* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) Nos. 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 % 23rd August”
1. W.P.(C) 2846/1996 (I j) ANITA GHOSH Through: ......Petitioner Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Mr. D.S.V.Krishnajee, Mr. Atanu Mukherjee and Ms. Sushma, Advs. VERSUS SHRI RAM COLLEGE OF COMMERCE & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Mr. Ritika Nagpal, Adv. for R-3/SRCC (college) Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Adv. for R4. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Mamta Tiwari and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocates for R/UGC.
2. W.P.(C) 4896/1997 (i.k) KULJEET KAUR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Arun Kumar Varma, Adv. VERSUS UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr. A.P.S.Ahulawalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for R-1. Ms. Sushma , Adv. for R-4. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Mamta Tiwari and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocates for R/UGC. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. Both these connected writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as whereas petitioner-Ms. Anita Ghosh in W.P.(C) 2846/1996 seeks appointment to the post in question of a Lady Lecturer in Physical Education of Shri Ram College of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as College), the petitioner-Smt. Kuljeet Kaur in W.P.(C) 4896/1997 was already appointed to the post in question on 3.8.1995 after interviews were conducted on 2.8.1995. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 2846/1996 Ms. Anita Ghosh seeks cancellation of the appointment of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur and consequently of her- Ms. Anita Ghoshs being appointed to the post in question. Smt. Kuljeet Kaur in her petition challenges the actions of the University Grants Commission in denying her the relaxation in obtaining NET qualification, and which was obtained by her after about a year of her being appointed.
2. The facts of the case are that the College in 1995 inserted an advertisement for appointment to the post of Lady Lecturer in Physical Education. Interviews were conducted on 2.8.1995 and Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was appointed on being placed at serial no.1 in the selection list. Smt. Kuljeet Kaur however did not have the NET (National Eligibility Test) qualification which was required for being appointed as a Lecturer. The Selection Committee therefore directed that exemption qua NET qualification be sought by the College from the University Grants Commission (UGC) as regards Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. The College accordingly wrote to the University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as University) its letter dated 19.1.1996, and the University forwarded the request to UGC by its letter dated 20.2.1996 for relaxation of NET qualification in respect of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. The college wrote another letter dated 9.2.1996 to UGC in which the following special reason/merit for selection was given for appointing Smt. Kuljeet Kaur:2. Special reason/merit for selection: (a) Worked as Lecturer in Physical Education in Kamla Nehru College from July to September, 1989 on ad-hoc basis. (b) Worked as Lecturer in Physical Education in Laxmi Bai College for two months (February to March, 1990) in ad-hoc basis. (c) Worked as Lecturer in Physical Education on temporary basis w.e.f. August, 1991 to January, 1994 in Vivekanand College duly recommended by the prescribed Selection Committee. She should, therefore, be exempted from the requirement of NET.
3. This aforesaid letter was followed by the college by its another letter dated 5.6.1996 in which the following qualifications and experience of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was given, and request was made for giving exemption from NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, and which reads as under:While we await your approval, We would like to state that the appointment of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur was cleared by the duly constituted selection committee and the following details regarding the achievements of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur (as proved by her were made available to the Selection Committee that had recommended her appointment. Secure first division at her Degree examination in Physical Education and secured first division at her Masters Degree examination in physical Education. She was awarded a silver medal. She obtained Diploma in Hockey from National Institute of Sports in 1989. She is qualified coach and national level Umpire of Hockey. She has an M.A. degree in Hindi. Participated in orientation courses conducted by the Centre for Professional Development in Higher Education in 1993. Participated in National Seminar on relevance of Physical Education and Sports in educational curriculam in 1993. Experience Lecturer in Physical Education, Kamla Nehru College, July-September, 1989 on ad-hoc basis. Temporary Lecturer (on leave vacancy), Vivekananda College, constituted Selection Committee, and fulfilled the eligibility conditions prevalent at that time according to the rules and regulations of University of Delhi. Lecturer in Physical Education (Guest Lecturer), Shri Ram College of Commerce, June 1994 to March, 1995, and on ad-hoc basis from April, 1995 to August 2, 1995. Had ranging experience of umpiring and supervising various national and international matches namely, Indo German Hockey Test for Women held at Delhi in 1993, and Indo Australia Hockey test for Women held at Delhi in 1994. At national level she has umpired the matches in North-Zone intervarsity hockey championship for Women held at Delhi University in 1989, Senior-National for Women held at Gurgaon for the year 1990 and Hyderabad in 1991. She also umpired the matches in Hissar 1990 and Delhi 1995 (Sub-Juniors). Coached Delhi State and Delhi University team in the year 1990. Manger of Delhi Hockey team in third federation cup held at Delhi in 1993. She was Liaison Officer with India Team in Third Intercontinental Cup for Women in 1989. Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur has been outstanding sports person having the represented Delhi State Hockey Team in National Championship for Seven Years from 1982 to 1987 and 1990. She was member of Indian Universities Hockey Team in the 1987. Represented Delhi State Hockey Team in National Games in the year 1988. Was declared best Full Back Award in 30th Senior National Championship. Represented Delhi University Hockey team in All India Inter-varsity Championship in 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 (as a captain) and 1985-86 as a captain and represented Punjabi University Team in the year 1987 and got third position. Awarded University Colour, 1982-83. Attended Indian Hockey Coaching Camp in the year 1984-85. She represented Daulat Ram College and Government College of Physical Education, Patiala, in Handball (1984-85, 1985-86), Cricket (1987), and Athletics (1985-86, 1987) and secured first three positions in Inter College Tournaments. In view of her experience and performance as stated above, she was found to have a clear edge over candidates with NET qualification, and was, therefore, selected unanimously through the duly constituted Selection Committee. We hope that the condition of clearing the National Eligibility Test (NET) could in her case be relaxed so as to enable the College to regularize her appointment.
4. UGC however rejected the request for exemption from NET qualification of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur and accordingly wrote its letter dated 24.5.1996 to the University, which reads as under:F.1-3(4)/95 (PS) 24 May, 1996 The Registrar University of Delhi Delhi. Sub: Proposal of Shri Ram College of Commerce for exemption from NET in respect of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur for appointment of Lecturer in Physical Education. ******** Sir, With reference to your letter not CB-I/96/49756 dated 29th February, 1996 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Commission regrets its inability to agree to the proposal for exemption of NET in respect of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur for appointment of Lecturer in Physical Education since as per information submitted by the University a number of NET qualified candidates were available and the selected candidate had no special qualification/experience with her. Yours faithfully, Sd/(Dilbagh Singh) Under Secretary 5. A reference to the letter dated 24.5.1996 of UGC shows that two reasons were given for not granting exemption to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur. First reason was that NET qualified candidates were available. The second reason is that Smt. Kuljeet Kaur had no special qualifications/experience with her ie if there were special qualifications/experience NET exemption could have been granted. It may be noted that UGC did not say that why the qualifications/experience of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur given in the letters dated 9.2.1996 and 5.6.1996 were not enough and what else was required for meeting the special qualifications/experience aspect. Qua this second reason it may be noted that on a pointed query to the counsel for the UGC, it is conceded that there is nothing on record filed by the UGC which shows that UGC prescribed any special qualifications/experience for a Lady Lecturer of Physical Education, and which can be sufficient for giving exemption from NET qualifications. Also, on a further pointed query, counsel for the UGC could not show any document that UGC was acting in terms of a particular declared/stated policy which delienated specific criteria when exemption can be granted from NET qualification and when exemption cannot be granted.
6. The College was not satisfied with the rejection of UGC and therefore it wrote its letter dated 12.6.1996 again reiterating the request to give permission for appointment to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur by granting exemption from NET qualification. WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 The University had written to the Page 7 of 24 College a letter dated 21/29.6.1996 informing the College to send full details of specific cases to UGC because it appeared that some cases have been considered unfairly by the UGC.
7. The relevant fact to be noted at this stage is that Smt. Kuljeet Kaur obtained NET qualification on 10.12.1996, and, for which the NET test was conducted earlier in June, 1996 by UGC.
8. This aspect of NET qualification of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was informed by the College to the University by its letter dated 12.12.1996 and UGC was also accordingly informed by the letter of the College dated 13.12.1996.
9. UGC however once again declined to grant exemption for NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur and so informed the University by its letter dated 13.1.1997 which reads as under:F.1-3(4)/95 (PS) 13 Jan 1997 The Registrar University of Delhi Delhi-110007. Sub: Proposal of Shri Ram College of Commerce for exemption from NET in respect of Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur, Department of Physical Education. ******* With reference to your letter not F.CB-I/96/9128 dated 20th June, 1996 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the University/College has not given any special and valid justification for selecting Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur as out of 12 candidates who appeared in the interview, 5 were NET qualified and 2 were exempted from NET. The Commission regrets its inability to grant exemption to Mrs. Kuljeet Kaur from NET examination. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/(Dilbagh Singh) Under Secretary 10. A reference to the aforesaid letter shows that there was a noticeable change in the stand of the UGC. Whereas in the earlier rejection letter dated 24.5.1996 two reasons of sufficient number of NET qualified candidates being available and Smt. Kuljeet Kaur lacking special qualifications/experience were given, in the subsequent letter of the UGC dated 13.1.1997 only one reason was given for declining exemption and which was that NET qualified candidates were available. Though I will deal with this aspect at a subsequent stage when I deal with the arguments which are urged on behalf of the UGC and Ms. Anita Ghosh, it would be relevant to mention that pursuant to orders which were passed in W.P.(C) 4896/1997, UGC was again directed to consider the case of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur inasmuch as various other persons cases were brought to the notice of the Court where NET exemptions were granted. But, the UGC yet continued its persistent stand of denying exemption from NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur and which details will be adverted to a little later. 11 (i) On behalf of Ms. Anita Ghosh, it was very strenuously argued that there was no question of appointment of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur who was not qualified in terms of the UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding minimum qualifications for appointment as lecturers in Universities and Colleges as Smt. Kuljeet Kaur did not have NET qualification and which qualification Ms. Anita Ghosh had in terms of the notification dated 21.6.1995, an amendment was made to the 1991 UGC Regulations whereby there was no need of clearing NET examination for those persons who had submitted Ph.D thesis or passed M.Phil examination by 31.12.1993, and Ms. Anita Ghosh had obtained Ph.D qualification by 31.12.1993. It is accordingly argued that the Selection Committee had no option but to choose Ms. Anita Ghosh who was a qualified candidate and the Selection Committee committed an illegality in choosing Smt. Kuljeet Kaur who was an unqualified candidate. (ii) On behalf of UGC, its counsel argued before me that UGC was justified in rejecting the request of the College and Smt. Kuljeet Kaur seeking exemption from NET clearance and so communicated by the two letters dated 24.5.1996 and 13.1.1997. The decision taken by UGC on 12.12.1997 rejecting the case of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur for the third time was also reiterated. In sum and substance, what is argued on behalf of UGC is that UGC consists of expert persons, and since such expert persons have taken a decision not to grant exemption from NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, hence the decision of such expert body must be respected by the Courts, and that the Courts should not substitute its own opinion for that of the experts.
12. Let us firstly take the argument which has been urged by the counsel for Ms. Anita Ghosh before this Court. Of course, there is no doubt that on the date when interviews were conducted Smt. Anita Ghosh had the necessary qualifications, however, in my opinion, it is incorrect for the counsel representing Ms. Anita Ghosh to argue that Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was unqualified. Of course, in a relative sense Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was unqualified, however, it is not as if Smt. Kuljeet Kaur was unqualified in an absolute sense. This I say so because it is not disputed that UGC has been giving ex-post facto approvals, after selection of candidates by the Colleges, with respect to exemption from NET qualification or extension of time for obtaining NET qualification. WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997 The necessary power of UGC to grant Page 11 of 24 exemption is contained in the proviso to Regulation 2 of the 1991 Regulations. These Regulations read as under:9.0 UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges. To be Published in the Gazette of India on 5th Oct. 1991 Part III Section 4 University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi-2. 19th Sept. 1991 not F.1-11/87 (CPP) NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 read with Section 14 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), and in supersession of the Regulations issued under University Grants Commission letter not F.1-93/74 (CPP) Part (v) dated 13th June, 1983 and Notifications No.1-93/74 (CP) dated 19th February, 1985 and 26th November, 1985, the University Grants Commission hereby makes the following regulations, namely:1. Short Title, application and commencement: (i) These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991. (ii) They shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the University concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institutions deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act. (iii) They shall come into force with immediate effect.
2. Qualifications: No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in university or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subjects as provided in the Schedule I. Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by a University in regard to the posts under it or any of the institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under clause (f) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act or by an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission. Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selections through duly constituted selection committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of these regulations.
3. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with recommendations of the Commission; as per provisions of Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: If any University Grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in sub-section (50 of Section 12-A in contravention of the provisions of that sub-section of fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendations made by the Commission under Section 12 or Section 13, or contravenes the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 25 or of any regulations made under clause (c) or clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26, the Commission after taking into consideration the clause, if any, shown by the University for such failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission. Sd/(Y.N. Chaturvedi) Secretary To:The Manager, Govt. of India Press, Faridabad.
13. I may at this stage, hasten to clarify that what is meant by prior approval in the proviso to Regulation 2 is a prior approval in the sense that till that approval is granted by UGC, the appointment of the Lecturer will not be confirmed. Putting it differently, appointment can take place however the appointment will be a regular and valid appointment only on approval being given by UGC to the appointment. It is for this reason that UGC has been, post-selection, granting and declining NET exemptions to various candidates, and as is being set out below. Therefore, I cannot agree with the submission made on behalf of Ms. Anita Ghosh that the College had no right to appoint Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, and the College had no option but to appoint Ms. Anita Ghosh as she was the qualified candidate. Since a subsequent approval can bring validity to the appointment, it cannot be said that a person who does not have NET qualification has absolutely no right to be appointed to the post. Proviso to Regulation 2 as stated above is a complete answer to the arguments raised on behalf of Ms. Anita Ghosh.
14. Let us now take the argument of UGC. I may right at the outset state that this is not the first case where this Courts judicial conscience has been perturbed by the stand taken by the UGC. I hope UGC takes note of the same very seriously. The reason why this Court is perturbed is that UGC is an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and, it has to be necessarily guided by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been reiterated on innumerable number of occasions by the Courts throughout the country that pick and choose action of instrumentalities of State has to be frowned upon and which takes place where no criteria is prescribed or a policy declared. In view of the mandate of Article 14 an instrumentality of State must act with a specific declared policy. Even if there is no specific declared policy, and cases are taken up on a case to case basis, then even in such situations, there have to be specified criteria and guidelines set out so as to avoid arbitrariness and pick and choose action of the body. I have already stated above that UGC has no declared policy as to when approval is to be granted or not to be granted for NET qualification at the relevant times when UGC refused to grant exemption from NET qualification to Smt. Kuljeeet Kaur on various occasions. Also, I have already stated above, that UGC has laid down no specific delineated written criteria as to when there would exist special qualifications or experience for a candidate to be granted exemption from NET and such candidate being confirmed as a Lecturer in Physical Education, to be being granted exemption or not to be granted exemption from NET qualification. Quite clearly UGC, claiming itself to be an expert body, is of the opinion that its actions are not justiciable on the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is highly improper and unacceptable. I do not think that the law states that merely because a body is an expert body, if such an expert body is an instrumentality of State, such so called expert body can act without declared guidelines or declared policy or declared criteria which would guide its actions with respect to grant or nongrant of exemption from NET qualifications and which has nothing to do with expertise. That the Courts must have a hands off policy with respect to a decision of an expert body, is an argument which sounds impressive at the first blush, however, the arguments which have been accepted by the Courts with respect to expert bodies are in those cases where expertise is required and which expertise the Courts cannot effectively scrutinize. When the issue is of specifying or declaring a criteria or a policy, I do not think there is an issue of expertise. Having or not having a particular qualification or experience surely is not a matter of expertise as is being contended on behalf of UGC. This is hence the reason for this Courts consternation and that the judicial conscience of this Court being perturbed. UGC ought not to have taken up such a stand, but unfortunately it has, and on whose advice one however does not know.
