IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 10, 2011 Sandip Singla and another …Appellants Versus Punjabi University, Patiala and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? X 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? X M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 23.10.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellants and Shri Vikash Jindal-performa respondent holding that they do not possess the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer because they have not passed the National Eligibility Test (NET) which is a pre-requisite as per the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for manning the post of Lecturer. The learned Single Judge has further found that the appointment of the writ petitioner-appellants was temporary in nature and, therefore, there was no necessity for compliance of the principles of natural justice i.e. holding of an inquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- appellants before terminating their services. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants possess the Masters Degree in Computer Application and have obtained 70% and 67% marks respectively, whereas Shri Vikash Jindal-performa L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) respondent is having Bachelor Degree in Engineering (Computer Science) with 67% marks. On 7.10.2001, an advertisement was published in the English Daily ‘The Tribune, inviting candidates for ‘Walk-in-Interview’ for five posts of Lecturer in Computer Application and one post of Maths, to be filled for Punjabi University Guru Kashi College, Damdama Sahib. It has been clearly mentioned in the advertisement that the said posts were upto 31.3.2002 in the pay scale of ` 8000-13500. Regarding qualifications it has been stated that “Qualifications as prescribed by the UGC”. Meaning thereby the candidates must have possessed the same qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Lecturer. The interviews were held on 10.10.2001 at 2.30 p.m. in the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Punjabi University. On 10.10.2001 itself, on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the petitioner-appellants were issued appointment letters as lecturers in anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate. On 27.6.2002, the Principal of the Punjabi University Guru Kashi College, Damdama Sahib passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner- appellants w.e.f. 15.6.2002 pursuant to the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor (P-4). 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-appellants filed CWP No. 9644 of 2002 primarily raising two issues. Firstly, it has been urged by them that their term of appointment was not for a specified period i.e. upto 31.3.2002 because the relevant line in para 5 of the appointment letter was scored off, which means that they were regularly appointed. The other ground pleaded by the petitioner-appellants was that there was no requirement of passing the NET examination because they fulfill the requirement as prescribed by the All India Council for Teaching Education (AICTE). 2 L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) The learned Single Judge repelled both the pleas raised by the petitioner-appellants by observing as under:- “ Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the present case, it is admitted position that petitioners have not passed the NET examination which is essential qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer. This disability cannot be cured simply because the petitioners were allowed to continue for a period of three months beyond 31.3.2002. The termination letter specifically state that their services are being dispensed with because they lack essential qualification. Once services of the petitioners had been dispensed with because they lack essential qualification, it cannot be said that the termination letter was stigmatic in nature. Their appointments being temporary in nature, is a fact which is apparent from the advertisement issued, therefore, no enquiry was essential and they have no right to be heard before passing the impugned order of termination. Taking all these contentions into consideration, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and perused the paper book with his able assistance. In the instant appeal again the same grounds have been sought to be raised, which were raised and rejected by the learned Single Judge. Besides this a new plea which has been raised is that in the subsequent selection and appointments, the respondent University has given appointment on regular basis to such candidates who also 3 L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) have not passed the NET examination but they possess only the qualification prescribed by the AICTE. In that regard, the appellants have placed on record various advertisements such as advertisements dated July 2002 (P-6) 2.8.2005 (P-13), 25.8.2006 (P-14), 13.9.2006 (P-19) and appointment letters and lists of persons along with their qualifications (P-7, P-9, P-10, P-12, P-17, P- 18, P-20 to P-22). However, we regret our inability to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel. From a bare perusal of advertisement dated 7.10.2001 (P-1) and other advertisements, which have now been placed on record, one distinguishing feature is that in the advertisement dated 7.10.2001 it has been emphatically stated that “Qualifications as prescribed by the UGC”, whereas in the other advertisements the qualifications prescribed for various posts of Lecturers has been prescribed as “AICTE or UGC” and/or “AICTE/UGC”. Meaning thereby in the advertisement dated 7.10.2001, the respondent University invited only those candidates who possess the qualifications prescribed by the UGC whereas in others both candidates who either possess the qualifications prescribed by the AICTE or UGC were competent to apply and being selected. It is conceded position that as per the norms prescribed by the UGC, passing of National Eligibility Test (NET) is essential for being appointed as Lecturer. In that regard, we are guided Annexure P-5 placed on record by the appellants, wherein qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering as prescribed by the AICTE and UGC have been shown and reads thus: “The qualifications will be as per AICTE and UGC norms. AICTE: First Class B.E/B.Tech. in Computer Engineering/Technology. 4 L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) Or First Class M.C.A. Degree (Also see footnote**) UGC: Good Academic Record* with at least 55% of the marks or as 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, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from a foreign university. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturer, conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. degree. However, the candidates who have completed M.Phil degrees or have submitted Ph.D. Thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st Dec. 1993, are exempted from appearing the NET examination. If eligible and suitable candidates for the posts of Lecturer are not found available, appointment of System Analyst in the same grade with the following qualifications would be made. Master degree with minimum 55% marks in Computer Applications/Computer Science/Computer Engineering/Information Technology or equivalent. Or B.Tech/B.E. Degree with minimum 55% marks in Computer Science/Computer Engineering/Information Technology. 5 L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) B.E./B.Tech. with 55% marks in Electronics/ Electronics and Instruments/Electronics Communication with 2 years experience in Computing in reputed organization. * Good Academic Record will be determined as under:- Master’s degree in the relevant subject with 55% and second class (50%) in the Bachelor’s degree. Note for AICTE qualifications: For the post of Lecturer for Masters Courses, the candidate having only the Bachelor degree (B.E./B.Tech.) are not eligible. Holder’s of B.E./B.Tech. in Computer Science/Engineering/Technology are eligible for the post of Lecturer for graduate/undergraduate courses. ** In the discipline of Computer Science/Engineering/ Technology in lieu of the “First Class degree at Bachelor’s and/or Master level in the appropriate branch” a first class Master’s Degree in Computer Science/Engineering/Technology together with a First Class Bachelor’s degree in any area of Engineering/ Technology will be acceptable.” 5. It is, thus, obvious that passing of NET examination is a pre-requisite essential qualification under the norms prescribed by the UGC, which the appellants admittedly do not possess. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that they lack the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement dated 7.10.2001 (P-1). 6. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner 6 L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) has made strenuous efforts to persuade us to show that the petitioner-appellants answers alternative qualifications for appointment as Lecturer in Computer Science. According to the learned counsel B.Tech./B.E. degree with minimum 55% marks in Computer Science or Computer Engineering or Information Technology or in Electronics/Electronics and Instruments/Electronics Communication with two years experience in Computing in reputed organization, is also eligible. We asked Mr. Sharma to substantiate his argument and he has referred to additional affidavit filed by the petitioner-appellants which shows that Appellant No. 1 has degree of B.Sc. (General) from Panjab University (P-27) whereas Appellant No. 2 is an Art Graduate from Punjabi University, Patiala (P-31). Accordingly, the argument raised by Mr. Sharma could not be substantiated and we are unable to appreciate the contention raised and the same is accordingly rejected. 7. The other grounds raised by the appellants concerning regular appointment of the petitioner and non- compliance of principles of natural justice requires no detailed discussion and we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is well founded and. We have no hesitation to uphold the same. 8. As a sequel to the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant appeal warranting its admission and interference in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The instant appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing 7 L.P.A. No. 1871 of 2010 (O&M) any orders on various applications filed along with the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 10, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 8