C.W.P No. 6975 of 2003 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 6975 of 2003 Date of decision : December 04, 2008 Rajiv Kumar ...... Petitioner through Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate v. Hindu College Amritsar, Dhab Khatian, Amritsar & another ...... Respondents through Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This petition has been filed against the order dated 7.6.2002 (Annexure P-9) terminating the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Computer Science on probation. The petitioner was appointed and joined as Lecturer in Computer Science as per appointment letter dated 7.7.2000, which stipulated as follows :- “ You are hereby appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science and Application in the grade of Rs.8000-13500 plus ADA etc. as prevalent at present on PROBATION for one year, which may be extended to another one year. Xx xx xx C.W.P No. 6975 of 2003 ::2:: Your Appointment is subject to approval of the Director, Public Instruction (College), Punjab, Chandigarh and Vice-Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and UGC test clearance.” By order dated 11.5.2001 (Annexure P-2), the affiliating University approved the appointment of the petitioner. By order dated 26.5.2001 (Annexure P-3), the probation period of the petitioner was extended for one more year. It is noteworthy that the petitioner did not clear the UGC eligibility test. By order dated 28.5.2002 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was informed that one of the conditions at the time of his appointment was that he would clear the UGC test and he was called upon to produce the proof of his having cleared the same, otherwise the College authorities would be constrained to proceed against him as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. The petitioner filed a reply wherein he relied upon the proceedings of the Syndicate of the Guru Nanak Dev University wherein it was held that as per the said proceedings passing of UGC test was not a necessary qualification for appointment as Lecturer in Computer Science and, therefore, there was no necessity for him to clear the UGC test. This was followed by the impugned order dated 7.6.2002 (Annexure P-9), wherein it was recorded as follows :- “ The undersigned is in receipt of your reply to show cause notice dated 28.5.2002 whereby you were called upon to produce the U.G.C Test clearance certificate and in your reply dated 6.6.2002 you have expressed your inability to produce the above said certificate and on the contrary you have asserted that there is no need on your C.W.P No. 6975 of 2003 ::3:: part to clear and U.G.C test in this respect. Your reply has been deeply considered and since you have failed to comply with the requirement of the clearance of the said U.G.C test subject to which your appointment was made it is deeply regretted that your services cannot be regularized and are hereby terminated w.e.f 7th June 2002, as per the decision of the College Governing Council.......” It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the proceedings of the Syndicate, clearance of the UGC was not an essential qualification and, therefore, the petitioner was fully qualified for being appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science and services could not be terminated on the ground that he had not cleared the UGC test. In my opinion, this petition must fail. Even if the essential qualifications, prescribed by the University, did not envisage passing of UGC test, it cannot be held that the employer could not prescribe a higher qualification, more-so, since it is not the case that the petitioner was ousted at the threshold by prescription of a higher qualification. On the contrary, the petitioner was appointed and enough time was granted to him to clear the test. In my opinion, it is always open to an employer to prescribe higher qualification than what is required under law; the only caveat being that such qualification could not be arbitrary. In a slightly different context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.B.Mathur and others vs Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & others, 1988 AIR (SC) 2073 held as follows :- “19. The Bench, however, went on to hold that, in its C.W.P No. 6975 of 2003 ::4:: view, merely because the Haryana Public Service Commission had called all the 1300 candidates who obtained 45 per cent or more marks in the written examination to appear in the interview that did not invalidate the selection made. This decision points out that the minimum eligibility qualification has to be kept distinct from the zone of consideration and even if there are a large number of candidates who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement it is not always required that they should be included in the zone of consideration, it being open to the authority concerned to restrict the zone of consideration amongst the eligible candidates in any reasonable manner.” Even though in the aforesaid case, the issue was not regarding prescription of higher qualification yet the principle which can be extracted from the passage, re-produced above, definitely lends credence to the view that has been taken in this case. Consequently, finding no merit, the present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 04, 2008. JUDGE `kk'