15. The absurdity to which UGC has gone in this case will best be demonstrated by the averments which have been made in the supplementary affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the UGC on 19.8.2003. I reproduce this affidavit as under:I A.K. Dogra, Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:[1] That I am the Joint Secretary in the University Grants Commission and as such I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence, I am competent to swear the instant affidavit. [2] That this Honble Court vide its Order dated 05.08.2003 passed in the aforesaid matter directed the University Grants Commission to file supplementary affidavit stating among others as to on what circumstances, the University Grants Commission has exempted Ritu Kohli, Parmesh Datta and Baljeet Singh from Net Examination. [3] That the case of Shri Parmesh Dutta for exemption from NET Examination was placed before the Exemption Committee in its meeting held on 16.12.1996. After considering the proposal received from Tezpur University, the Committee agreed to grant exemption from NET Qualification to Shri Parmesh Dutta in view of his excellent publications and recommendations of the Selection Committee. A true copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 16.12.1996 is annexed herewith and is being marked as ANNEXURE-A-1. [4] That it is relevant to state that pursuant to the order dated 09.12.1997 passed by the Honble Court, the case of Shri Parmesh Dutta was again placed before the Exemption Committee in its meeting held on 12.12.1997. The exemption committee after considering his case at length gave justifications/reasons for granting exemption to Shri Parmesh Dutta from NET. In the said meeting, case of the petitioner was also reconsidered by the Exemption Committee and ultimately the Committee found that there was no reason to recommend exemption from NET to the petitioner herein. The extract of the minutes of the Exemption Committee meeting held on 12.12.1997 has already been extracted in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of UGC at page 76 to 79 of the paperbook hence the same is not being repeated here in order to avoid repetition. [5] That the Exemption Committee in its meeting held on 30.09.1997 considered the proposal received from Delhi University/SGTB/Khalsa College (Evening) in respect of S. Baljeet Singh for appointment of lecturer, Department of History for exemption from Net. After considering his case, the committee agreed to grant exemption from NET qualification to Shri S. Baljeet Singh after considering the details of the case sent by the College through the University on 20.05.1997. The Committee noted that out of the 11 candidates interviewed, there were only 3 candidates who could teach both the required papers namely History of Modern Europe and the Rise of Modern West. Shri Baljeet Singh was unanimously selected for the post as he was competent to teach both, Modern Europe and Rise of Modern West. However, his teaching experience, performance in the interview, good academic record including Gold Medal at post graduate level and performance in the interview was also taken into account to grant him exemption. Thereafter the recommendations of the exemption Committee was placed before the University Grants Commission in its 371st meeting held on 15.10.1997 in which the Commission considered the recommendations of the exemption Committee and approved the recommendations of the exemption committee. True copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Exemption Committee held on 30.09.1997 as also true copy of the minutes of the 371st meeting of the University Grants Commission held on 15.10.1997 are annexed herewith and is being marked as ANNEXURE-A-2 Colly. [6] That it is respectfully submitted that the meeting of the exemption Committee was again held on 11.10.2000 to re-consider the case of Exemption in qualification for the appointment as lecturers. In the said meeting, various items including the case of Ms. Ritu Kohli was placed before the Exemption Committee and the exemption was pleased to recommend for Exemption from NET to Ms. Ritu Kohli. It is further submitted that since the exemption committee did not record reasons for recommending exemption from NET qualification therefore, it is not clear as to on what reasoning the Exemption Committee recommended exemption from NET to the candidates including Ms. Ritu Kohli. A true copy of the minutes of the meeting of Exemption Committee held on 11.10.2000 is annexed herewith and is being marked as ANNEXURE. A-3. [7] That so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, her case for exemption from NET Qualification was considered by the Exemption Committee on 12.04.1996, 30.08.1996 and 12.12.1997. On 12.04.1996 and 30.08.1996, when the exemption Committee considered her case for Exemption from NET, the fact of her clearing the NET Examination held on 30.06.1996 was not placed before the Exemption Committee. However, on both the earlier occasions, the Exemption Committee had duly taken note of special reasons forwarded by the respondent No.3 through the University of Delhi. However the Exemption Committee in its meeting held on 12.12.1997 while considering the case of the petitioner herein for Exemption from NET Qualification, duly took note of the fact that she had cleared the NET Examination held on 30th June 1996. The Exemption Committee also duly considered the letter dated 09.12.1997 from the Respondent No.3 which was received in the office of the Commission on 11.12.1997. It is relevant to point out at this stage that the special justification for appointment of the petitioner as lecturer as contained in the letter dated 09.12.1997 of the Principal of the Respondent No.3 herein is in fact the repetition of the special reasons contained in the proposal dated 09.02.1996 and 05.06.1996 of the Respondent No.3 herein. It is respectfully submitted that the only additional feature of the letter dated 09.12.1997 was a mention of the fact that the petitioner herein has qualified NET. The extract of the recommendations of the exemption Committee in respect of the Exemption Committee meeting held on 12.12.1997 has already been extracted at page 76 to 79 of the paper book, hence the same is not being repeated here in order to avoid repetitiveness. [8] That the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my knowledge. No part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
16. A reading of this supplementary affidavit shows that actions of UGC go from curious to absurd. First let us take the case of Sh. Parmesh Dutta. The reason for granting exemption from NET to Sh. Parmesh Dutta is his excellent publications and recommendations of the Selection Committee. What are the excellent publications and recommendations of Sh. Parmesh Dutta which are accepted by the expert body are not stated and what is the declared criteria of UGC is admittedly not specified for giving benefit to Sh. Parmesh Dutta inasmuch as, and as already stated above, there is no declared criteria on which the UGC is acting which specifies what will be the criteria required.
