CWP No. 14168 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14168 of 2007 Date of decision: 02.12.2009 Dr. Baljinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjabi University through Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.S. Puri, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 2 to the post of Reader in the Department of Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala. The petitioner was also a candidate for the post of Reader in the Department of Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala, wherein respondent No. 2 was selected by the selection committee. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, that the petitioner passed his Masters degree in History in the year 1985 securing CWP No. 14168 of 2007 -2- 55.12% marks from Punjabi University, Patiala. He obtained his M.Phil degree in the year 1986 and thereafter Ph.D. degree by the Punjabi University, Patiala. The post of Reader was advertised vide Annexure P- 2 and the qualifications were mentioned as per UGC. The UGC qualifications for the post of Reader are as under: - “4.3.0 Reader Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the university system, shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,D,E & F at the Master's degree level. Five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula.” The petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto primarily on the ground that respondent No 2 did not possess five years experience in teaching and/or research as laid down in UGC guidelines, and was not qualified to be called for interview as per criteria fixed by the University, for the reason that respondent No. 2 was not having 50% marks in graduation. The petition is opposed by the University as well as by respondent No. 2. In the written statement, a specific stand has been taken that respondent No. 2 was selected as per his qualification. Respondent No. 2 fulfilled the criteria laid down by UGC for appointment as Reader. It is the case of the respondents that the CWP No. 14168 of 2007 -3- petitioner has 61% marks in M.A. and 61.33% in graduation. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention contended that the experience of teaching by respondent No. 2 is with Khalsa College, Amritsar, against a post which was not sanctioned, therefore, the said teaching experience cannot be counted, specially when respondent No. 2 was not paid the grade of Lecturer. This fact is not disputed that respondent No. 2 was not given grade of Lecturer. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The criteria laid down by UGC is not that of a teaching experience against a sanctioned post/in grade, but requirement is of teaching experience. The only safeguard required is, that the teaching experience should be of an institute of repute to avoid a person getting a certificate from unrecognised institution to claim eligibility. The Khalsa College, Amritsar, is well reputed College, and experience of teaching in the said College cannot be said to be, not from recognised institute so as to debar respondent No. 2 from consideration. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent No. 2 was not eligible as he did not have 50% marks in graduation, is also meritless, as in the advertisement the only criteria for appointment laid was “as per UGC regulations”. The regulations reproduced above, would show that the requirement is to have more than 55% marks in master's degree and not that of bachelor's degree. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 is holding a public office in an illegal manner, cannot be accepted, nor selection can be challenged, specially when the CWP No. 14168 of 2007 -4- petitioner himself has taken a chance to compete but failed. For the reasons stated, no ground is made out to interfere with the selection of respondent No. 2. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge December 02, 2009 R.S.