirst group of persons for whom seats have been reserved are the sons and daughtersofresidentsofUnionterritoriesotherthanDelhi.Theseareas arewellknowntobecomparativelybackwardandwiththeexceptionof HimachalPradeshtheydonothaveanyMedicalCollegeoftheirown.It wasnecessarythatpersonsdesirousofreceivingmedicaleducationfrom theseareasshouldbeprovidedsomefacilityfordoingso.Asregardsthe sons and daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missionsabroaditisequallywellknownthatduetoexigenciesoftheir service these persons are faced with lot of difficulties in the matter of education.Apartfromtheproblemsoflanguage,itisnoteasyoralways possibletogetadmissionintoinstitutionsimpartingmedicaleducationin foreigncountries.TheCultural,ColomboPlanandThailandscholarsare given admission in medical institutions in this country by reason of HC-NIC Page 4[SECTION] of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 reciprocal arrangements of educational and cultural nature. Regarding Jammu & Kashmir scholars it must be remembered that the problems relatingtothemareofapeculiarnatureandtheredonotexistadequate arrangementsformedicaleducationintheStateitselfforitsresidents.The classification inallthese cases isbased on intelligible differentia which distinguishesthemfromthegrouptowhichtheappellantsbelong."
[SECTION]7 Inthecaseof (KumariChitraGhoshandanotherv.Unionof Indiaandothers)6,A.I.R.1970S.C.3[SECTION]theSupremeCourthasnoticed theaforesaidcaseandhasobserved,asunder;
"9. It is the Central Government which bears the financial burden of running the medical college. It is for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility.Fromtheverynatureofthingsitisnotpossibletothrowthe admission open tostudents from allover the country. The Government cannotbedeniedtherighttodecidefromwhatsourcestheadmissionwill bemade.Thatessentiallyisaquestionofpolicyanddependsinteraliaon an overall assessment and survey of the requirements of residents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. If the sources are properlyclassifiedwhetheronterritorialgeographicalorotherreasonable basisitisnotfortheCourtstointerferewiththemannerandmethodof makingtheclassification."
"10.Thenextquestionthathastobedeterminediswhetherthedifferentia onwhichclassificationhasbeenmadehasrationalrelationwiththeobject tobeachieved.Themainpurposeofadmissiontoamedicalcollegeisto imparteducationinthetheoryandpracticeofmedicine.Asnoticedbefore the sources from which students have to be drawn are primarily determinedbytheauthoritieswhomaintainandruntheinstitution,e.g., theCentralGovernmentinthepresentcase.[PRECEDENT] it has been stated that the object of selection for admission istosecure the bestpossible material. This can surelybeachievedbymakingproperrulesinthematterofselectionbut therecanbenodoubtthatsuchselectionhastobeconfinedtothesources thatareintendedtosupplythematerial.Ifthesourceshavebeenclassified in the manner done in the present case it is difficult to see how that classificationhasnorationalnexuswiththeobjectofimpartingmedical educationandalsoofselectionforthepurpose."
[SECTION]8 Inthecaseof(D.N.Chanchalaetc.v.TheStateofMysoreand othersetc.)8,A.I.R.1971S.C.1762,theSupremeCourthasobserved, asunder:
HC-NIC Page 46 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 "14. Inview ofthisconsequence, Counsel for thepetitioner made three submissions;(1)thatoncethepetitionerwaseligibleforadmissiontoa medical college affiliated to the Karnataka University according to the Ordinancesofthatuniversity,theStateGovernmentcouldnotmakerules, the effect of which was to deprive her of admission; (2) that the universitywise distribution of seats provided under [SECTION] was discriminatoryandbeingwithoutanyrationalbasisviolatedArticle14of the[ACT];and(3)thatthereservationofseatsunderRules.4and [SECTION] for the various categories of persons set out therein was far more excessivethanpermittedbythedecisionsofthisCourtandwasinviolation of [SECTION]. Consequently, [SECTION] and [SECTION] laying down such reservationshouldbeheldinvalid."
