CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 01 ,2011 Ashok Chauhan .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. A. S. Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.6. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No.6 on the ground that the respondent was not holding the requisite qualification by the cut off date fixed for applying. Respondent No.6 has been appointed as Lecturer in English. The prayer also is for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: issuing direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of English Lecturer after setting-aside the appointment of respondent No.6. Two posts of English Lecturers were advertised. One was meant for general category candidates whereas the second one was for S.C category. The qualification and the grade for the posts advertised were as per the latest U.G.C qualifications. The last date for submission of the applications was 7.2.2008. The petitioner is having M.A in English as qualification. He has passed M.Phil on 28.6.2005 and is also having a degree of Master of Philosophy issued on 18.1.2006. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and accordingly applied for the post reserved for S.C. As per the regulation, the qualification for appointment as Lecturer in the University and in the Institution affiliated to University are governed by University Grant Commission (Minimum Qualification required for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2000. The relevant regulation is as under:- “Good academic record with at least 55% marks or, an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grade O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Masters Degree Level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University,or, an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Besides fulfilling the above qualification, candidate should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for lecturers CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. Note: NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. Degree. However, who have completed M.Phil degree or have admitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st December, 1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.” In 2002, the above noted note was substituted with the following:- “NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D. Degree. However, the candidates who have completed M.Phil Degree by 31st December, 1993 or have submitted Ph.D. Thesis to the University in the concerned subject on or before 31st December, 2002 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination. In case such candidates fail to obtain Ph.D. Degree, they shall have to pass the NET examination.” Again in 2006, the note was substituted as under:- “NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for those with Post Graduate Degree. However, the candidate having Ph.D. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG Level an UG Level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil Degree in the concerned subject are CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: exempted from NET for PG Level teaching only.” The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No.6 was not eligible on the last date of submission of applications for the advertised posts as he has passed his M.Phil degree on 25.2.2008, whereas the last date for submission of the applications was 7.2.2008. The interview for the post was held on 15.3.2008 but still respondent No.6 has been selected and given appointment on 1.7.2008. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the selection of respondent No.6 primarily on the ground that he was not having requisite qualification at the time of making application seeking appointment . It is not disputed that respondent No.6 was issued a degree of M.Phil on 25.2.2008. The submission, however, is that respondent No.6 has passed M.Phil examination in September 2007 as can be seen from Annexure R4/1, which is a result-cum-detailed marks card issued by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. As per Annexure R4/1, the petitioner is shown to have passed M.Phil examination held in May 2007 and this mark sheet issued on 25.9.2007. The petitioner had submitted that dissertation in December 2007, when viva-voce was also held. Thus, the complete examination of M.Phil was over. He was, however, issued degree on 25.2.2008. The University has also filed reply, giving details about the date of examination and issuance of a certificate showing that respondent No.6 has passed M.Phil examination. It is stated that respondent No.6 has passed M.Phil in English from Kurukshetra CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: University in Session 2006-07. The result was declared in May 2007 and respondent No.6 was issued result-cum-detailed marks card in September 2007. It is only that respondent No.6 had submitted dissertation to the University, which was accepted by notification issued on 20.5.2008. It is accordingly stated that this date can not be termed as a date on which respondent No.6 had passed M.Phil in English. As per the respondent-University, the M.Phil degree would relate back to the declaration of result which is September 2007. It is accordingly stated that respondent No.6 was fully eligible to be considered and selected for the post of Lecturer. Mr.Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, would highlight the fact that the Selection Committee consisted of highly placed academicians. The Selection Committee was chaired by Chairperson of the governing body and Principal of the College; Nominee of Vice Chancellor, who was again a Principal of Government College, Saffidon and another Professor, Department of Economics. Principal of a Government College was one of the nominee of Higher Education Commissioner. A highly qualified person having doctorate attended as one of the subject expert, who was chosen by Higher Education Commissioner. Principal of D.A.V. Girls College, Yamuna Nagar had attended as one of the subject expert chosen by the Managing Committee. This Committee had certified that the candidate under consideration, including respondent No.6, fulfilled the prescribed qualification laid down by the University. The counsel accordingly contends that the petitioner is in no position to say that respondent No.6 was not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: qualified, when he applied for selection. The issue involved is simple and straightforward. It is to be seen whether the date of qualification would be the date of passing the M.Phil exam or the date when the degree was issued to the petitioner. Concededly, the issuance of degree is only recognizing a fact which has already happened. Respondent No.6 had appeared in the M.Phil examination in May 2007 and he was declared pass in the result card issued on 25.9.2007. To say that he has not qualified M.Phil, would amount to ignoring the factual position of the respondent having acquired this qualification. Issuance of a degree is always subsequent to the date of passing the examination. Moment the result of the examination was declared and respondent No.6 was shown as pass, he would be deemed to have qualified the M.Phil examination. Dissertation, which was also submitted much prior to the date of issuance of degree and viva-voce was also held in December 2007. Treating respondent No.6 to have qualified on the date he made an application, can not be said to be violative of any law, especially so, when certificate showing him having passed the exam was issued on 25.9.2007. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioner, he has relied upon Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others, 2007 (2) SCT 19. No doubt, the cut off date, as per this judgment, has to be the last date of filing application and that date is to be considered for eligibility, when there is no provision made about cut off date in the advertisement or the rules but that is not the issue, which is directly arising in this case. The issue under consideration in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 7 }: present case is whether respondent No.6 would be considered to have qualified in the M.Phil examination by the cut off date, which is 7.2.2008, being the last date of submission of the application. In Ashok Kumar Sonkar's case (supra), conceded position was that the person/persons had applied for the post, though he/they had not acquired the prescribed qualification by the prescribed date. Accordingly, it was observed that they could not have been treated on a preferential basis and their application ought to have been rejected. The case set up by respondent No.6 and the respondent- University is that respondent No.6 had qualified much before 7.2.2008 and in this regard, reference is made to Annexure R4/2, which is the certificate issued by the University. Issuance of degree is only recognizing the fact that respondent No.6 had passed the examination, which was much earlier. Mr.Anupam Gupta, in addition, would also point out to the peculiar facts in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar's case (supra). This was a case where President of India in his capacity of Visitor of the University was approached and he had opined that selection process was illegal. The selection proceedings, therefore, were set- aside. To challenge this order, writ petition was filed in Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed. Against this, S.L.P was filed, where the order passed by the High Court was upheld. There was in fact no issue arising in this case in regard to date of acquiring qualification. The counsel for the petitioner has then referred to University Grants Commission etc. Vs. Sadhana Chaudhary, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 8 }: 1997(1) SCT 363. The ratio of this case may also not strictly apply to the facts of the present case. U.G.C had granted exemption from appearing in the eligibility test to specified categories. By way of circular, the candidates who had already been awarded M.Phil degree upto 31.3.1991, were granted exemption from appearing in the eligibility test and this was extended to candidates who had been awarded M.Phil degree upto 31.12.1992. The validity of the amended regulation was challenged and it was submitted that exemption that has been granted by amendment introduced in 1991 is violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was declared that exemption from the eligibility test for the purpose of appointment on the post of Lecturer will have to be confined to candidates fulfilling the requirements in 1991 Regulation as amended. Cut off date fixed under circular and notification in respect of candidates who have obtained M.Phil degree or submitted their Ph.D. thesis was held valid. The fixing of cut off date for granting exemption was primarily under challenge in this case on the ground that there would be large number of candidates who had obtained M.Phil degree between December 31, 1992 to 1994 and hence fixing of cut off date is arbitrary. Even in this case, the direction issued by this Court to the effect that it would not be necessary to appear in eligibility test for candidates who have applied or/are applying for Lecturer post pursuant to the advertisement dated January 23, 1995, if they have obtained M.Phil degree or submitted Ph.D thesis before December 31, 1994, i.e. prior to the date of publication of advertisement, was not disturbed. In this case also, respondent No.6 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 9 }: had submitted his dissertation in December 2007 and appeared in viva-voce in the said month coupled with the fact that he had passed M.Phil examination in September 2007, it can not be said that he was not M.Phil qualified by the cut off date i.e. 7.2.2008 merely on the ground that the degree was issued to him few days thereafter. As already noticed, issuance of a degree is recognizing the fact of respondent No.6 having qualified the examination, which was much prior to the cut off date. In fact, this Court had an occasion to consider somewhat similar issue while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.10352 of 2010 (Ajit Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), where reference was made to the following observation made in Civil Writ Petition No.5379 of 2010 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others):- “Concededly the petitioner has passed M.Phil on 25.11.1999. He joined the services on 18.08.2004. As per the instructions issued, he is entitled to an increment from the date he has possessed degree of M. Phil. The petitioner has been denied this increment and has been allowed the increment from 2005 only on the ground that he had obtained the degree in the year 2005. This may not be fair approach on the part of the respondents. Once the respondents have formulated a policy to grant an increment to those who have possessed qualification of M.Phil and Ph.D. It is the date of passing the examination which would be relevant and not the date when degree is somehow obtained. Since the petitioner has qualified CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16841 OF 2009 :{ 10 }: M.Phil degree in the year 1999, he would be entitled to increment from the date of his appointment i.e. 18.08.2004. The action in declining the prayer by the respondents cannot be held justified. The same is, therefore, quashed.” In this case also, it is the date of passing of the exam which was considered relevant and not the date when the degree is somehow obtained or issued. Question in this case was also of having obtained qualification of M.Phil degree in the year 1999, which was the date of passing the examination and was considered to be the relevant date for grant of increment. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 01,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE