IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4049 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.03.2010 Dr. Jaspreet Singh son of S.Amarjit Singh Saini ….Petitioner versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana through its Registrar and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Ms. Sonia G, Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. R.K Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes. ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner had responded to an advertisement issued by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, for the post of Assistant Professor. The interview letter was issued on 15.04.2006 and he was called for interview on 22.11.2006, also provisionally selected and served with an appointment order on 27.11.2006, but ultimately by an Civil Writ Petition No.4049 of 2007 (O&M) - 2 - office order which is impugned in the writ petition, it was withdrawn. The withdrawal was on account of the fact that subsequent to the advertisement, a clarification had been issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) that the qualification of a pass in National Eligibility Test (NET) was mandatory and no exemption could be granted. A clarification appears to have been sought by the respondent- University namely Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University, which was bifurcated from the Punjab Agricultural University as to whether the exemption to clear the NET could be made initially before appointment with liberty to clear in the first available opportunity for appointment could be allowed or not. To this, the reply by the ICAR on 06.12.2006 was that the exemption was not permissible from NET in any circumstances. It was this communication which was the ground on which the order of appointment was withdrawn. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that at the time when the advertisement was issued on 20.03.2006 and at the time when the letter of interview was issued, there had been a specific exemption which was granted from the pass in NET and all that was made mandatory was that the candidate after being selected shall pass in the first attempt which he had also qualified duly. Any change in the eligibility criteria could not have been made midstream between the date of advertisement and the date of appointment and if such a change of qualification became however necessary and the University wanted to apply a changed policy, they should have only cancelled the advertisement and issue a fresh Civil Writ Petition No.4049 of 2007 (O&M) - 3 - advertisement with the amended qualifications. The further contention was that even as per the statement filed by the ICAR, they have no administrative control over the affairs of the respondent-University and, therefore, directions issued, could not have any binding effect on the University to treat it as the basis for withdrawal of the appointment order. The third line of contention which is advanced by the learned counsel is that the Punjab Agricultural University itself had allowed for persons similar exemptions and persons appointed by the Punjab Agricultural University did not suffer from such disqualification while only the respondent-University had chosen to apply the directives of ICAR to annul the appointment which was made. Consequently, the plea was that the petitioner's appointment ought not to have been withdrawn. He would have otherwise gained entry into the service on the day when it was originally noted and in that process, he had lost his seniority. He had been put on field duty in the next selection process, while he would have obtained a research post if the original appointment had been sustained. 3. The whole case has also to be seen in the context of how the petitioner himself had, subsequent to the impugned order withdrawing the appointment, qualified in NET examination and he had also obtained a fresh appointment with the same University on a subsequent date. Learned counsel refers to several decisions to the effect that there cannot be a change of criterion midstream. I do no see the need to replicate them. The contention that the change in qualification could not be made midstream to alter the eligibility of persons for consideration is a Civil Writ Petition No.4049 of 2007 (O&M) - 4 - well known legal principle meant to ensure consistency in approach and to prevent arbitrariness in the selection process. A change in criterion lowering the qualification to increase the zone of consideration or to keep away some class of persons from consideration without adequate reasons shall always be matters for intervention but a qualification which is required on the basis of some certain directives obtained through a body which sets norms for standards of agriculture research, cannot be said to be such an act that would betray its arbitrary character. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research has been established as a Society “to undertake, aid, promote, and co-ordinate agricultural and animal husbandry education, research and its application in practice, development and marketing in India and its Protectorates and any other areas in or in relation to which the Government of India has and exercises any jurisdiction by treaty, agreement, grant usage, sufferance or other lawful means by all means calculated to increase secure its adoption in every day practice”. The governing body of the Society are eminent persons in the field of agriculture, representatives from commerce and industry and persons who have services in the adjoining countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan. A directive, though may not be binding, a University to be guided by actions of such directives are only salutary and such like bodies are established only to guide the Universities to maintain high global standards of education. In my view, the fact that the ICAR did not have a direct control over the respondent- University will not make a difference, for if the decision for appointment only to persons who had already passed NET came through the ICAR Civil Writ Petition No.4049 of 2007 (O&M) - 5 - recommendations it stands the test of a reasonable exercise of their jurisdiction to issue appointment orders. 4. It should again be noticed that there is no fundamental right to appointment pursuant to a letter so long as the appointment did not take place and the withdrawal of the appointment had taken before the assumption of the charge. The withdrawal of appointment could have been challenged only if there had been any practice of discrimination made by appointment of some other person in his place or if it had been guided by arbitrary consideration that would have fallen foul of Article 14. It is again nobody's case that the withdrawal was made for any whimsical reasons. If the withdrawal of appointment was made, it was based on the directives mentioned above. The petitioner's contention that the persons similarly placed had gained appointment in the Punjab Agricultural University while only the respondent-University had adopted a different yardstick, cannot avail to the petitioner to complain of discrimination. Such a claim would have been possible, if, by the same respondent-University, appointment had been issued to some class of persons even without passing NET. On the other hand, the respondent- University had applied the very same yardstick to every one uniformly. The claim on the basis of discrimination is also therefore not tenable. The issue of loss of seniority is equally without substance and will have meaning only if there was a common cadre amongst the recruitees of Punjab Agricultural University and the respondent-University. The appointee from the respondent-University cannot have an issue of seniority when they are governed by distinct rules. Civil Writ Petition No.4049 of 2007 (O&M) - 6 - 5. The petitioner's challenge to the withdrawal of the letter of appointment, under the circumstances, shall fail and the writ petition shall be dismissed. There shall be no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.03.2010 sanjeev