"1[SECTION].Weproposetodealwiththesesubmissionsintheorderinwhichthey wereplaced before usbyCounsel. Asseenearlier, there aretwosetsof provisionsdealingwiththeteachingofmedicalcourses.Thefirstconsists of Ordinances of the Universities, and the second consists of the rules framedbytheGovernmentforselectionofcandidatesforadmissiontothe PreProfessional/B.Sc.PartIleadingtoM.B.B.S.degree.TheOrdinances framedbythethreeuniversitiesaremadeunderthedifferentUniversities Actsettingupthoseuniversitiesandunderthepowersreservedtothem underthem.TheseOrdinancesaremadeforthepurposessetoutinthose Actsandforcarryingoutthosepurposes.Oneofsuchpurposeswouldbe the maintenance of certain academic standards in the various faculties taught in the colleges affiliated to the universities. For the purposes of maintaining suchstandards the universities laydowncertain minimum qualifications for eligibility for entrance in those faculties. These OrdinancesandregulationsmadeundertheActslaydowntheminimum qualificationsrequiredforeligibilityandarenottobeconfusedwithrules foradmission.Acandidatemayhavetheminimumqualificationsoasto makehimeligibleforentranceinaparticularfaculty.Thatdoesnotmean thathisbeingeligiblenecessarilymakeshimentitledtoadmissioninthat faculty. For, admission can only be commensurate with the number of availableseatsinsuchafaculty."
"16.Themedicalcollegesinquestionarenotuniversitycollegesbuthave beensetupandarebeingmaintainedbytheStateGovernmentfromout ofpublicfunds.Sincetheyareaffiliatedtooneortheotherofthethree universities,theGovernmentcannotframerulesoractinconsistentlywith the Ordinances or the regulations of the universities laying down standardsofeligibility.Itisnobody'scasethattheGovernmenthasmade ruleswhichareinanywayinconsistentwiththerulesforeligibilitylaid downinsuchOrdinancesandregulations."
"17.SincetheGovernmenthassetupthesecollegesandmaintainsthem,it hasprimafaciethepowertoregulateadmissioninitsowninstitutions.
HC-NIC Page 47 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Counsel for the petitioner pointed out to us no provision from the University Acts whichdeprives theGovernment ofthepower ofmaking rulesforadmissioninitsowncolleges.Thatbeingso,itcannotbesaid that the Government has no power to regulate admission in its own colleges or that because a student is eligible for admission under the UniversityOrdinances,heautomaticallygetsarighttoadmissionwhich hecanenforceinaCourtoflaw."
"22 Further,theGovernmentwhichbearsthefinancialburdenof running the Government colleges is entitled to lay down criteria for admission in its own colleges and to decide the sources from which admission would bemade, provided ofcourse, such classification isnot arbitraryandhasarationalbasisandareasonableconnectionwiththe objectoftherules.Solongasthereisnodiscriminationwithineachof suchsources,thevalidityoftheruleslayingdownsuchsourcescannotbe successfully challenged. See Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, (1970)1 S.C.R.413atp.418:A.I.R.1970S.C.3[SECTION].Inourview,theruleslaydown a valid classification. Candidates passing through the qualifying examination held by a university form a class by themselves as distinguishedfromthosepassingthroughsuchexaminationfromtheother two universities. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the objectoftherules,namely,tocatertotheneedsofcandidateswhowould naturally look to their own university to advance their training in technicalstudies,suchasmedicalstudies.Inouropinion,therulescannot justly be attacked on the ground of hostile discrimination or as being otherwiseinbreachofArticle14."
"23. The last challenge to the validity of these rules was based on the allegationthattheylaydownexcessivereservationforcertaincategoriesof candidates.Asalreadystated,underClauses(a)to(i)ofRule4,sixty,out ofthepresentaggregateof76[SECTION]seatsatthedisposaloftheGovernment, aresetapartforthevariouscategoriesofpersonsthereinmentioned.As aforesaid, the Government is entitled to lay down sources from which selection for admission would be made. A provision laying down such sources isstrictly speaking not areservation. Itis not areservation as understood by [SECTION] against which objection can be taken on the groundthatitisexcessive.Thereservation,ascontemplatedbyArticle1[SECTION], istheonewhichismadeunderRule[SECTION] "
[SECTION]9 In the case of (Stateof Andhra Pradesh andanother v. Lavu NarendraNathandothersetc.)9,A.I.R.1971S.C.2[SECTION]60 theSupreme Courthasobserved,asunder:
"7.WehavethereforetoexaminewhethertheGovernmenthadarightto HC-NIC Page 48 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 prescribeatestformakingaselectionofanumberofcandidatesfromout ofthelargebodyofapplicantsforadmissionintothefirstyearM.B.B.S. course and whether such action of the Government contravened any provision alreadymade bythe legislature inthatrespect. Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] the executive power of a State extends to the matterswithrespecttowhichthelegislatureofaStatehaspowertomake laws but this is subject to the provisions of the [ACT]. As the Governmentrunsthesecolleges,itundoubtedlyhasarightandadutyto makeaselectionfromthenumberofapplicantsapplyingforadmissionif allcould notbeadmitted.Iftherewasnolegislationcovering thisfield Governmentwouldundoubtedlybecompetenttoprescribeatestitselfto screenthebestcandidates.Wehavenexttoscrutinisestheprovisionsofthe [ACT] relied on by the High Court to see whether the actionoftheGovernmentrancountertoanyofthoseprovisions.Under section23oftheActitwasabodyknownastheAcademicCouncilofthe Universitywhichhadthepowerbyregulationsofprescribingallcoursesof study and of determining curricula and the general control ofteaching within the university and was responsible for the maintenance of the standards thereof. Under subsection (2)(h) of the Act these powers includethepowertomakeregulationsregardingtheadmissionofstudents to the university or prescribing examinations to be recognised as equivalent to university examinations or the further qualifications mentioned in [SECTION] for admission to the degree coursesoftheuniversity.Undersection33nostudentwastobeeligiblefor admission to a course of study qualifying for admission to a post matriculation university examination unless he had passed the examinationprescribedasqualifyingforadmissiontosuchcourseoran examination recognised by the Academic Council with the previous sanctionoftheStateGovernmentasequivalenttheretoandpossessedsuch further qualifications, ifany, as might be prescribed. Sri Venkateswara University, the only other University functioning in this area, was constitutedunderasimilarstatuteandhadalmostidenticalprovisionsas thosementionedabove."
