Civil Writ Petition No. 20850 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 20850 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.02.2011 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and 5. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondents No. 4. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to make a grievance against the communication dated 29.07.2008 annexed with the petition as Annexure P-15. The petitioner, who had applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education, claims that he was selected by the Selection Committee but still his selection has not been approved by the University. The reasons for non- approval as communicated to him are contained in Annexure P-15 and are as under:- “As per the prescribed qualifications for the post of Civil Writ Petition No. 20850 of 2008 2 Lecturer in Education for teaching of Physical Education in a privately managed aided College, besides 50% marks in M.P.Ed., one should be possessing M.Ed. Degree with at least 55% marks. In the instant case, the recommended candidate Shri Kuldeep Singh does not possess an M.Ed. Degree and hence the proceedings of the Selection Committee have not been approved by the Vice Chancellor.” As per the petitioner, once the Selection Committee has found him eligible, the University is not justified in declining the approval of his selection on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. The petitioner is concededly possessing educational qualification of Matric, 10+2, B.A., M.P.Ed., M.Phil and M.Sc. (Computer Science). He is statedly pursuing P.hd degree. The petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer of Physical Education and was called for interview by the selection committee. The petitioner was selected and recommended for appointment. Despite recommendation, his appointment/selection has not been approved by the University. The petitioner has then filed the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner would refer to the advertisement, Annexure P-1 to urge that the petitioner would possess the requisite qualification and has wrongly been declined approval for appointment. The counsel has referred to the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement and these are:- Civil Writ Petition No. 20850 of 2008 3 “Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks at the Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University, its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades of OABCDE &F'. In addition, the candidate is also required to fulfill the eligibility test (NET) for Lecturer conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.” The petitioner's educational qualification has already been noted above and are not in controversy. Counsel for the University, however, would refer to specific qualifications prescribed for the post, which are as under:- “Qualifications: (i) Good Academic record with M.Ed./MA (Education), with 55% marks OR (ii) Good Academic record with Master's Degree with 50% marks in the relevant school subject and M.Ed./MA (Education) with 55% marks and B.Ed., OR (iii) Two year's School Teaching experience is desirable.” Counsel for the respondent/University submits that the petitioner is neither M.Ed. nor M.A. (Education) and so the University is justified in declining the approval for the reasons as disclosed in communication, Annexure P-15. When asked, the counsel for the petitioner concedes that he is neither M.Ed. nor M.A. (Education) but contends that this is not the essential qualification for post for which he has applied. As per the counsel, the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in Physical Education for which the Civil Writ Petition No. 20850 of 2008 4 essential qualifications are M.P.Ed. and accordingly, would submit that he was fully qualified for the appointment. The counsel has made reference to the observation made by the selection Committee also. Once the qualifications are prescribed in the advertisement, the court would not be in a position to substitute and opine that essential qualification would be or should be different which may otherwise be equivalent. It is for the employer to see and lay down the essential qualifications. If any qualification, other than the one mentioned in the advertisement is considered for appointment, it would lead to depriving all those who may not have applied thinking that they are not possessing the prescribed qualification. It is not for the Selection Committee to competently consider whether the petitioner is possessing the required or prescribed qualifications for the post, as per the advertisement. There is no ambiguity in this regard and the qualifications are prescribed in the advertisement clearly. It is not possible to hold that the petitioner is possessing the advertised qualifications. Once the counsel for the petitioner himself has conceded that the petitioner is neither M.Ed nor M.A. (Education), the decision of the University in declining approval for the selection, obviously would appear justified. No one has been appointed against the post for which the petitioner could make any grievance. Mere recommendation of the Selection Committee would not constitute any indefeasible right to the petitioner to seek approval of his appointment even if he is found suitable by the Selection committee. It is for the appointing authority Civil Writ Petition No. 20850 of 2008 5 to determine if the petitioner is possessing the required qualification. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same, therefore, is dismissed. February 08, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE