C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 Date of Decision. 11.03.2010 Dr. (Mrs.) Manju Kumari daughter of Sh. Randhir Singh, 153/22, Vikas Nagar, Rohtak ........Petitioner Versus Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak through its Registrar and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate for respondent No.9. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The petitioner challenges through this writ petition the selection and appointment of the 9th respondent to the post of Lecturer in Hindi in the 2nd respondent College. The comparative grading of the petitioner and the 9th respondent obtains importance in this case for, admittedly the criteria for selection to the post had C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -2- been evolved giving out six parameters as follows: I Academic Records (see Point No.1 in Notes Master's level degree) 20 Maximum Marks Petitioner's (Dr. Manju Kumari) marks 9th respondent's (Ms. Anju Deswal) marks (i) Marks obtained 55% being minimum qualification 5 marks (ii) 56-70% marks 1 mark for each additional percentage point. Minimum 20 marks shall be awarded to 70% and above. Above 5% shall be rounded of to next percentage point and below. 5 shall be rounded of the lower percentage point 10 16 II. Good Academic Record 10 maximum marks (i) 1st Division in all three lower examinations i.e. B.A., Pre. or +2 and matric prior to MA/M.SC./M.Com 10 Marks 5 7 (ii) 1st division in two lower examinations i.e. B.A., Pre. Or +2 and matric prior to MA/M.Sc/M.Com 7 marks (iii) 1st division in one lower examinations i.e. B.A.; Pre or +2 and matric prior to MA/M.Sc/M.Com. 5 marks III. Weightage for additional/Higher qualifications 15 maximum marks a) Ph.D+NET+M.Phil 15 marks 12 12 b) Ph.D+NET or Ph.D+M.Phil 12 marks c) NET+M.Phil 11 marks d) Ph.D 10 marks e) NET 8 marks f) M.Phil 7 marks IV. Teaching Experience 10 maximum marks (i) 5 years and above 10 marks 10 0 (ii) 4 years 8 marks (iii) 3 years 6 marks (iv) 2 years 4 marks (v) 1 year 2 marks V Co-curricular Activities (see point No.II in notes) 10 maximum marks 2 3 C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -3- (i) University Youth Festival (only if attained prize. Not participation only). 02 marks (ii) Debates (if attained position in inter college debates) 02 marks (iii) NCC 06 marks a) C. Certificate 06 marks b) B. Certificate 04 marks (iv) NSS (Camp of 10 days at least) & Scouts/Guide (Raijya Puraskar) 03 marks V Sports (only open championship) (International) 10 marks 5 0 a) position 10 marks b) participation 09 marks (National) a) Position 8 marks b) Participation 7 marks (State) Position 5 marks VI Interview 25 marks 14 23 Grand Total 100 58 61 2. The first objection on behalf of the 9th respondent is that the petitioner was disqualified for being considered to the post, she being over-aged even at the time when she was working on an ad hoc post. She was, therefore, not entitled for consideration. This point is taken up first since the consideration one way or the other will lead us to whether the case would require to be examined on all the other objections as well. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary of the Government of Haryana, Education Department, Chandigarh had served a memo to all the Principals of Aided Colleges and to the 1st respondent-University and others, setting out the guidelines for relaxation in age for recruitment to Aided Colleges. In particular, he makes reference to the following in his C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -4- letter:- “The Government has also considered the matter regarding grant of age relaxation to candidates working as Lecturers in various private Govt. Aided Colleges on ad hoc basis. Now the Government has taken a sympathetic view and has decided that those Lecturers who are working on ad hoc basis against sanctioned aided posts without any gap or break in service would be granted relaxation in upper age limit for applying for the posts in their respective categories. This relaxation would be equal to the number of years of service (without break) put in by the candidate against an aided post on ad hoc basis as on the last date of application. The benefit of this relaxation will be applicable only to candidates who are actually working on an aided post on ad hoc basis on the late date of application.” 3. The contention of the learned counsel is that the relaxation was applicable to her, in view of the fact that she was already holding an ad hoc post and it was immaterial that even for the ad hoc post, the age had been relaxed. The instructions were applicable to the entire class of persons, who were holding ad hoc post as a one time measure following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others 2006(4) SCC 1. The Higher Education Commission, Haryana has also clarified in his letter to the Principal that the period of 23 months served at Kanya Maha Vidyalaya could be C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -5- excluded and all relaxation could be given. Under the circumstances, I uphold the contention of the petitioner that she was entitled to relaxation on the basis of the aforesaid memo. 4. The issue would, therefore, require to be considered on the relative grading of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent on certain areas of controversy. The first contention of the petitioner was that the application form, which required filling in the details of extra curricular activities provided for participation in NSS (camp of 10 days at least) and Scouts/Guide (Rajya Puraskar). The petitioner would contend that she had not appended any testimonial for her participation in NSS only because she was under the impression that only a person that had participated both in NSS and Scouts/Guide would be entitled to a grading on that score. According to her, the 9th respondent had merely participated in NSS and she had been assigned three marks. The petitioner had also participated in a NSS Programme and if the 9th respondent was entitled for consideration of three marks for her participation in NSS alone, she was also entitled to be awarded similar marks. If, on the other hand, the 9th respondent could not have been awarded three marks for NSS and if those marks are deducted, her tally would fall to be at par with the petitioner and she being elder was entitled to be selected as per the selection criteria. The petitioner would rely on NSS Training and Orientation Centre Course Certificate issued by the Training Coordinator and Director to the effect that “she had completed the orientation/refresher course for NSS Programme Officers held from 17.06.1996 to 26.06.1996 at C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -6- Palampur" as her participation in NSS Camp. 5. The contention on behalf of the Selection Committee and the selected candidate-9th respondent is that the requirement was a participation in NSS Camp or Scouts/Guide and the reference to "and" should be seen as "or". If that is the contention on behalf of the college, it would only be fair that the petitioner's explanation as to why she did not make any reference about her participation in NSS in her application form as fully justified. The genuineness of the certificate filed by the petitioner itself is not in dispute. However, the objections of the respondents are still that the requirement in the application is participation in NSS Camp (emphasis supplied) but the petitioner was not a participant in a "NSS Camp" but she had only participated in a "NSS Orientation/Refresher Course for NSS Programme Officers." The Camp according to the respondent is different from an Orientation/Refresher Course. I am unable to subscribe to the limited understanding of a training camp. The ordinary meaning of the word "camp" is (Webster's Dictionary, Concise 2002 Edition: “ground on which tents or temporary accommodation is erected; the occupants of this, such as holiday makers or troops; the supporters of a particular cause; (to lodge on a camp; to pit tents)." It will be, in my view, therefore, unrealistic to restrict the idea of NSS camp only as obtaining for students and disentitle a person, who undergoes an Orientation or Refresher Course for NSS Programme Officers, to claim that the person has also participated in NSS Camp. If the restriction was to be so construed, it must C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -7- have been specific that such participation must have been as a student's participation and not as a Programme Officer's Orientation. This distinction as sought to be canvassed by the respondent is even absurd for, if even a mere participation as a student would merit consideration for awarding of three marks, a participation in a programme of orientation or refresher course for a Programme Officer, who will be in a position to even train the students, cannot be denied such benefit. If at all, a programme that trains the trainers cannot be at a lower level than the trainee himself. The petitioner would, therefore, require consideration of an award of three marks and the fact that she had not submitted proof along with her application is duly explained by the fact that the application itself was ambiguous and it had used an expression "and" to mean "or", as admitted by the College itself. 6. The 9th respondent questions some of the marks awarded to the petitioner. Although she has not herself filed a writ petition challenging the marks awarded to the petitioner. I still permitted the respondents to urge such a contention for, after all, the petitioner had not been selected and the 9th respondent, who was selected could not be stated to be an aggrieved person to challenge the award of marks by an independent writ petition. It shall be perfectly permissible for the 9th respondent to show that certain marks awarded to the petitioner ought not to have been awarded, since the ultimate selection could be only on a relative consideration of the marks awarded to the contesting candidates. 7. The contention on behalf of the 9th respondent is that the C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -8- petitioner had been awarded 10 marks towards teaching experience when he did not have the requisite number of years of experience to be awarded with 10 marks. The marks to be awarded for teaching experience as indicated in the tabular column referred to above would show that 10 marks could be awarded only for persons, who had a teaching experience of 5 years and above. The petitioner had only teaching experience of 4 years and 11½ months and she had falsely relied on a certificate to make up for the deficiency of 5 years by falsely alleging that she had worked between the period 10.01.1991 to 15.03.1991. According to the respondent, the experience was never claimed in the application form or in the petition and during that time, the petitioner was actually a M.Phil student in MD Univeristy and the results had been declared only on 30.03.1991. She could not have been, therefore, a Lecturer at that time. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would respond to this contention by urging that she had already completed the examination at that time and even before the results were given, she had been working in the college. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent would submit that the petitioner nowhere stated that she was working during the said period even before the results were announced. Even in the application giving her bio-data, the petitioner had nowhere stated that she had been working from 10.01.1991 to 15.03.1991. On the other hand, the teaching experience merely refers to her working as Lecturer in Hindu DAV Girls College, Khosli, Rewari on ad hoc basis on academic year to year basis i.e. C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -9- w.e.f.16.08.1993 to 15.03.1994, 01.08.1994 to 12.03.1995, 01.08.1995 to 16.03.1996 and 09.08.1996 to 15.03.1997. I also find that the alleged working experience for the period from 10.01.1991 to 15.03.1991 is nowhere stated and as contended by the respondents, the petitioner is attempting now to bolster up the years of experience to a period above five years to justify the 10 marks awarded to her. If this period is removed out of reckoning, it will be seen that she could not have been awarded 10 marks and she could have been awarded only 8 marks. 8. Even apart from questioning the marks awarded to the petitioner towards the teaching experience, learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent would contend that the respondent had been awarded zero marks for teaching experience when she was entitled for being awarded with 2 marks on the basis that she had already produced proof of the fact that she had 10 months teaching experience coupled with two sessions of teaching experience of correspondence classes and they had been mentioned in her application form. Learned counsel would place reliance on UGC norms issued by the Director, Distance Education vide his letter dated 18.03.2009 that converted DDE teaching experience, by working at PG Study Centre University College, Rohtak during the session 2001-2002 for 81 hours and at the same Study Centre during yet another session for 120 hours, totalling 201 hours in both sessions as equivalent to teaching experience for 12 weeks and 9 hours. If this was to be added, the 9th respondent would have one year one month's experience before the last date of submission of C.W.P. No.1620 of 2009 -10- the application. On an overall consideration, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to three additional marks for her participation in NSS and would suffer a deduction of two marks for experience less than five years. Overall, the petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to an additional one mark, which will make her tally at 59. The 9th respondent would, on the other hand, be entitled to an additional two marks for teaching experience, which would take her tally to 63. The selection of the 9th respondent is correct. The petitioner cannot claim herself to be wrongly rejected in comparison to the 9th respondent and the selection of the 9th respondent is upheld. 9. The writ petition challenging the selection of the 9th respondent is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 11, 2010 Pankaj*