"8. The above provisions of law do not make it incumbent upon the Government to make their selection in accordance with the marks obtained by the applicantcandidates at the qualifying examination. Obtaining[SECTION]0%ofthemarksatthequalifyingexaminationswasthefirst hurdle to be crossed by any candidate before he could submit an applicationforadmissionintoamedicalcollege.TheGovernmentwhich ranthecollegeshadtherighttomakeaselectionoutofalargenumberof candidatesandforthispurposetheycouldprescribeatestoftheirown whichwasnotagainstanylaw.Merelybecausetheytriedtosupplement theeligibilityrulebyawrittentestinsubjectswithwhichthecandidates were already familiar, their action cannot beimpeached nor was there anything unfair in the test prescribed. The test prescribed by the Government must be considered inthe light ofasecond hurdle for the HC-NIC Page 49 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 purpose of a screening to find out who of all the candidates applying should be admitted and who should be rejected. Merely because the universityhadmaderegulationsregardingtheadmissionofstudentstoits degreecourses,itdidnotmeanthatanyonewhohadpassedthequalifying examinationsuchastheP.U.C.orH.S.C.wasipsofactotobeentitledto admissiontosuchcoursesofstudy.Ifthenumberofcandidatesapplying forsuchadmissionfarexceedsthenumberofseatsavailabletheuniversity canhavetomakeitschoiceoutoftheapplicantstofindoutwhoshouldbe admittedandifinsteadofjudgingthecandidatesbythenumberofmarks obtainedbytheminthequalifyingexaminationtheuniversitythinksfitto prescribe another test for admission no objection can be taken thereto. What the university can do in the matter of admissions to the degree courses can certainly be done by the Government in the matter of admissiontotheM.B.B.S.course."
"9.InourviewthetestprescribedbytheGovernmentinnowaymilitates againstthepowerofParliamentunderEntry66ofListIofthe[SECTION]tothe[ACT].Thesaidentryprovides:
"Coordinationanddeterminationofstandardsininstitutionsforhigher educationorresearchandscientificandtechnicalinstitutions."
"TheaboveentrygivesParliamentpowertomakelawsforlayingdown howstandardsinaninstitutionforhighereducationaretobedetermined andhowtheycanbecoordinated.Ithasnorelationtoatestprescribed byaGovernmentorbyauniversityforselectionofanumberofstudents fromoutofalargenumberapplyingforadmissiontoaparticularcourse ofstudyevenifitbeforhighereducationinanyparticularsubject."
"1[SECTION].Inourviewthereisnosubstanceinanyofthecontentionsaswillbe apparentfromourconclusionsnotedaboveandthedecisionsofthisCourt bearingonthispoint.TheUniversityAct,aspointedout,merelyprescribed aminimumqualificationforentryintothehighercoursesofstudy.There wasnoregulationtotheeffectthatadmissiontohighercourseofstudy wasguaranteedbythesecuringofeligibility.TheExecutivehaveapower tomakeanyregulationwhichwouldhavetheeffectofalawsolongasit does not contravene any legislation already covering the field and the Governmentorderinthiscaseinnowayaffectedtherightsofcandidates withregardtoeligibilityforadmission;thetestprescribedwasafurther hurdlebywayofcompetitionwhenmereeligibilitycouldnotbemadethe determiningfactor."
