0 6 $ I r o 7 / Q @ y u m B a u m ( @ I N T H E H O N ' B L E H I G H C O U R T O F C H H A T I ' I S G A R H A T B I L A S P U R ( C . G . ) w . P . s N o . § . ( $ § . . . . . . 2 0 1 0 K P E T I T I O N E R : B e n i r a m D e w a n g a n A g e d a b o u t 4 1 Y e a r s , W W S / o S h r i D u k h u r a m D e w a n g a n ’ R / o - R a m j i Y a d a v G a l i , N e a r . C h h a t t i s g a r h P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n S h a n k a r N a g a r R o a d , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) 3 . P t . R a v i s h a n k a r S h u k l a U n i v e r s i t y T h r o u g h i t s R e g i s t r a r R a i p u r ( C . G . ) P E T I T I O N U N D E R A R T I C L E 2 2 6 O F T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N O F I N D I A F O R I S S U A N C E O F A P P R O P R I A T E W R I T S O F M A N D A M U S A N D i C E R T I O R A R I A N D F O R O T H E R S U I T A B L E W R I T S A N D D I R E C T I O N S : \ T r a n s f o r m e r , H a r i n a g a r , K a t u l b o a r d D u r g ( C . G . ) V E R S U S R E S P O N D E N T S : 1 . “ S t a t e o f C h h a t t i s g a r h T h r o u g h S e c r e t a r y H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t , D . K . S . B h a w a n M a n t r a l a y a , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) "N, -fr HI6H COUKT OF CHHATHS6ARH AT BILASPW DIVISIONBENCH: HON'BLESHRII.M. QUDDUSIA HOhrBLE SHRI N.K. A6ARWAL; JJ. W.P.fay NO.S770/2010 PETinONERS RESPON&ENTS PETTTIONER Devendra Kumar Midira & ano-ther Vs Stateof Chhatt-isgarh & others W.P.(s)NoS946/Z010 Smt. Yashaswini Tiwari Vs RESPOND6NTS State of Chhatt-isgarh A ethers W.P.fa) No.5864/2010 PETITIQNER Benirom Dewangon Vs RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others W.P.(dNo.^6/2010 PETmONERS ftESPON&EhfTS PETmONER RESPOND6NTS Udita Shrivastwa & another Vs State of ChhatTisgarh <S others & W P.fsl No 6744^:010 Vs Rtichna Chaturvedi S'tute of Oihattisgarh <S others Mr. Mateen Siddique, Adv. Mr. A. t)ayal Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Y. Chaturvedt, Adv. Mr. Y.S. Thakur,Dy. Adv. Senerat Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Adv. Mr. R.K. Mishra, Adv. with Mr. 5.5. Rajput, Adv. Por the petitioners in W.P. (s) N0.5770/2010& 5864/10. For the petitioner in W.P. (s) No.5946/2010. For the petitioners in Wf. (s) No.5886/2010. For 1he petitioner in W.P. (s) No.6744/2010. For the State of Chhattisgarh For respondent Pubiic Service Commission. For Re^ondent Pt. Ravi Shankjar Shukla University in WJ'. (s) N0.5864/2010& S886/2010. ORALORDER (Passed on2rhJuly 20t^ PogeZofS I.M.Quddusi.J 1. Theabove writ petitionsare being dispo%d of by this common order as in these petitions the petitioners, whose c<mdida'hire far the post of Assistunt Professor has been rejected on fhe around ttiat they do not have requisi-te qualification in the relevant subject, have prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner^ as eligible for the post of AssistEBit Professor in the eoncerned subject. 2. For the purpose of •this order, reference woutd be made to -the facts and documents in W.P. (s) No.S946/2010 (5mt. yashnswtni Tiwari Vs. State of C.6. & others). 3. Briefly stated. facts of the case are -that req»ondent-PublicService Commission published an advertisement inviting applications from the etigible cqndidates for oppointment on •the pos1s of Assistant Professors ui different fiovernment Colleges of the State of Chhcrttisgarh. As per educational qualification clause of the advertisement, a candidate, who has passed NET examination cpnducted by CSER/U0C or SLET exiunination conducted by -Hie Stnte Sovernment, is only eiigibte to apply for the said post. 1-lowever, as per second proviso to Clause 3.1 (b) of the advertisement, the sdid conditwn is not applicabte *o a aindickxte having M. Phil degree in the concemedsubject. The petitioner being eligible, asshe possessed decree of M. Phil. in Comparative Linguistics, dlsoapplied for the post of Assistant Professor (Sanskrit) and appeared m the examination conducted by the respondent concemed on 29.11.2009. After comptetion of written examination, the respondent-State publidied the list of successfut <& unajccessful candictates with reasons. The petitioner was surprised to know that her nome appears in the list of unsuccessful ccndidates and reason given by the respondent-PSC for fhis is'thatshehasnot ob'tained M. Phit. begree m the concemed subject iA. Sdmskrit and •therefore die isn&t entitted for exemption. ^^-••-•w^^-^ '^•^'"\,.^^:-! '^. \££\:~"^\ '''^••'fe-^y 'vas.t'^.-s^'' Poge 3 of 5 4. Referring to Annexure P-S, urtiich is a lefter dated 25.6.2008 issued by #ie &epartroent ef Comparative Longuages A Culture, Barkatutlah University, Bhopal, it wos argued by •the learned counsel for the petitioner that admission of the petittoner in the course of Master in Phitosophy (Lin9uistic) is based on the subject ta which •riie petitioner did her post-graduatwn i.e. Sanskrit, and therefore, the respondents Aould have considered •the degree in M. Phil. in Comparative Lin9uistics equivalent to the degree in .M. Phit. (Sonskrit) and shoutd not have rejected Itie candickiture of •riie petitioner on the ground that the candidate hotding JKl. Phil (Linguistic) degree amnot be considered to be eligtble for the post of AssistantProfessor in the concerned subject. 5. On the other hond, learned coimset appearing for the respondents vehementty argued that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for-tfie post of Assistont Professor (Sanskrit) as she did not possess M.Phil. de9ree in the atncemedsubject. Leamed counsel further submits •that condition prescribed in Clause 3.1 (b) i,e. of passing. of examination of NET/SLET, was retaxed only to those candidates who are possessing M. Phil. or Wt.E). degree in the concerned sttbject. 6. We have heard leamedcounsel for the parties. We have perused the records of the case. 7. Entry-66 of List I-Union List-of Seyenth Schedute of <the Constilution of India provides for co-ordination and determinatton of stouictards in institutions for higher education or reseapch <»nd scientific and technicat instilutions. Thus, it is cteor that the University ©rantCommission Regukrt'ions woufd be followed m all the recruitments/appointments in the universities. 6. Jjnthe letter dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Oepartment of Comparative Languages & Culture, ' Bapktttulloh University, Bhopal, it is mentioned that;- i-f'-.A'A''"^;^ jftf' ^ \ trlSaia 1 E.; ' s. "S 3 %.~,,,/"'^ £ ^- Page4of5 "Since M. Phil. is a ftesearch programme, it is -therefore recommended that M. Phit. dieypes »comparative linguistic diould be considered equivalent to the M. Phil. degree in the Goncerned subject in which the candidate has obtained the P.©.Degpee. In view of -the above, the cnse of AAs. Yashaswini Mishra, who has obtained M.Phit. Oegree in Comparative Linguistic. may be considered equivalent to AA.Phil in Sanskrit asshe had been admitted to •this course on Ifee basis of her post groduate degree in Siinskrit." 9. Considering the natuw of dispute inyoh/ed in these petilions, we feel thut the University 6rant Commission, wAiose ftegututions are to be followed in all the recruitments/appointments !in the universities, would be the better judge to consider the question as to whertier •the degree of tA. Phit.in Comparotive Linguistic / Altied Subjects would makea candidate eligible for the post of Assistant Ppofessor, as per norms of -rtie UGC Regulations prevailing at the time of issuance of advertisement. Therefore, we direct the petitioner (s) to make detailed representation atongwith necessary documents before the reqiondent No.l-State, within two weeks from today, raising all the grievances, as raised m the writ petition. On such representalwn being na.de, the respondent-State shatt, os early as possibte, forward it to -rtie University ©rontCommission seeking cktrification on the question involved. The Univer'sity ©rontCommisslon, in tum, rfialt consider and convey its clarification/opinion regardmggrant of exemption to the candidates possessing degree of M. il.in Comparative Linguistic/Allied Subjects treating H- to beequivalent to concerned subject for the post of Assistant Profeswr in the concemed sub^cts, as per norms of Ihe U6C Regufatwns prevuiting at -the time of issuan<a of advert-isement, to respondent No.l, expeditiously, preferdbly within a periodof one month from the date of receipt of communication from the State SoveRnment. After 9 .?' -^r; Poge 5 of 5 receipt of 1he clarification / opinion from the University ©nant Commission, The respondent-State shatl take decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordonce wi-lti law. lO.Subject to above bbservations, the writ petitions ore disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. A copy of this order be placed inother connecteelwritpetitions. 12^&rtified copy withm two days._ Sdf- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge