IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5171 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 22, 2011. Lalit Sood .....Petitioner versus Panjab Univesity, Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.1.2011 (conveyed on 4.2.2011) (Annexure P-26) whereby his selection and placement at Sr.No.1 in order of merit for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the respondent-University based upon the recommendations made by the High Powered Selection Committee, has been reviewed and set-aside on the plea that he does not fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondent-university to appoint him as Assistant Registrar with all consequential benefits. 2] The Panjab University, Chandigarh vide advertisement No.6/2009 (Annexure P-9) invited applications for the posts of Deputy C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 2 Registrar/Assistant Registrars prescribing different qualifications for the 'open selection' and the 'internal candidates'. Since the controversy in the case in hand pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar through 'open selection', the relevant qualifications as incorporated in the advertisement, are reproduced as below:- “.....(XXII) Assistant Registrar-3 (Gen.-2, SC-1) 1-at SSGPURC, Hoshiarpur and 2 at Chandigarh). Pay Scale: Rs.7220-220-8100-275-10300-340-11600 plus allowances admissible under the University rules. Qualifications: (1) Master's degree with at least 50% marks from a recognized university or its equivalent qualification with 5 years administrative experience in a university or any other Institute/Organization of repute. OR Bachelor's degree with at least 50% marks from a recognized university or its equivalent with 7 years administrative experience in a University or any other Institute/Organization of repute......” 3] There is not much controversy that the Selection Committee headed by the Vice Chancellor of the University interviewed 40 candidates including the petitioner and after taking into consideration their “qualifications, experience and performance in the interview”, the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner at No.1 amongst general category candidates, one Bachan Singh (Schedule Caste category) at No.2 followed by Mrs.Mahesh Johar at Sr.No.3 in the order of merit and two more candidates in the waiting list. The selection was duly approved by the Syndicate of the university in its meeting held on 3.9.2010 but soon C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 3 thereafter the Vice Chancellor is said to have detected and pointed out that two out of the three selected candidates including the petitioner were not in possession of the requisite “administrative experience”. The Syndicate then in its meeting held on 26.9.2010 modified its previous decision and cancelled the selection of the petitioner and Bachan Singh on having found them ineligible. Consequently, the appointment order was also cancelled. The petitioner meanwhile, represented the respondent- University but finding no response, he approached this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19788 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 8.11.2010 (corrected on 23.12.2010), setting-aside the order cancelling the petitioner's appointment being violative of the principles of natural justice but with liberty to the respondent-university to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 4] The petitioner was thereafter given personal hearing by a Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor on 30.12.2010. However, disagreeing with the petitioner's claim, the university vide the impugned speaking order dated 25.1.2011 has reiterated its decision that the petitioner is ineligible for the post of Assistant Registrar. 5] Still aggrieved, the petitioner has again approached this Court. 6] The solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner possesses the requisite “administrative experience” in a University or any other Institute/Organization of repute which may be relevant in the context of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Assistant Registrar? C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 4 7] The petitioner completed his 10+2 qualification in June, 2000 and is said to have joined a private organization as a Steno-Typist on 2.8.2001 and worked there till 31.7.2003. The petitioner meanwhile completed his B.A. Degree through correspondence study from Panjab University, Chandigarh in June, 2003. The petitioner thereafter joined the Punjab State Human Rights Commission as a Steno-typist w.e.f. 21.10.2003 and worked there till 31.3.2005 followed by his selection and appointment as Stenographer Grade-III in the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, at Ambala on 1.4.2005. The petitioner meanwhile was selected as Stenographer Grade-C in the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, SAS Nagar Mohali (for short 'the NIPER') on 20.6.2005 and is working in that capacity till date. 8] Meanwhile, the petitioner was also selected as Steno-typist (English) firstly in the Panjab University, Chandigarh on 11.5.2006 and thereafter in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 6.12.2006 but he declined both the assignments. 9] The petitioner while working as Stenographer Grade-C in the NIPER is said to have improved his academic qualification and has obtained a degree of M.B.A. (HR and Human Resource) from Indira Gandhi National Open University with 60% marks (after improvement). The petitioner is also pursuing his three years' LLB degree course in the Panjab University, Chandigarh through evening studies and is presently stated to be in 6th semester. 10] As noticed earlier, the post of Assistant Registrar in the C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 5 Panjab University was advertised in June/July, 2009 with a stipulation that the candidates ought to possess Master's Degree with at least 50% marks and five years' `administrative experience' in a University or any Institute/Organization of repute or should possess Bachelor's degree with at least 50% marks and 7 years' administrative experience in such like institution. 11] The petitioner while asserting that he possesses more than five years' administrative experience required for the post of Assistant Registrar, claims that his working experience as Stenographer Grade-C in the NIPER for about four years three months and 23 days as also as a Steno-typist prior thereto put together deserves to be considered as sufficient administrative experience for the performance of duties as an Assistant Registrar. 