WPMS/905/2013 of Mithlesh Kumar Pandey Vs University Grant Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITALWrit Petition No. 905 of 2013 (M/S)

Mithlesh Kumar Pandey

….. Petitioner

Versus

University Grants Commission

…..Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2012 (M/S)

Devesh Upreti

….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 70 of 2013 (M/S)

Naveen Chandra Pant and another ….. Petitioners Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 81 of 2013 (M/S)

Dr. Rajesh Kalpasi and others

….. Petitioners

Versus With

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..Respondents

Writ Petition No. 98 of 2013 (M/S)

Sachin Gulati and another

….. Petitioners

Versus

Kumaon University, Nainital

…..Respondent

With

Writ Petition No. 153 of 2013 (M/S)

Dinesh and others

….. Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 331 of 2013 (M/S)

Vimal Kumar Joshi

….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 527 of 2013 (M/S)

Kamal Pant and another

….. Petitioners

Versus With

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..Respondents

Writ Petition No. 646 of 2013 (M/S)

Tilak Chandra Joshi

….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..Respondents

Mr. Devesh Upreti, Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Mr. K.N. Joshi, Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi and Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State. Mrs. Seema Sah, Advocate for the University Grant Commission Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for the Kumaon University.

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

In all these writ petitions identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore, all these writ petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

Kumaon University has issued one Notification dated 20.12.2012 inviting applications to appear in the SET examination, one of the qualifying eligibility test for the post of Lecturer. As per the Notification dated 20.12.2012, last date of submission of the applications was 30[th] June, 2012 and examination was scheduled to be held on 29.07.2012. As per the Notification, general candidates were required to obtain minimum 40% marks in paper 1 and paper 2 while 50% marks in paper 3. Likewise, O.B.C. candidates were required to secure 35% marks in paper 1 and paper 2 while 45% marks in paper 3. Likewise scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates were required to obtain minimum 35% marks in paper 1 and paper 2 while 40% marks in paper 3. Below the chart prescribing minimum marks to be obtained, there was note which reads as under :-

“There will be no negative marking. Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each Paper, separately, as mentioned above, will be considered for final preparation of result.

Note : The syllabus of Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III will be the same as UGC-CSIR and UGC-NET. The candidates will be allowed to carry carbon printout of the OMR Response Sheets with them on conclusion of examinations.”

Undisputedly, University issued one Corrigendum dated 07.06.2012 thereby adding following sentence after the words “preparation of the result” below the above chart.

“However, the final qualifying criteria for

eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by Nodal Agency before declaration of result.”

Before the final examination could be held on 29[th]July, 2012, University was pleased to issue cut off marks for different subjects as under :-

Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate appearing in person, and learned Advocates appearing for different petitioners, while placing reliance on the three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others in Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013 decided on 20[th] March, 2013 vehemently argued that rules of the game -, the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Change of the rules of the game after the game was played is clearly impermissible. Further contended that earlier general candidates were required to secure minimum 45% marks in paper No.1 and 2 and 50% marks in paper No.3. However, thereafter, as per the table given hereinbefore, General category candidate is

required to secure more than 50% marks in different subjects which is not permissible under the law.

There is no doubt about the settled position of law that rule of the game can not be allowed to be changed after the selection process has commenced.

This Court in the case of Basanti Rautela Vs.

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another in Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2010 (S/S), decided on 23.12.2013 has held that recruitment process starts with the submission of application form. Since last date of submission of the application form was 30[th]June, 2012 and amendment was added by way of corrigendum on 07.06.2012 much before the last date of submission of the application form, therefore, it cannot be said that rule of the game was changed after the recruitment process started.

Moreover, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

University Grants Commission and another Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), in Civil Appeal No. 8355 of 2013, decided on 19[th] September, 2013 had occasion to deal with this identical controversy. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of University Grants Commission (Supra) in paragraph 29 has held as under :-

“29. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the

view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteria”, which has rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. Candidates declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and colleges and the standard of such teaching faculty has direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of University Grants Commission (Supra) as well as in view of the discussion made hereinbefore, the corrigendum was issued much prior to the submission of the last date of the application form and fixing minimum cut off marks seems to be justified to maintain the high standard of Lecturer.

In view of the above, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. However, no order as to cost.

(Alok Singh, J.)