IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.25217 of 2012 Date of Decision:
01. 10.2013 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla ..Petitioner Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.S.Sandhu, Mr. Bhaumik Mehta and Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocates, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL C.J.
(Oral) The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner both in the nature of quo-warranto and certiorari praying for a restraint order against respondent No.4 from holding the post of Finance & Development Officer (for short ‘F.D.O.’) in Panjab University, Chandigarh on the specious plea that the qualification and experience as laid down in the advertisement have not been fulfilled. A sequitur relief is for quashing CWP No.25217 of 2012 2 of changed qualifications as according to the petitioner these qualifications were so changed to suit the selection of respondent No.4.
2. The writ petition, though styled as one for quo-warranto, has been filed by the petitioner, not a participant in the selection process, claiming to be an R.T.I. activist. The writ petition was originally listed before the learned Single Judge on 16.01.2013 when it was opined that the writ petition had been filed in public interest and thus treating the same as PIL directed to be listed before this Court. This is despite the fact that as per learned counsel for the petitioner what he filed was not a PIL but only a petition in the nature of quo- warranto. The aforesaid is relevant to the extent that if PIL is to be entertained, then the same must satisfy the norms as laid down in “Maintainability of Public Interest Litigations Rules, 2010”.. On our query, we are informed that petitioner was a Lecturer in Botany with DAV College, Chandigarh who was removed from service number of years back and challenge to his removal is pending consideration before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has invited our attention to the order of the Central Information Commission (Annexure R-4/1) to contend that the petitioner herein is in the habit of preferring applications under the Right to Information Act. To substantiate this allegation, attention of this Court is drawn to the decision of the Central Information Commission dated 25.02.2011, wherein it was observed as under:- CWP No.25217 of 2012 3 “Decision- After hearing the averments of the respondents and on perusal of the facts on record, the Commission concludes that undoubtedly the appellant is misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores with his former employer. The Commission rules that such vexatious applications can be summarily dismissed at the level of the CPIO since it is obvious that these applications are not being preferred in public interest and are infact adversely impacting the functioning of the public authority instead of strengthening it which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.”
.. So much for the activity of the petitioner as an RTI activist! He claims that he is not gainfully employed otherwise and is a fulltime RTI activist.
4. Now coming to the merits of the controversy, the substratum of the claim of the petitioner is that the essential qualifications originally envisaged inter-alia work experience for appointment of F.D.O., which has been waived off by an amendment of these essential qualifications. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 is a Chartered Accountant with Master Degree having 55% marks. We may add at this stage that one of the aspects raised by the petitioner is qua the Master degree of respondent No.4. However, as per the earlier norms, there is requirement of 15 years experience, which according to the petitioner, has been waived off to suit the respondent No.4. As to how this change has occurred may now be noticed.
5. The syndicate was seized of the issue for review of the qualifications for the post of Controller of Examination (for short CWP No.25217 of 2012 4 “COE) on account of the proposal of the office dated 11.09.2006 which was referred by the Vice Chancellor to the Syndicate on 14.09.2006. On 29.10.2006, the Syndicate resolved to defer the agenda with the observation that the office may re-examine the matter pertaining to the qualification of C.O.E. Accordingly, the office put up a note on 08.11.2006 through the Registrar before the Vice Chancellor to constitute a committee under the Chairmanship of the Registrar. It appears that it is at that stage on 27.11.2006 the Registrar, while fixing the date of meeting for reviewing the qualifications for the post of C.O.E., had also ordered to put the case of F.D.O.s qualifications to the same committee as the post of F.D.O. was lying vacant. The committee gave its recommendations on 21.02.2007 regarding both the posts which were thereafter put up before the Syndicate.