12] The University, on re-consideration, has assessed the nature of 'administrative experience' on the basis of following parameters:- “xx xx xx xx 1. Does the employee supervise and assess the work of his subordinates and write their ACRs? 2. Does he have some independent financial powers? 3. Does he have the power to take some policy decision on the spot without reference to his supervisors? 4. Does he have the power to grant leave to subordinates? 5. Does he have the power to initiate disciplinary action against the subordinate for misconduct? xx xx xx xx xx” 13] Since the 'experience' claimed by the petitioner to be 'administrative' in nature did not satisfy the ingredients of the above reproduced parameters that the petitioner has been held to be ineligible C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 6 vide the impugned order. 14] Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that: (i) once the Selection Committee found the petitioner eligible, the Appointing Authority has no power to hold otherwise; (ii) the experience gained by the petitioner as Stenographer Grade-C or as a Steno-typist is of 'administrative' in nature and satisfies the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement; (iii) the parameters applied by the respondent- university after reviewing its previous decision to declare him ineligible, are actually meant to be applied for the post of Deputy Registrar and not for the post of Assistant Registrar; (iv) once the Syndicate had approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee, “there is no power of review” vested in it under the University Statute or the Calendar and therefore, the impugned exercise is without any authority of law; (v) the petitioner has been discriminated as another candidate placed at Sr.No.3 in the selection panel was working as Personal Assistant with one of the functionaries of the University and she has been treated eligible over- looking the petitioner's claim in a discriminatory manner. Reliance is placed upon (i) a decision of this Court in Vishwa Mitter versus State of Punjab (1991) (3) S.C.T.276, (ii) of Delhi High Court in Bhawna Dhyani versus National Open School Society (Registered), 2004 (3) S.C.T.659, and (iii) another decision of this Court dated 26.4.2010 in CWP No.10574 of 2006 (Suresh Singh versus The Vice Chancellor, Punjab University, Chandigarh and others). C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 7 15] Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. I say so for the reasons that the expression “administrative experience” inheres an element of managerial supervisory control over the subordinates, some independence in the day to day discharge of duties and the reflection of command of authority while monitoring or regulating the functioning of the subordinates. It may be true that this very creation of 'administrative experience' would apply even in the case of a Deputy Registrar but the degree and quality of experience shall undoubtedly vary. While building an administrative pyramid of any institution functioning, the expected experience is always referable to the one gained on the immediate subordinate post or equivalent thereto. Similarly, the requisite experience ought to have some relevance with the nature of duties attached to the superior post. In the context of 'administrative experience' required for the post of Assistant Registrar obviously means the experience earned by a person on the post immediate lower to that of Assistant Registrar or on equivalent post of the same stream. 16] The respondent-university has been established under the Punjab University Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the '1947 Act'). Section 20(1) of the 1947 Act vests the Syndicate with various executive powers including “appointment of officers of Class-A”. The post of Assistant Registrar is admittedly a Class-A post for which the Competent Appointing Authority is the Syndicate only. In my considered opinion, the C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 8 Appointing Authority is not obligated to mechanically accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee and it shall be well within its rights to ascertain as to whether or not the recommended candidate possesses the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, no power of 'review' is required to be expressly vested for rectifying an administrative error. The approval of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee is not a quasi-judicial function, rather is purely administrative exercise and any mistake/error having crept into it can always be rectified. It is only in a case where no tangible valid reason exists to ignore/over-look the recommendations made by the Selection Committee that the Appointing Authority cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily to deny appointment to a validly selected candidate. It is equally well settled that mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right in favour of a selected candidate and he can always be denied appointment for justifiable reasons. 17] Factually, the experience possessed by the petitioner, in no circumstances, can be termed as `administrative experience' relevant or germane to the requirements attached to the post of Assistant Registrar of the University. The petitioner admittedly completed his graduation through correspondence studies in June, 2003 and thereafter, joined as a Steno-typist in the State Human Rights Commission. The experience as a Steno-typist, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as an administrative experience though it may be very much relevant for selection and appointment as Stenographer. The petitioner had hardly completed four years service in NIPER as Stenographer Grade-C when C.W.P.No .5171 of 2011 9 the posts of Assistant Registrar in the respondent-university advertised in June/July, 2009. The petitioner has though relied upon the Annual Report for the year 2009-2010 of NIPER to suggest that his name was included amongst the administrative staff, however, the experience while a Stenographer gains is well known. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the Stenographer stream, one starts getting administrative experience on assigning the positions like Personal Assistant, Private Secretary or Secretary etc. However, in the very nature of the things, a Stenographer even if he is required to deal with the administrative files for the preparation of office notes etc., cannot be said to have gained the administrative experience. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. March 22, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE