-1- Civil Writ Petition No.2137 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 15,2008. Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The only question involved in the present writ petition is - whether the petitioner has a good academic record so as to be appointed as a Director, Physical Education, in a College. -2- Civil Writ Petition No.2137 of 2006. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physical Education in B.P.R. College, Kurukshehtra, in the year 1992 and worked there till 1999. Thereafter, he was appointed as Director, Physical Education, in Shri Krishan Institute of Engineering & Technology, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as `respondent-Institute') on contract basis, in the year 1999. He continued to work there continuously with notional breaks. The respondent-Institute issued an advertisement for appointment of Director, Physical Education, on regular basis. The petitioner applied for the same along with other candidates. The Selection Committee interviewed the petitioner on July 08, 2005. He was selected for the post of Director, Physical Education, by the Selection Committee as per proceedings of the Selection Committee attached with the petition as Annexure P-7. However, the proceedings of the Selection Committee (Annexure P-7) were not approved by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra – respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent- University') on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the prescribed qualifications i.e `Good Academic Record'. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the action of the respondent-University in not approving the proceedings of the Selection Committee whereby he was selected for appointment as Director, Physical Education in the respondent-Institute and for -3- Civil Writ Petition No.2137 of 2006. issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to approve the proceedings of the Selection Committee. In the written statement filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, it has been pleaded that the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria of `Good Academic Record' as he did not secure 50% marks in his Matriculation Examination and he passed his B.A. Examination by securing only 45 % marks. In the replication filed by the petitioner, besides reiterating the pleas taken in the writ petition, he pleaded that although he secured 49.78 % marks in Matriculation Examination and 45 % marks in his B.A. Examination, but it cannot be said that he did not fulfil the criteria of `Good Academic Record'. The petitioner had passed M.A in Physical Education by securing 60 % marks, M.Phil by securing 56.67% and Matriculation by securing 49.78 % marks, which as per the Regulations contained in the University Calendar, would be rounded off to 50% and so the petitioner has `Good Academic Record'. We have heard Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Assistant Advocate General,Haryana, appearing for respondent No.1 and Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and have gone through the records of the case. -4- Civil Writ Petition No.2137 of 2006. On January 24, 2008, the following order was passed by this Court;- “ The only issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner has a good academic record so as to be appointed as Director, Physical Education in a College. As per the petitioner, he has obtained 49.78 % marks in matriculation examination and it has to be rounded off 50% in terms of the University Regulations published in the year 1997 wherein the fraction of 0.5 % or above marks has to be raised to next higher number. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the condition of rounded off of fraction of marks has been deleted. However, he seeks some time to disclose the date on which the University Calendar was amended. List on January 31,2008.” In compliance of the aofre-mentioned order, learned counsel for the respondent-University, has produced letter No.CBA-Misc.40/2008/Spl.I dated February 14, 2008, from the -5- Civil Writ Petition No.2137 of 2006. Assistant Registrar (Colleges) for Registrar of the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, which is ordered to be taken on record. In the said letter, it has been mentioned as under:- “ In the Ordinance XVI (Appendix-IX-A) printed at page 121-122 in the University Calendar Volume-I, 1997, there was a provision that “the fraction of marks of 0.5% or above would be raised to next higher whole number.” Revised University Grants Commission's recommendations regarding qualifications for the post of Lecturers were received and the State Government issued a comprehensive revised order dated 08.12.2000 for implementing such recommendations by superseding the earlier orders. On receipt of order dated 08.12.2000 of the State Government, the Kurukshetra University approved/adopted the same in the meeting of the Executive Council vide its Resolution No.33 dated 27.03.2001. As per revised qualifications duly approved/adopted by the Executive Council, there is now no provision to raise -6- Civil Writ Petition No.2137 of 2006. the fraction of 0.5% or above to higher whole number. Thus the earlier qualifications printed under Ordinance XVI (Appendix-IX-A) printed at page 121-122 in the University Calendar Volume-I, 1997 stand substituted with the revision qualifications (Annexure-A). As per the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986, Section 23(a) “The Ordinance shall be made, amended, repealed or added to by the Executive Council. The qualifications are a part of Ordinance. “ As a result of this, the provision that “the fraction of marks of 0.5 % or above would be raised to next higher whole number” does not exist as part of Kurukshetra University Calendar because of the approval/adoption of the revised qualifications by the Executive Council.” A perusal of the above-quoted letter reveals that on July 08, 2005, when the petitioner was interviewed for the post of Director, Physical Education, in the respondent-Institute, no provision to raise the fraction of 0.5% or above to higher whole number existed. As such, the petitioner did not fulfil the -7- Civil Writ Petition No.2137 of 2006. minimum eligibility qualification as he had not secured 50 % marks in the Matriculation Examination. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent-University in not approving the proceedings of the Selection Committee whereby the petitioner was selected for the post of Director, Physical Education, in the respondent-Institute. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE February 15, 2008. ak