6. The existing qualifications and the proposed qualifications were as under:- FINANCE & DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PRESENT QUALIFICATION PROPOSED QUALIFICATION1. A Master’s degree with at least Master’s degree with at least 55% 55% marks or its equivalent grade of B marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC seven-point scale, in in the UGC seven point scale, in Commerce/Finance/Economics/ Commerce/Finance/Economics/ Business Administration/Business Business Administration Administration (Finance). /Business Administration OR (Finance). Chartered Accountant with 55% marks OR in Master’s degree. Chartered Accountant with 55% OR marks in Master’s degree. A Master’s degree with at least 55% OR marks or its equivalent grade of B in At least 15 years of experience as the UGC seven point scale, in case of Lecturer (Senior Scale) out of in-service candidate of Panjab which eight years should be in University. the Selection Grade/Reader’s Grade alongwith experience in 2). At least 15 years of experience educational administration. as Lecturer/Lecturer (Senior Scale) out OR of which eight years should be in the An internal candidate with not CWP No.25217 of 2012 5 Selection Grade/Reader’s Grade less than 20 years of service in alongwith experience in educational Panjab University, having worked administration. as Deputy Registrar and OR Assistant Registrar for a total 15 years of administrative experience of period of not less than 8 years which 8 years as Deputy Registrar or shall also be eligible to compete equivalent post. for the post of Finance & Development Officer. A relaxation of 5% marks in the requirement of 55% marks at Master’s However, the condition of 20 degree level will be given to SC/ST years of service in the Panjab candidates. University shall be relaxable in the case of those, who have been appointed by selection to the post of Assistant Registrar or above. A relaxation of 5% marks in the requirement of 55% marks at Master’s degree level will be given to SC/ST candidates.
7. The aforesaid recommendations duly approved by the Registrar and the Vice Chancellor were placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 23.02.2007 which in turn examined the Minutes of the Committee dated 21.02.2007 making recommendations for change of qualifications and resolved that the Vice Chancellor be authorized to take a decision in the matter. The matter having been put up to the Vice Chancellor, the proposed qualifications of both the posts were approved on 08.03.2007. The aforesaid is stated to have met the necessary requirements for change of qualifications in accordance with Rule 2 at page 72 of P.U. Calendar, Volume-III, 2005, which reads as under:-
“2. The age, educational and other qualifications for appointment to a post and methods of recruitment shall be as prescribed by the Syndicate, from time to time provided that no one shall be appointed to any post unless he attained the age of 18 years.”
. CWP No.25217 of 2012 6 8. The process of recruitment to the post of F.D.O. inter-alia thereafter had begun with the first advertisement No.5 of 2007. Eleven candidates applied and as per meeting of the Screening Committee to determine the eligibility of the candidates, only two candidates were eligible including respondent No.4 (respondent No.4 was provisionally eligible for want of submission of marks-sheet). It was thus opined that since the eligible candidates were only two, re-advertisement of the post should take place. The second advertisement was issued on 23.09.2007 vide Advt. No.12/2007 with the condition that the candidates who had already applied in response to the Advt. No.5/2007 need not to apply again. There were total 15 candidates only and three candidates were found eligible including respondent No.4. Out of these only two candidates appeared before the Selection Committee on 06.04.2008 i.e. Shri Vikram Nayyar (respondent No.4) and Mrs. Rajinder Kaur. The Selection Committee decided to re-advertise the post. The post was thereafter re-advertised, after approvals of the Syndicate, vide Advt. No.4/2008. Four candidates were found to be eligible including respondent No.4. The Selection Committee was thus constituted of 10 members, out of which eight members participated in the meeting held on 21.09.2008. The details of the eight persons, who participated in the meeting, are as under:- 1. Professor R.C.Sobti, the then Vice Chancellor, Panjab University.
2. Sh. Dharam Singh, IAS, Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.
3. Sh. S.K.Sandhu, IAS, Director, Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh. CWP No.25217 of 2012 7 4. Professor Sunil Kumar Gupta, Vice Chancellor, H.P. University, Shimla.
5. Professor Jairup Singh, Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
6. Dr. Naresh Kumar, Head, R&D Planning Division & OSD, Human Research Development Centre, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi.
7. Professor I.J.S. Bansal (Retd.).
8. Professor S.S.Bari, Registrar, Panjab University.”
. Once again only two candidates i.e. respondent No.4 and Shri Harnam Singh Rana appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee opined that respondent No.4 Vikram Nayyar should be selected while Shri Harnam Singh Rana should be placed on the waiting list.
9. In pursuance to the aforesaid recommendation of the Selection Committee, Syndicate approved the recommendations on 30.09.2008 and appointment letter was issued to respondent No.4 on 03.10.2008 in anticipation of approval of the Senate. Respondent No.4 joined on 20.11.2008 and the Senate granted its approval on 06.12.2008 which is 91 members body.