60 Inthecaseof(Dr.[ENTITY].Principal,L.L.R.M.Medical College Meerut and others)10, 1986 Supp. S.C.C. [SECTION]43, it has been observed,asunder:
HC-NIC Page [SECTION]0 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 "12.InaccordancewiththesaidGovernmentOrderdatedDecember1[SECTION], 1982,acandidateinordertobeeligibleforconsiderationforadmissionto thePostgraduatecourseonmeritmusthavesecured[SECTION][SECTION]percentmarks foradmissiontoPostgraduatedegreecourseand[SECTION]2percentmarksfor admissiontothePostgraduatediplomacourse.Thusacandidatehaving notsecuredtherequisitemarksinM.B.B.S.examinationwillbeineligible forconsiderationonthebasisofmeritforadmissiontothevariousPost graduatecourseinmedicalcollege.Theunsuccessfulcandidateswhoare not eligible for consideration according to this Government order have questioned the power ofthe State Government inmaking theaforesaid order on the ground that the Medical Council by its regulations has alreadylaiddowntherequisitecriteriaorstandardsforadmissiontothe Postgraduate courses in the Medical Colleges in accordance with the meritsofthecandidatesconcernedandassuchtheStateGovernmentis not competent to lay down further eligibility qualification for the candidatesforbeingconsideredforadmissioninthePostgraduatecourses bothinthedegreeanddiplomacourses.Ithasalsobeencontendedthat theStateGovernmentisnotcompetenttolaydownorprescribethesaid qualificationwhich,itisalleged,encroachesuponthepoweroftheCentral GovernmentasprovidedinEntry66ofListIoftheSeventhSchedule.It hasalsobeenpleadedinthepetitionthatEntry2[SECTION]ofListIIIof[SECTION]tothe[ACT]issubjecttotheprovisionsofEntry66ofList I and as such the said Government order being repugnant to the Regulations made by the Indian Medical Council and approved by the CentralGovernmentpursuanttosection33oftheIndianMedicalCouncil Act,isinvalid."
"18. The said order modifies toacertain extent the earlier notification issuedonOctober1[SECTION],1982invitingapplicationsforadmissiontothePost graduate courses as per notification dated December 3, 1980. In the notification dated December 3, 1980, the criteria for admission to the Postgraduatecourseswasonthebasisofmeritonly.Inpara2ofthesaid ordersthemannerhowthemeritistobedeterminedhasbeenlaiddown. Inthatordertherewasnosuchcriterialaiddownasmentionedinthe GovernmentOrderdatedDecember1[SECTION],1982.Twoquestionsariseforour considerationwhicharefirstlywhethertheStateGovernmentiscompetent tomaketheaforesaidorderinquestioninexerciseofitsexecutivepowers under[SECTION]ofthe[ACT].ThisArticlespecificallyprovidesthat theexecutivepowersoftheStateshallextendtomatterswithrespectto whichthelegislatureoftheStatehaspowertomakelaws.Entry2[SECTION]ofthe Concurrent List i.e [SECTION] to the [ACT] providesasfollows:"
"19.TheStateGovernmentcaninexerciseofitsexecutivepowermakean orderrelatingtomattersreferredtoinEntry2[SECTION]oftheConcurrentListin theabsenceofanylawmadebytheStatelegislature.Theimpugnedorder HC-NIC Page [SECTION]1 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 made bythe State Government pursuant to its executive powers laying down theeligibilityqualification forthecandidates tobeconsidered on meritsforadmissiontothePostgraduatecoursesinMedicalCollegesin theState,isvalidanditcannotbeassailedonthegroundthatitisbeyond thecompetenceoftheStateGovernmenttomakesuchorderprovidedit doesnotencroachuponorinfringethepoweroftheCentralGovernment aswellastheParliamentprovidedinEntry66ofListI.Entry66ofListI isinthefollowingterms:"
"Coordinationanddeterminationofstandardsininstitutionsforhigher educationorresearchandscientificandtechnicalinstitutions."
"21. The impugned Government Order dated December 1[SECTION], 1982 lays downthecriteriaoreligibilityqualificationi.e.obtainingof[SECTION][SECTION]percent marksbycandidatesseekingadmissioninthePostgraduatedegreecourse andobtainingof[SECTION]2percentmarksbycandidatesseeking admissionto Postgraduatediplomacourseforbeingconsideredforselection.Entry2[SECTION] confersontheStateGovernmentaswellastheStatelegislaturethepowers tomakeordersinrespectofmattersmentionedinEntry2[SECTION]ofListIIIof the [SECTION] to the [ACT] i.e. with regard to medical educationtheonlylimitationbeingthatsuchorderoftheStatelegislature willbesubjecttotheprovisionsofEntry66ListIi.e.Coordinationand determinationofstandardsininstitutionsforhighereducationorresearch and scientific and technical institutions. The order in question merely specifiesafurthereligibilityqualificationforbeingconsideredforselection foradmissiontothePostgraduatecourses(degreeanddiploma)inthe MedicalCollegesintheStateinaccordancewiththecriterialaiddownby Indian Medical Council. This does not in any way encroach upon the regulationsthathavebeenframedundertheprovisionsofsection33ofthe [ACT]Ontheotherhandinordertopromoteand further the determination of standards in institutions for higher education, the State Government who runs these colleges provide an additionaleligibilityqualification "
"22.IntheinstantcasethenumberofseatsforadmissiontovariousPost graduatecoursesbothdegreeanddiplomainMedicalCollegesislimited and a large number of candidates undoubtedly apply for admission to these course ofstudy. Insuch circumstances the impugned order laying downthequalificationforacandidatetobeeligibleforbeingconsidered forselectionforadmissiontothesaidcoursesonthebasisofthemeritas specified by regulations made under the [ACT], cannotbesaidtobeinconflictwiththesaidregulationsorinanyway repugnanttothesaidregulations.Itdoesnotinanywayencroachupon thestandards prescribed bythesaidregulations. Ontheother hand by layingdownafurtherqualificationofeligibilityitpromotesandfurthers thestandardinaninstitution."
HC-NIC Page [SECTION]2 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 "23.TheGovernmentwhorunsthesecollegeshastherighttoprescribea testofeligibilityashasbeenheld bythisCourt inthe case referred to above."
"26.Onaconsiderationoftheaforesaiddecisionsweareunabletohold that the impugned order dated December 1[SECTION], 1982 has in any way contravened orencroached uponthepoweroftheCentrallegislatureto makelawsortheCentralGovernmenttomakeordersinregardtomatters provided inEntry [SECTION] tothe [ACT]. Thereisnoconflictbetweentheregulationsandalsotheorderinquestion. TheStateGovernmentbylayingdowntheeligibilityqualificationsnamely theobtainingofcertainminimummarksintheM.B.B.S.examinationby thecandidateshasnotinanywayencroachedupontheRegulationsmade under the [ACT] nor does it infringe the Central powerprovidedintheEntry66ofListIoftheSeventhScheduletothe [ACT]. The order merely provides an additional eligibility qualification.Weareinfullagreementwiththereasoningandconclusion of the High Court in this respect. This contention, therefore, in our consideredopinion,iswithoutanymerit."
61 Inthecaseof (AjayKumarSinghandothersv.StateofBihar andothers)11,1994(4)S.C.C.401,theSupremeCourthasobserved,as under:
"18.AreviewoftheprovisionsoftheActclearlyshowsthatamongother things,theActisconcernedwiththedeterminationandcoordinationof standardsofeducationandtraininginmedicalinstitutions.Sections16, 17,18and19allspeakof"thecoursesofstudyandexaminationstobe undergone" toobtain the recognised medical qualification. They donot speakofadmissiontosuchcourses,section19Aexpresslyempowersthe Council to "prescribe the minimum standards of medical education"
requiredforgrantingundergraduatemedicalqualification.[SECTION] theCounciltoprescribestandardsofpostgraduate medical educationbut"fortheguidanceofuniversities"only.Itfurthersaysthat theCouncil"mayalsoadviseuniversitiesinthematterofsecuringuniform standards for postgraduate medical education throughout India". (The distinctionbetweenthelanguageofsection19Aandsection20isalsoa relevant factor, as would be explained later.) [SECTION] particularisesthesubjectswithrespecttowhichRegulationscanbemade by the Council. It speaks of the courses and period of study and the practical training to be undergone by the students, the subjects of examinationwhichtheymustpassandthestandardsofproficiencythey mustattaintoobtaintherecognisedmedicalqualificationsbutitdoesnot speakofadmissiontosuchcoursesofstudy.Indeed,noneofthesections aforementioned empower the Council to regulate or prescribe HC-NIC Page [SECTION]3 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 qualifications or conditions for admission to such courses of study. No other provision in the Act does. It is thus clear that the Act does not purport todeal with, regulate or provide for admission to graduate or postgraduatemedicalcourses.Indeed,insofarasPostgraduatecoursesare concerned, the power of the Indian Medical Council to "prescribe the minimumstandardsofmedicaleducation"isonlyadvisoryinnatureand notabindingcharacter.Insuchasituation,itwouldberathercuriousto saythattheregulationsmadeundertheActarebindinguponthem.The Regulations made under the Act cannot also provide for or regulate admissiontoPostgraduatecoursesinanyevent."
"19.TheRegulationsmadebytheMedicalCouncilin1971(revisedupto January 1978 (sic 1988) speak generally of students for postgraduate trainingbeingselected"strictlyonmeritjudgedonthebasisofacademic recordintheundergraduatecourse".Thisismoreinthenatureofadvice and not a binding direction. The regulation does not say that no reservations can be provided under [SECTION]. The power conferred upontheStatebyClause(4)ofArticle1[SECTION]isaconstitutionalpower.The saidpowerobviouslycouldnothavebeenoverriddenorsupersededbya Regulation made by the Indian Medical Council under the Act. The RegulationmustbereadconsistentwithArticle1[SECTION](4)andifsoread,it meansthatthestudentsshallbeadmittedtopostgraduatetrainingstrictly onthebasisofmeritineachoftherelevantclassesorcategories,asthe casemaybe.Anyotherconstructionseekingtogiveanabsolutemeaning to the said Regulation would render it invalid both on the ground of travellingbeyondtheAct.ItmayalsofallfoulofArticle1[SECTION](4) "
"24.Inouropinion,thesituationinthecasebeforeusisnodifferent.The Statewillregulatetheadmissionpolicyandatthesametimeadheretothe standardsdeterminedbytheIndianMedicalCouncil."
"26.EvenifonerelatestheIndianMedicalCouncilActtoEntry2[SECTION]ofList IIIinadditiontoEntry66ofListI,eventhenthepositionisnodifferent fortheIndianMedicalActdoesnotpurporttoregulatetheadmissionsor admissionpolicytopostgraduatemedicalcourses.Thefieldisthusleftfree toberegulatedbytheState.TheStatecanmakealaworanexecutive rule;inthiscaseithaschosentomakeanexecutiverule."
62 Inthecaseof(StateofM.P.v.NiveditaJain)12,1981(4)S.C.C. 296, while dealing with the regulation framedbythe Indian Medical Council,relaxingtheminimumqualifyingmarksforScheduledCastes andScheduledTribescandidatesforadmission,theSupremeCourthas proceededtoobserve,asunder:
HC-NIC Page [SECTION]4 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 "Entry66inListI(UnionList)ofthe7thSchedule tothe[ACT] relatesto'coordinationanddeterminationofstandardininstitutionsfor highereducationorresearchandscientificandtechnicalinstitutions'.This entrybyitselfdoesnothaveanybearingonthequestionofselectionof candidates to the Medical Colleges from amongst candidates who are eligible for such admission. On the other hand, [SECTION] in [SECTION] of the same Schedule speaks of 'education, including technicaleducation, medicaleducation inuniversities, subjecttoEntries 63,64,6[SECTION]and66ofListI vocationalandtechnicaltrainingoflabour'. This entry is wide enough to include within its ambit the question of selection of candidates to medical colleges and there is nothing in the Entries 63, 64 and 6[SECTION] of List I to suggest to the contrary. We are, therefore,oftheopinionthatRegulationIIoftheCouncilwhichismerely directoryandinthenatureofarecommendationhasnosuchstatutory force as to render the order in question which contravenes the said regulationillegal,invalidandunconstitutional."
63 Fromtheaforesaiddecision,itisclearthattheStatehasample powerandauthoritytoprescribeconditionsforadmissiontotheUnder GraduateandPostGraduatemedicalcourse.[ENTITY],the State has ample power and authority to prescribe eligibility for the purposeofappointmentsonthepostsoftheAdhyapakSahayaks.The same,innoway,impeachesuponthepoweroftheCentralGovernment conferredunderEntry66inlistI(UnionList)ofthe7thScheduleofthe [ACT]. The said entry deals merely with the coordination and determinationofstandardsinstitutionsforhighereducationorresearch and scientific and technical institution. The same does not deal with layingdownconditionsforappointmentofcandidatesonthepostsof the AdhyapakSahayaks. This,the State Government,can legitimately provide for, in exercise of power conferredby [SECTION]. The same wouldbewithinitscompetenceunderEntry2[SECTION]inListIII(concurrent List) of the [SECTION]. The Regulations framed by the University GrantsCommissionprovideforlayingdownofstandardsofeducation. Theydonotprovideforconditionsforappointmentsontheposts,like Professor, Lecturer, [ENTITY], etc. The Government owes a HC-NIC Page [SECTION][SECTION] of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 dutytoseethatthequalityofhighereducationismaintained.Ithas, therefore, every authority to prescribe conditions of eligibility for appointmentsonthepostsinquestion.
64 Theobjectbehindinsistingthatthesubjectshouldbesameatthe UnderGraduateandPostGraduatelevelhassomenexuswiththeobject soughttobeachieved.Ithasarationalnexustotheobjectsoughttobe achieved,andhence,thereisnoviolationoftheprinciplesofequality enunciatedunderArticle14ofthe[ACT].Atthecostofrepetition, oncetheexpertsinthefieldsayso,thentheCourtshouldbeloathin disturbing such opinion unless the Court finds the opinion to be absolutelyperverseorunreasonable.
6[SECTION] Atthecostofrepetition,Istatethatthestandardsofeducationas prescribed by the University Grants Commission has not been compromised in any manner. It is not the case in hand wherein a legislationmadebytheStateGovernmentonthequalificationsofthe AdhyapakSahayaksisinconflictwiththeprescriptionregardingsuch qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission, and if there is any conflict, then definitely the regulations of the University GrantsCommissionwouldprevail.TheArticle2[SECTION]oftheConcurrentList andtheEntry66oftheUnionListhasnothingtodosofarasthecasein handisconcerned.
66 Inthecaseinhand,thereisnothingonrecordtoshowanymala fide which could be attributed against the members of the experts committee or the office of the higher education. In this view of the matterandintheabsenceofanymalafideandinviewofthediscussion made hereinabove, the recommendations made by the experts committeeandacteduponbytheStateGovernmentcannotbesaidtobe HC-NIC Page [SECTION]6 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 illegal,invalidandwithoutjurisdiction.
67 In [PRECEDENT]:
"17 whentheviewtakenbytheexpertbodyisoneofthepossibleviews, thesame isfittobeaccepted. Further,theyardstickwould bedifferent when it concerns eligibility conditions pertaining to 'qualification' and 'experience'.Incaseofexperienceitisbestknowntotheexpertbodyinthe fieldinregard totheactualworkdoneand,therefore,itsopinion isof higherdegreedeservingacceptanceordinarily.Hence,inouropinion,this judgmentdidnotfetterthepoweroftheHighCourt."
68 [PRECEDENT]AligarhMuslimUniversityandOrs.(2001)8 SCC[SECTION]46,followingitsearlierdecisioninthe[ACT]Benchofthe SupremeCourtinUniversityofMysorevs[ENTITY],AIR196[SECTION] SC491,theSupremeCourtobservedthat"normallyitiswiseandsafe fortheCourtstoleavethedecisionofacademicmatterstoexpertswho aremorefamiliarwiththeproblemstheyfacethanthecourtsgenerally are".
69 A similar view has been expressed in several decisions of the SupremeCourte.g.Dr.UmaKantvs.Dr.BhikaLalJainJT1991(4)SC 7[SECTION](para9),BhushanUttamKharevs.TheDean,B.J.MedicalCollege andOrs. JT1992(1)SC[SECTION]83(para8), [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; Chairman,J.andK.StateBoardofEducation vs.FeyazAhmedMalikandOrs(2000)3SCC[SECTION]9;VaranaseyaSanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and Anr. Vs. Dr. Raj kishore Tripathi and Anr. [PRECEDENT] Page [SECTION]7 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 Ors.(2001)8SCC427(para6);BhagwanSinghandAnr.vs.Stateof PunjabandOrs.(1999)9SCC[SECTION]73(para6).
70 OnaclarificationsoughtfromtheUniversityGrantsCommission asregardsthemeaningoftheterm"relevantsubject",itwasclarified that the relevance of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject shouldbedecidedbytheappointingauthoritywiththehelpofsubject experts as the University Grants Commission had not prescribed any normsonthesubjectmatter.Thus,thisistheviewofthematterofthe UniversityGrantsCommission,whichisanexpertinacademicmatters and the Court should not set in appeal over its opinion and take a contraryview.
71 In [PRECEDENT]
"30.Learnedcounselfortheappellanthasalsopointedoutthatalarge numberofuniversitiesinthiscountryhaveasingledepartmentforboth thesubjectsofPoliticalScienceandPublicAdministration,andthisalso demonstratesthatthesubjectsPoliticalScienceandPublicAdministration are interchangeable and interrelated. Political Science is the mother subjectandPublicAdministrationistheoffshootofthesame.
31. We agree with Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel, that it is not appropriateforthisCourttositinappealovertheopinionoftheexperts whoareoftheviewthatPoliticalScienceandPublicAdministrationare interrelated and interchangeable subjects, and hence a candidate who possessesMaster'sdegreeinPublicAdministrationiseligibleforthepostof Lecturer in Political Science and viceversa. We are told that a large number of persons having qualifications in the interchangeable/inter relatedsubjectshavebeenappointedReaders/Professors/Lecturersandare continuingassuchinvariouscollegesandUniversitiesintheState.
32. Inpara[SECTION]ofthecounteraffidavitfiledbytherespondentUniversity beforetheHighCourt,ithasbeenspecificallystatedthereinthatPublic Administration is one of the branches of Political Science, and the appellant was selected by a Selection Committee consisting of eminent HC-NIC Page [SECTION]8 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 expertsafterevaluatinghisqualificationsandwork.
33. AsregardsthedecisioninDr.[ENTITY].Chancellor, Sambalpur University (supra), we have carefully perused the same. In paragraph[SECTION]ofthesaidjudgmentithasbeenobserved:
"ThoughtheDepartmentconcernedforwhichtheappointmentisto bemadeisthatof'PoliticalScienceandPublicAdministration',the appointment with which we are concerned, is of Lecturer in PoliticalScienceandnotPublicAdministrationandsubjectmatter wise they are different and not one and the same. It is not in controversythatthepostsofLecturersinPublicAdministrationand inPoliticalSciencearedistinctandseparateandonselectionthe appellant could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration."
72 Letmenowdealwiththelastsubmissionthatintheabsenceof anyGovernmentResolutionororderinexerciseofpowerunder[SECTION]ofthe[ACT],nosuchdecisioncouldhavebeentaken.Inmy view,assuch[SECTION]ofthe[ACT]hasnoapplicationatall. Article309ofthe[ACT]ofIndiaisarulemaking power.That powermustbeexercisedbytheGovernor,onadviceofthecabinetor rulemadeforthatexerciseofpower.Onthe otherhand,[SECTION] does not provide for making any rules. It provides for issuing administrative instructions which are normally done in the form of Government Resolutions. Secondly, the exercise of the executive instructionshastobedoneinthemannercontemplatedunderArticle 166 of the [ACT]. That Article provides that all the executive actionoftheGovernmentofaStateshallbeexpressedtobetakeninthe nameoftheGovernor.Article166(2),thensetsoutthattheOrdersand otherinstrumentsmadeandexecutedinthenameoftheGovernorshall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified by Rules to be madebytheGovernor,andthevalidityofanorderorinstrumentwhich issoauthenticatedshallnotbecalledinquestiononthegroundthatitis notanorderorinstrumentmadeorexecutedbytheGovernor.Subrule HC-NIC Page [SECTION]9 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 (3)setsoutthattheGovernorshallmakeRulesforthemoreconvenient transactionofthebusinessoftheGovernmentoftheState,andforthe allocation among Ministers of the said business insofar as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this [ACT]requiredtoactinhisdiscretion.Inotherwords,aconjoint readingofArticles162and166wouldshowthattheExecutivepowerof theStatemustbeexercisedinthemannerlaiddownunderthebusiness rules.Intheabsenceofpowerbeingoftheadministrativepowerofthe StatetohavebindingeffectasLaw.Itistruethatmerelybecausesome officersissuesomeinstructions,byitselfcannotbesaidtobepursuantto anexerciseofexecutivepowersoftheStateasunderstoodunderarticle
162.Anyotherexercisewouldbeanexerciseofadministrativepowers whichanofficermayexerciseconsideringthepostheldandtheduties which such officer has to exercise. That cannot be equated with the exercise of executive power which is extensive with the legislative powersunder[SECTION].
73 Inthecaseinhand,theofficeoftheCommissionerhavingregard tothegrievancesraisedbythecandidateshadtoconstituteacommittee ofexpertsforitsopinionandonreceiptofthereport,itthoughfitto takeadecisionthatthedegreeattheUGlevelandPGlevelshouldbe same,becauseacandidate,whowouldbeappointed,wouldbeteaching evenattheUGlevel,andifthesubjecthewouldbeteachingattheUG level was not his principal subject, then that would amount to compromisingwiththequalityofhighereducation.Infact,fortaking such a decision, power under [SECTION] need not be exercised. Therefore,theinsistenceonthepartofthepetitionersthatthereshould be an order or a Government Resolution under [SECTION] of the [ACT]isnottenableinlaw.
HC-NIC Page 60 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016 74 Intheoverallviewofthematter,Ihavereachedtotheconclusion that it is not possible to grant any relief as prayed for in these writ applications.
7[SECTION] Intheresult,allthewritapplicationsfailandareherebyrejected. Notice discharged. The adinterim order, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
76 Inviewoftheorderpassedinthemainmatters,theconnected civilapplications,ifany,arealsodisposedof.
([ENTITY], J.) chandresh HC-NIC Page 61 of 61 Created On Wed May 04 0[SECTION]:04:13 IST 2016