17. Let us further take the case of Sh. S.Baljeet Singh as stated in the affidavit of UGC. What is stated is that out of 11 candidates interviewed, there were only 3 candidates who could teach both required papers namely History of Modern Europe and the Rise of Modern West. Sh. Baljeet Singh was unanimously selected as he was competent to teach both. How this is on the basis of any specified criteria is once again not mentioned, and which is accentuated by the fact that the reason for granting NET exemption to Sh. Baljeet Singh is being justified also because of Sh. Baljeet Singhs teaching experience, performance in the interview, good academic record including gold medal at post graduate level etc. Once again, how this would satisfy any declared criteria is conspicuous by its absence and for reasons which are not far to seek because as already stated above expert bodies or expert body of UGC is surely deciding its own criteria at its own level in each case without even bothering to bring some transparency by specifying the criteria for exemption from NET.
18. Even in the case of Ms. Ritu Kohli, and who was granted exemption from NET, it is an admitted stand that Exemption Committee did not record reasons for recommending exemption from NET to Ms. Ritu Kohli, and therefore, nothing is stated in the affidavit.
19. In view of the stand of UGC, and which really paints a sorry picture of almost autocracy in this body called UGC, what at all needs to be said further. I would only say that if there is any illegality, this affidavit of UGC dated 19.8.2003 speaks voluminous enough. I need not say anything further.
20. Learned counsel for UGC argued by placing reliance upon P.M.Bhargava and Others Vs. University Grants Commission & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 66.that the Courts should not substitute its opinion for the decision of an expert body. I fail to understand how at all this case can help UGC because all that is decided in that case is that when a course of astrology is approved for teaching by an educational institution, then, Courts cannot decide whether astrology is a subject which ought or ought not to be taught in educational institutions. Surely in such cases Courts will not substitute its own opinion, however, in the facts of the present case, and as stated above, there is no expertise which is an issue.
21. The question now is that having rejected the arguments of Ms. Anita Ghosh and UGC what must follow. It was argued that this Court should again refer the matter back to UGC and should not take a decision on its own. Of course, normally, once a decision of a body is set aside, such a body will be again asked to take a decision in accordance with law, however, in the facts of the present case, where there have been not one but three decisions of UGC persistently refusing to grant exemption from NET qualification, I feel that instead of wasting further time, and that too in these cases which are now over 17 years old, this Court should give its decision instead of UGC doing so. In my opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, since Smt. Kuljeet Kaur had obtained NET qualifications within 1 years from the date of original appointment, and for the NET test which was given within 1 year of the date of appointment, therefore, in my opinion, the only order which is required to be passed is that there is no need of giving exemption from NET qualification, however, the period for obtaining NET qualification of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur is extended up to 12.12.1996. I have already stated that it is not unknown that UGC itself has extended the time for various candidates to obtain the NET qualification. Therefore, if UGC can extend the time for candidates to get NET qualification, there is no reason why this Court cannot exercise similar power and extend the time for obtaining of NET qualification. I do so in the facts of the present case.
22. Accordingly, I hold that appointment of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur to the post of Lady Lecturer in Physical Education of Shriram College of Commerce is valid. Smt. Kuljeet Kaur will be taken to have confirmed to her post from 12.12.1996 and her initial tentative appointment will be valid on3.8.1995, and till 12.12.1996, when she would stand confirmed to the post of Lady Lecturer in Physical Education.
23. In view of the above, W.P.(C) 4896/1997 is allowed by confirming the appointment of Smt. Kuljeet Kaur w.e.f 12.12.1996. W.P.(C) 2846/1996 of Ms. Anita Ghosh to get her appointment to the post in question is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. AUGUST 23 2013 Ne/ib WPC 2846/1996 & 4896/1997