10. As far as the educational qualification of respondent No.4 and his experience are concerned, they have been set out in the affidavit of the respondent University, as under:- Educational Qualifications: Examination University Marks Matric Punjab School Education Board, 590/800 Mohali (PSEB). 10+2 Punjab School Education Board, 315/450 Mohali, PSEB. B.Com. Panjab University, Chandigarh. 1755/2800 Supervisory Punjab State Electricity Board Qualified CWP No.25217 of 2012 8 Accounts Service-1 Chartered The Institute of Chartered 717/1400 Accountant Accountants of India (ICAI), New Delhi. Information The Institute of Chartered 154/200 System Accountants of India (ICAI), New Audit. Delhi. MBA Vinayaka Mission University 636/900 (Finance) Employment Experience:- Name of the Designation From To Employer /Institution Punjab State Revenue 25.1.2000 10.03.2004 Electricity Accountant Board Punjab State Accounts Officer 11.3.2004 25.6.2008 Electricity Board 11. The present writ petition was, however, filed only on 17.12.2012 i.e. more than four years after the appointment had already taken place. The relevancy of this passage of time is that respondent No.4 who was already working in Punjab State Electricity Board applied for and on being selected resigned and his selection now sought to be challenged after a period of four years.
12. Learned counsel for the University submits that such a belated challenge, in any case, ought not to be entertained by this Court and in that behalf he has referred to an order passed by this Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.7525 of 2013 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla Vs. Union of India and others decided on 27.08.2013. The petitioner was the same in that case and that petition styled as Public Interest Litigation was filed seeking to assail the appointment of the post of the Director in Dr. B.R.Ambedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar. We had examined the merits of the controversy and rejected CWP No.25217 of 2012 9 the plea of the petitioner finding no fault with the selection process. We had also observed that the period of three years of delay after appointment was also a factor to be taken into account.
13. Be that as it may, as we have heard the elaborate arguments on the part of all the learned counsels for the parties, we consider it appropriate to even examine the merits of the controversy.
14. The first aspect urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period of experience which was mandatory has been waived off for a person having qualification of Chartered Accountant with Post Graduate Degree. He submits that while laying down several qualifications, word ‘OR’ has been used. He submits that for recruitment to a similar post in U.G.C., the requisite experience is required.
15. The relevant fact in the present case is that the decision to review the qualifications was taken much prior to the selection process. This review of the decision has in turn been followed through a process requiring approval of the Syndicate and the Vice Chancellor both. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no trigger for changing the qualification of F.D.O. when the Syndicate was only seized of the matter of the qualification of C.O.E. It is no doubt true that the issue of change of qualification of C.O.E. was referred to be examined administratively, but while doing so, the Registrar considered it appropriate to get both the qualifications of C.O.E. and F.D.O. examined as both the posts were lying vacant. The amended qualifications were thereafter placed before the Syndicate which in turn CWP No.25217 of 2012 10 left the matter to the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor granted his due approval and the matter thus ended as per Rules. Thus, the change in qualifications cannot be said to be without due process.
16. As to what should be the qualification, we are of the view that it is not for this Court to superimpose its views on that aspect once a duly constituted body has deemed it appropriate to amend the qualifications as per the procedure prescribed. The educational institutions are best left to decide what is the nature of qualification/experience required for performing a particular task and that aspect would not require interference and that too at the behest of a person who does not even have a competitive interest.
17. It may also be noticed that the post was advertised thrice over. Thus effort was made to enlarge the number of people who could be considered as applicants through these advertisements but ultimately there were only limited number of qualified persons. It is not as if these were tailor-made requirements for respondent No.4 who infact applied for in all the three processes but was selected only in the third process. We thus cannot find any fault even with the process.
18. The second limb of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the alleged non-qualification of respondent No.4 on account of the fact that M.B.A. degree which he possesses cannot be taken into account for the purposes of his appointment as it is not recognized by the respondent University. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the response to the CWP No.25217 of 2012 11 R.T.I. queries by Annexures P-8 and P-9. In terms of these communications dated 28.06.2012 and 04.10.2012 respectively, it has been informed that M.B.A. (Finance) examination conducted by the Vinayaka Mission University, Salem, Tamil Nadu, had not so far been recognized by Panjab University, Chandigarh and that its equivalence has not been granted to any other examination of the University.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has referred to the counter affidavit filed and the stand set out therein qua this issue. The same is contained in para No.3 of the Preliminary Objections and reads as under:-
“3. That the reply of the Public Information Officer vide letter No.ST-6394 dated 28.06.2012 and ST10205dated 4.10.2012 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) in response to RTI applications dated 21.6.2012 and 13.8.2012 is not correct. In this regard, it is submitted that Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem has been declared as a Deemed University by the University Grants Commission under section 3 of the UGC Act 1956. The list of institutions which have been declared as Deemed to be Universities downloaded from the official website of the University Grants Commission is annexed as Annexure R-5. The Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation is member of the Association of Indian Universities. The copy of list of members of Association of Indian Universities published by Association of Indian Universities (AIU) is annexed as Annexure R-6. Further, the Vinayaka Mission University is recognized by the Distance Education Council (DEC), Indira Gandhi National Open University. A copy of list downloaded from the official website of Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University regarding recognition accorded by the Distance Education Council to the Universities/Institutions for offering programmes through distance mode is annexed as Annexure R-7. The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India issued CWP No.25217 of 2012 12 notification dated 1.3.1995 whereby the qualifications awarded through Distance Educcation by the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be Universities, under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 stand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government, provided it has been approved by the Distance Education Council. The copy of notification dated 1.3.1995 from Ministry of Human Resource Development is annexed as Annexure R-8. It is apparent that the PIO was not aware of the above said factual position while replying to the queries under the RTI Act.”. 20. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory which shows that the concerned authorities have recognized the Distance Education Council degree of M.B.A. of Vinayaka Mission University, Salem, Tamil Nadu. In this behalf, our attention has been invited to a Notification dated 01.03.1995 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India, as Annexure R-8, which reads as under:- “On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, the Government of India has decided that all the qualifications awarded through Distance Education by the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and Institutions of National Importance declared under an Act of Parliament stand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government provided it has been approved by the Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University, K-76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and wherever necessary by All India Council for Technical Education, I.G.Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.”
. CWP No.25217 of 2012 13 21. The aforesaid thus shows that the Deemed Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 stand recognized for the purposes of employment to posts and services under the Central Government provided it is approved by the Distance Education Council. Learned counsel for the University has also drawn our attention to the annexures referred to in para No.3 of the Preliminary Objections extracted aforesaid to substantiate the pleadings made in the paragraph.
22. Learned counsel seeks to explain the discrepancy between what is stated aforesaid and the communication by the University arising from the queries raised under the Right to Information Act by submitting that an equivalence of a degree is really for the purposes of seeking admission in the University and it is not as if all the Universities and the degrees notified are updated automatically. The occasion for recognizing and equivalence arises only when the admission is sought and equivalence committee goes into that aspect. This plea finds support from Annexure P-8 wherein it has been informed to the information seeker that he is advised to apply on the prescribed proforma alongwith the syllabus for M.B.A. (Finance) examination and charges for seeking equivalence of the degree.
23. Learned counsel has also referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1145 of 2004 Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others decided on 25.04.2013 to submit that CWP No.25217 of 2012 14 M.B.A. course has been held not be a technical course within the definition of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short ‘AICTE Act’) and thus the approval from AICTE is not required for obtaining permission and running MBA course in the college. This is in the context of Annexure R-8 dated 01.03.1995 referred to aforesaid which stipulates that there is no requirement of seeking deemed approval from AICTE in case approval is forthcoming from Distance Education Council coupled with the requirement of AICTE approval ‘where necessary’. Thus, such approval of AICTE for running M.B.A. course is not required.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that as per the requirement of the advertisement, a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was required from the previous employer. In this behalf, it may be noticed that respondent No.4 applied through proper channel every time and thus the application was forwarded through his parent department i.e. P.S.E.B. He also sought No Objection Certificate for the said purpose and while submitting his application stated that the No Objection Certificate would be produced at the time of interview. The No Objection Certificate was so produced. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this No Objection Certificate is relatable to the 2nd interview and no separate No Objection Certificate was obtained for 3rd interview. In our view, this is not a material aspect for the reason that when a No Objection Certificate for prior interview was available and the parent department of respondent No.4 had not raised any objection especially when his application was itself forwarded by his CWP No.25217 of 2012 15 department, this can hardly be a reason to upset the appointment of respondent No.4.
25. We are of the view that the present litigation has really been fought on a premise as if there is any personal angst of the petitioner though on papers there appears to be none. We find no reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the writ petition being without any merit. Petitioner is also burdened with costs of litigation quantified at ` 10,000/- payable in equal share to the University and respondent No.4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents state that the costs imposed be deposited with the High Court Mediation Centre. Ordered accordingly. Needful be done within 15 days. (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 01.10.2013 JUDGE 'ravinder' Sharma Ravinder 2013.10.04 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document