Case: Abdul Motin Vs. Manisankar Maiti and Ors

C.A. Nos. 4667-4668/2018 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 8497-8498/2015, C.A. No. 4669/2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 11708/2015 and C.A. No. 4670/2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 13663/2015Leave granted. The West Bengal College Service Commission (for short, the Commission) prepared a panel for the post of Principal of Non-Government Colleges affiliated to the Universities of the State of West Bengal. In the said panel, Dr. Nandan Bhattacharya ranked first, Dr. Abdul Motin stood second and Dr. Mani Shankar Maity stood third. Since Dr. Bhattacharya refused to accept the offer of appointment for the said post, the Commission recommended the name of Dr. Abdul Motin who ranked second in the panel for appointment as Principal. Thereafter, two writ petitions were filed separately - one by Dr. Mani Shankar Maity and another by Dr. Abdul Motin.2. In Writ Petition being W.P. No. 20024(w) of 2012, Dr. Mani Shankar Maity challenged the acceptability of the Ph.D. degree granted by the Netaji Subhas Open University as an essential academic qualification for the post of Principal. According to him, Dr. Motin who ranked second in the panel was an ineligible candidate as his Ph.D. degree which he obtained from Netaji Subhas Open University, cannot be accepted as a valid Ph.D. degree by the Commission. Dr. Maity contended that since first empanelled candidate viz., Dr. Nandan Bhattacharya having refused to accept the offer for his appointment for the post of Principal, and the second empanelled candidate viz., Dr. Motin being ineligible, he should be appointed as Principal by the Commission.3. On the other hand, in Writ Petition being W.P. No. 10296(w) of 2013, Dr. Abdul Motin sought direction to the concerned Authority for appointing him to the Post of Principal as he ranked second in the panel and the first empanelled candidate viz., Dr. Nandan Bhattacharya refused to accept the appointment for the said post.4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Dr. Maity, and held inter alia that Ph.D. degree obtained by Dr. Motin from Netaji Subhas Open University cannot be accepted as a valid Ph.D. degree for the post of Principal and accordingly, a direction was given to recast the panel for the post of Principal. The writ petition filed by Dr. Motin was dismissed by the learned Single Judge for an identical reason. The learned Single Judge made it clear that Dr. Motin whose Ph.D. degree was conferred by Netaji Subhas Open University did not hold equivalent qualification to that held by Dr. Maity because Ph.D. degree of the latter was conferred by Calcutta University which is a formal conventional university.5. Being aggrieved, Dr. Motin preferred two appeals being MAT No. 1068 of 2014 and MAT No. 20007 of 2014 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the said appeals with a direction that selection process may be concluded in the light of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge subject to the condition as imposed by it vide the impugned order. Hence, these appeals by special leave being preferred by Dr. Abdul Motin and the other Appellant i.e. the Registrar, Netaji Subhas Open University.6. The only issue that arises in the instant appeals is whether a Ph.D. degree conferred by an Open university under the Netaji Subhash Open University Act, 1997, and a Ph.D. degree conferred by a regular University ought to be treated differently for the purpose of appointment for the post of Principal/Lecturer/Reader etc., in the non-government colleges where such Ph.D. degree is an essential qualification.7. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.8. At this stage, we might note as a matter of fact that Dr. Mani Shankar Maity who ranked third and was proposed to be appointed as Principal in pursuance of the judgments of the High Court, would have retired in January, 2018, even if he had accepted the appointment in pursuance of the said judgments of the High Court. Thus, there is no rival claim on the said post today. Dr. Abdul Motin who ranked second in the panel, has not reached the age of superannuation till date.9. In these circumstances, Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Commission, states that they have no objection in case Dr. Abdul Motin is appointed to the post of Principal in question.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. At this stage, we might note as a matter of fact that Dr. Mani Shankar Maity who ranked third and was proposed to be appointed as Principal in pursuance of the judgments of the High Court, would have retired in January, 2018, even if he had accepted the appointment in pursuance of the said judgments of the High Court. Thus, there is no rival claim on the said post today. Dr. Abdul Motin who ranked second in the panel, has not reached the age of superannuation till date13. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the ratio in the case of Annamalai University (supra), we are of the view that the effect of that decision is to the contraryIn Annamalai University (supra), this Court observed that the University Grants Commission Act which was enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, was so enacted for effectuating co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities. Its provisions are binding on all universities whether conventional or open and its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed under that Act apply equally to open universities as well as also to formal conventional universities vide para (40), (41) and (42) of the said judgment which read as under:40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas the Open University Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnance of the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalize educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible41. Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act in substitution of the formal system, is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system and informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is imparted. The UGC Act was enacted for effectuating coordination and determination of standards in Universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms of Clauses (c), (f), (g) and (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC Under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinabove that the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in respect of the matters specified in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and Clause (a) and (c) of Sub-section (2) thereof15. In view of the observations in the case of Annamalai University (supra) and the above directive, we are of the view that as a consequence, Ph.D. degree issued by an Open University and another Ph.D. degree issued by a formal conventional university must, therefore, be treated at par having been so issued under the uniform standards prescribed by University Grants Commission Act.