LPA No. 2005 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 2005 of 2001 Date of decision: July 27, 2011 Guru Jambheswar University Hisar ...Appellant Versus Anupam Vashista and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the appellant None for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. The instant Letter Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by Guru Jambheswar University Hisar (respondent No.1 in the writ petition) against the order dated 23.4.2001, vide which the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition No. 1699 of 2000 filed by Anupam Vashista, writ petitioner and quashed the following decision/order:- (i) Decision dated 21.1.1999 of the Executive Council and that part of the report of the sub Committee, which was relied upon and accepted by the Executive Council, while passing that order. LPA No. 2005 of 2001 2 (ii) Order dated 10.12.1999 (Annexure P/15), vide which appointment letter issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 for the post of lecturer in the Department of Business Management (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department'), in pursuance of the posts advertised, vide Annexure P/1, was withdrawn. (iii) The report/comments of the experts, which were relied upon by respondent No.3 before issuance of order Annexure P/15; and direction were issued to the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3, allowing the petitioner to join as lecturer in the Department as a consequence of his selection and appointment, vide letter dated 11.8.1998, on the basis of his merit in terms of his experience and qualifications and allowing him to join as such within 8 days of the date of passing of the order. The appellant-University, after sanction of the posts of the Lecturers, Professors and Readers etc. issued advertisement No. 1/1998 (Annexure P/1) in various national newspapers for filling up the same. The qualifications and experience for those posts were not listed in the advertisement and it was mentioned that detailed qualification could be requisitioned by post on payment of `50/- through demand draft. The following qualifications and experience were prescribed for the post of lecturer in the Department:- “Ph.D or Fellows of IIMS, ICA, ICWA or Master's Degree plus professional experience of two years. Specialization-Quantitative Techniques/Operations LPA No. 2005 of 2001 3 Research/Production Management/Computer Applications.” The petitioner applied for that post by submitting his application, in which he described his experience and qualifications. The interview was held by the Selection Committee, which was constituted as per Statute No. 20 (1) of the Guru Jambheshwar University Act. As per that statute, the Selection Committee was to consist of:- “i) The Vice-Chancellor i-a) The Pro Vice-Chancellor ii) The Dean of the Faculty iii) The Chairperson of the Department concerned, if he is a Professor; iv) The senior most professor in the department except where otherwise decided by the Vice-Chancellor; v) Three persons in the case of Professor and two persons in the case of Reader and Lecturer, not connected with the university, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor from a panel of names, drawn up by the Academic Council, on the basis of their special knowledge of, or interest in the subject with which the Professor/Reader/Lecturer will be concerned. Provided that the Vice Chancellor may add more names to the panel in special circumstances and report these to Academic Council at its next meeting. 2) The panels of names drawn up by the Academic Council and additions, if any, made thereto by the Vice- Chancellor, as provided in the Statutes, shall be subject LPA No. 2005 of 2001 4 to approval of the Chancellor. Provided that in case one of the experts fails to turn up at the Selection Committee, after accepting the invitation to attend the same the proceedings of the meeting shall not be invalidated.” He was found qualified from all angles and eligible for the post of lecturer and the interview letter was issued only thereafter. At the time of the interview, he was having with him the original certificates/testimonials in support of his educational qualifications and experience. He was selected as lecturer and accordingly the appointment letter dated 11.8.1998 was issued to him, after the recommendations of the Selection Committee were accepted and finalized by the Executive Council. However, his appointment was stayed by the appellant-University by sending telegram dated 13.8.1998 (Annexure P/9), as a consequence of the ban imposed by the Government, vide letter dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure P10). On 13.5.1999, he received a show cause notice (Annexure P/11) that he did not possess the relevant professional experience of two years in the prescribed specialization, as per the report of the Committee appointed by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 12.11.1998, which was entrusted with the work of examination of details of all the selections/appointments approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 11.8.1998. He sent his reply dated 20.5.1999 (Annexure P/12) to that show cause notice, alleging therein that he was having the requisite experience of two years in the prescribed specialization. He prayed for personal hearing which was afforded to him and he appeared before respondent No.3 and gave the details of his qualifications etc. Respondent No.3 passed the order dated LPA No. 2005 of 2001 5 10.12.1999 (Annexure P/15), vide which the appointment letter was withdrawn. According to the petitioner, after doing his M.A. (Economics), he worked with Capital Farms & Estates Pvt. Ltd. from 17.2.1993 to 16.4.1995 as Manager (Finance), regarding which experience certificate (Annexure P/2) was issued to him. After doing his MBA degree, he joined R.R. Financial Consultants Ltd. as Research Analyst, regarding which experience certificate (Annexure P/3) was issued. By virtue of the duties performed by him in those two concerns, he was having the requisite professional experience. He was having