IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 973 of 2000 Date of Decision: 17.11.2009 Shri Harsh Vardhan Sharma …Petitioner. Versus. Union of India and others .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1. Mr.Vikrant Thakur, vice counsel for respondent No.2. Mr.K.D. Sood, counsel for respondent No.3. Mr.B.C. Negi, counsel for respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This case has a long and chequered history. The petitioner having passed examinations of Shastri, Acharya and M.A. Sanskrit, joined service in the Himachal Saraswati Sanskrit Degree College, Jangla on 30.6.1988. Prior to that he had worked as Acharya in Shri Baba Hardit Gir Ji Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Dasnami Akhara, Sirhind from 1.9.1985 to 30.4.1988. 2 The Union of India framed a scheme for recognition of Sanskrit Colleges. This scheme also contemplated the grant-in-aid to such recognized Colleges on certain terms and conditions including the conditions that the employees should be appointed after proper screening. The Sanskrit Institutions to be eligible for grant-in-aid should be recognized as Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas. It is not disputes that the erstwhile Himachal Sanskrit Degree College, Jangla was duly recognized and thereafter named as the Himachal Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jangla. It is also not disputed that in terms of the conditions of the scheme a Screening committee interviewed all the persons working in the Institution and made recommendations for appointment of the Principal and other lecturers in the Colleges. The Screening Committee did not recommend the name of the petitioner and aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed CWP No.694 of 1990. Stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner and therefore he continued to work as Lecturer in the respondent No.3 Institution. On 29.4.1997 the writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court holding that the second respondent is a society constituted under the Societies Registration Act and hence the writ was not maintainable and the remedy of the petitioner was to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The 3 Central Administrative Tribunal has rejected the O.A. on the ground that in fact the same is not maintainable before it. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which he has basically alleged that he has been left with no remedy since this Court had held that it was the Central Administrative Tribunal which had the jurisdiction to hear this dispute but the Tribunal has held that it has no jurisdiction to decide the matter leaving the petitioner remediless. We may note that in respect of Himachal Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jangla this Court in a recent judgment in LPA No.39 of 2004 titled Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan vs. Pitamber Dass and others, delivered on 10.11.2009 has held as follows: “Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as follows: ”14(2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations or societies owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation or society controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations or societies.” In cases of authorities under the control of the Government of India and in cases of Corporations owned and controlled by the Government of India, it is necessary that the Central Government must issue a notification in terms of Section 14(2) before the service matters relating to the employees of such authority, corporation or body fall within the purview of Administrative Tribunals Act. It is 4 admitted by the parties that as far as the Himachal Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya is concerned, no notification has ever been issued by the Central Government. Therefore, the service matters of the employees of the said Society could have been agitated by filing writ petitions.” It is therefore clear that the writ petition before this Court was maintainable. The judgment delivered in CWP No.694 of 1990 must be held to be per incurium since it has not taken note of the specific provision of Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, we are of the clear cut opinion that the present petition is maintainable. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the stand of the respondents is that the Screening Committee did not find the petitioner suitable for holding the post of lecturer. On the other hand Ms.Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Screening Committee erred in holding that respondent No.4 Sh.Jawahar Lal Sharma was working as Lecturer (Jyotish). According to her he was working as Principal and not as Lecturer (Jyotish) and therefore this post was lying vacant and the petitioner should have been granted regular appointment as Lecturer (Jyotish). The essential qualification for holding the post of lecturer was the prescribed educational qualification with five years teaching experience. The petitioner fulfils the educational qualification but admittedly he did not have five years teaching experience. Therefore, 5 he was not eligible to be appointed as Lecturer when the Screening committee made its recommendations. It is true that one or two persons who were not fully qualified were recommended but the Screening Committee noted that their performance during the interview was found to be excellent. When the petitioner was not eligible as per the Rules, he had no right to claim that he must be appointed as Lecturer. The second fallacy in the contention of the petitioner is that according to the petitioner the only ground for not considering him for appointment as Lecturer was that Jawahar Lal Sharma was shown to be the Lecturer in the subject. It is contended that in fact he was the Principal. This argument is not correct in view of the following observations of the Screening committee: “1.Dr.Jawahar Lal Sharma is working in the College since 31.1.1989 and has been approved by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to hold this post up to the end of the current academic session on ad hoc basis. He has about 7 years of experience of teaching to his credit. The Committee interviewed him and found that he should gain some more experience of educational administration. His performance at the interview was found to be excellent. The Committee, however, recommended that he may be appointed as Lecturer and be given 5 advance increments in the scale of pay attached to the post of Lecturer as applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh in Grade-I Degree Colleges. It was, however, recommended that he may continue to act as a Principal till a regular incumbent is appointed.” It is apparent from these recommendations that Dr.Jawahar Lal Sharma was not appointed as Principal but was appointed as Lecturer though it was recommended that he shall continue to act as a 6 Principal. Therefore, respondent No.4 was basically appointed as Lecturer with additional charge of Principal. Thus he continued to hold the post of Lecturer and the petitioner at that time could not have been appointed against the said post. Thereafter, when the appointment of Dr.Jawahar Lal Sharma as Principal was regularized it was directed that the post of Lecturer (Jyotish) be advertised in Newspapers having wide circulations and appointment be made after following proper procedure. There is nothing wrong in this recommendation. In fact this was the proper procedure followed and when the post of Lecturer fell vacant on the regular appointment of respondent No.4 as Principal it was ordered to be advertised in National paper so that a wider choice is available. This was the proper course to be followed. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. November 17, 2009. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV. Judge.