in-depth experience and vast knowledge in the management area. He also studied these specialization while doing his M.A. and M.B.A. He was performing quantitative and technical analysis of various investment options for the farm's clients, calculating return on investment, making projection of results of various companies and thereby recommending sale or purchase of various shares. He was also involved in research department. He faired extremely well in the interview and answered all the questions put to him by the members of the Selection Committee. It was only in a case where recommendations of the Selection Committee were not accepted by the Executive Council that the case was to be referred to the Chancellor. After the recommendations of the Selection Committee were accepted by the Executive Council, there was no occasion for the respondents to refer the case to the Chancellor. The letter dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure P/10) was issued by the State Government in haste. In reply to the show cause notice, he specifically refuted the allegations to the effect that he was not having the requisite experience and qualifications. The requirement, as per the advertisement, was LPA No. 2005 of 2001 6 “professional experience of two years” and not “experience of two years in the prescribed specialization”. Even during the personal hearing before the Chancellor, he made his position clear that he was possessing requisite qualifications and experience and also produced the relevant documents. The Chancellor was influenced by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar, who were also present at that time. During that hearing, he felt as if he was being subjected to interview by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar than the Chancellor, who himself was required to decide the matter independently. The Chancellor accepted the report of the experts while passing the order withdrawing his appointment letter. That opinion was sought at his back and was never put to him. The stand of the petitioner was controverted by the present appellant-respondent No. 1 and the other respondents, who filed separate written statements but taking up the same pleas. They contended that at the time of releasing the grants and sanctioning of posts in the University, the government of Haryana had been emphasizing that the appointments in the University must be only need based in view of the financial constraints. After the advertisement in question was issued, the University was cautioned by the State Government, vide letter dated 19.6.1998 that only those posts be filled up, which were of immediate necessity and for which there was strong justification. Before issuance of the appointment letters, the Registrar, who was the Secretary of the Executive Council, had made suggestions for examining the qualifications of the selected candidates, in view of the letter dated 5.5.1998 issued by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana. A ban was imposed on filling up of teaching/non-teaching posts in contravention of the instructions issued from time to time by the State LPA No. 2005 of 2001 7 Government, vide letter dated 12.8.1998. It was also pointed out in that letter that qualifications for teaching posts are being ignored while making the selections. Thereafter, telegrams were issued by the University to the selected candidates that their appointments have been stayed. On 12.11.1998, a meeting of the Executive Council took place and in view of the said letter, Sub committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, Commissioner and Secretary Technical Education Department, Dean Academic Affairs and the Registrar was constituted for examining the appointments made against the teaching as well as non-teaching posts including the appointment of the petitioner. This Sub Committee examined in detail the qualifications and experience etc. of the selected candidates and found that a large number of selections suffered from one short coming or the other and that in some of the cases qualifications prescribed were vague and had not been fixed keeping in view the requirements of the courses/departments and that in some cases, the selection process and the interviews were hurried through and some ineligible candidates had been selected. The report submitted by the Sub Committee was approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 21.1.1999. The Sub Committee did not find the selection of the petitioner in order for the reasons given in the report. It was also mentioned in the report that the comments of the experts were obtained before recording the conclusion. The so called experience of the petitioner was not found up to the mark and he was not found eligible for the post under reference. Candidates with better qualifications were available. Before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, he was given an opportunity of personal hearing by the Chancellor. It was only thereafter LPA No. 2005 of 2001 8 that his appointment letter was withdrawn. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by counsel for the appellant that the duly appointed Sub Committee recorded a specific finding that the petitioner was not possessing the requisite experience for the post for which he had applied. He was not eligible for the post and, as such, his appointment was cancelled. No findings could have been recorded by learned Single Judge in favour of the petitioner merely on the ground that the selections made by the Selection Committee were approved by the Executive Council. The then Vice Chancellor was in a hurry to appoint ineligible persons to the teaching posts and when that matter came to notice of the State Government, a ban was imposed. A person not possessing the requisite qualification has no right to hold the post and even if the appointment letter is issued, the same can be withdrawn. That aspect of the case was never gone into by the learned Single Judge. The selection of a candidate not possessing the requisite qualification or experience can certainly be set aside by the competent authority. On the other hand, it was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that after looking into the case from all the angles, the learned Single Judge came to a correct conclusion that the documents furnished by the petitioner were duly scrutinized and the Selection Committee after satisfying itself that he possessed the requisite qualification and experience, selected him to the post. There was no basis for the Sub Committee for coming to the conclusion that he was not having the requisite experience and that report could not have formed the basis for the cancellation of his appointment. There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned order LPA No. 2005 of 2001 9 recorded by learned Single Judge. The petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Business Management. As per the advertisement, he was required to possess the above said qualifications and experience. It is not disputed that he was M.A. Economics and MBA. He annexed the experience certificate with the writ petition as Annexures P-2 and P-3. As per the Experience Certificate (Annexure P-2), he worked in Capital Farms & Estates Private Limited as Manager Finance from 17.2.1993 to 16.4.1995. That experience was for more than two years. As per the Experience Certificate (Annexure P-3), he worked as Research Analyst in P.R. Financial Consultants Limited, New Delhi, from 22.5.1997 to 26.4.1999. Portion of the report of the Sub Committee pertaining to the case of the present petitioner is reproduced before:- “ XXX XXX XXX XXX (ii) The other selected candidate is Sh. Anupam Vashist. He has done MA (Economics) and MBA. After doing M.A., he has worked as Manager in a private limited company and after MBA as Research Analyst in a financial company (in R.R.Fianancial Consultant Limited, New Delhi). He does not have requisite experience in the field of the specializations mentioned in the advertisement. He has also not enclosed experience certificates. Besides, none of the prescribed specializations has been included in para 12 of the application form in which the candidate was required to mention the same. LPA No. 2005 of 2001 10 (4) The applications were screened by Dean, Faculty of Management G.J.U. According to him, all the candidates who had Master's degree in Management or allied fields i.e. Commerce, Economics, Statistics etc. with two years Post Master's degree experience in teaching or industry were called for interview. The experience could be in any area. The legal Advisor of the University has, however, opined that the qualifications are vague and leave wide scope for interpretation in any manner to suit anybody. The qualification should have been made specific so that all candidates with appropriate background could have also applied. The Sub-Committee is of the view that the experience should be in the field of prescribed specialization. It also agrees with the Legal Advisor that the qualifications were vague. If it was intended to have persons with Statistics, Economics/Commerce also, the qualification should have been fixed accordingly so that candidates with degrees in such subjects could have also applied. A large number of candidates with M.A. in Economics and Statistics and having requisite background of Quantitative Techniques and Operation Research are available for appointment as Lecturer. Since the qualifications were not prescribed properly, the University could not get sufficient number of applications from such candidates. (5) As per the information provided by Dean, Faculty of Management Studies, Students of MBA (General) have a load of 15 hours per week of computer related course. The students of LPA No. 2005 of 2001 11 specialized MBA have 9 hours per week work load of computer related course. For such load, one teacher having requisite expertise in computer applications is required. The qualifications for such a teacher have to be different, i.e. he must have degree in computer application and relevant professional experience. (6) The UGC had recommended the restructuring of the Management Departments a few months back. In its meeting held on 12.11.1998, the Executive Council has decided to merge some like minded departments. In case of MBA Departments, it was to consider the restructuring after studying the pattern of Faculty of Management Science of Delhi University, Faculty of Management of Punjab University and Management Development Institute, Gurgaon. Final decision is yet to be taken. After restructuring, the teaching gaps may change and the University may need teachers with different specializations. (7) In view of the position discussed above in the foregoing paras, the Committee finds that the selected candidates are not eligible. Besides, the qualifications were vague. The teaching requirements would also change with the restructuring of the Departments.” While making the observation that a large number of candidates with M.A. in Economics and Statistics and having requisite back ground of Quantitative Techniques and Operations Research are available for appointment as Lecturer, the members of the Sub Committee failed to take notice of the fact that the petitioner was also MA in Economics. No opinion of the expert in the concerned field was obtained as to whether the LPA No. 2005 of 2001 12 experience possessed by the petitioner was the prescribed experience or not. The Sub committee itself had come to the conclusion that his experience was not in the field of prescribed specialization. None of the members was expert in that field. It was for the Selection Committee to assess the experience of the petitioner and as to whether any part of that experience was in the specialized branch. In the absence of any opinion of the expert, the Sub Committee could not have substituted its opinion for the opinion of the Selection Committee. It was on imaginary and flimsy grounds that the Sub Committee recorded a finding against the petitioner. That could not have been made a ground for cancellation of his appointment. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in that order. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE July 27, 2011 prem/paramjit