Dipin Arora vs Shivaji College and Others

Dipak Misra, C.J.—In this intra-court appeal, the sustainability of the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 10720/2009 is called in question.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual matrix that is required to be exposited is that the Respondent No. 1, Shivaji College, affiliated to the University of Delhi, the Respondent No. 3 herein, on 13.5.2008 brought out an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Administrative Officer of the college. The said advertisement stipulated the eligibility criteria stating that a candidate must have good academic record plus Master''s degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent Grade B in the UGC Seven point scale.

In pursuance of the said advertisement, the Appellant applied and he was issued admit card for the written test held for the said post and subsequently was called for the interview by the Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose and got selected for the post in question. He was offered the said post on 29.12.2008 and joined the college on 30.12.2008. It is worth noting, the appointment was subject to "approval of the Governing Body of the College and the Respondent No. 3 University of Delhi". When the approval of the university was sought, the University by its letter dated 16/19th June, 2009 opined that the appointment was not in order as he did not possess the Master''s Degree with 55% marks and asked the College to dispense with his services after following the due process of law.

On 19.6.2009, the Deputy Registrar of the College issued a direction to dispense with the services of the Appellant. A detailed representation/reply was filed by the Appellant. At the stage of show cause, the Petitioner approached the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge on 7.8.2009 passed an order of status quo as a consequence of which he was allowed to continue.

The question that emerged before the learned Single Judge was whether the Appellant did have the requisite qualification. Another ancillary issue that was raised before the learned Single Judge was whether the Appellant had an equivalent degree to the Master''s Degree.

The learned Single Judge adverted to the issue of equivalence and came to hold that the Appellant has not brought any material on record to show that the diploma obtained by the Appellant was treated as equivalent to degree of Post Graduation by the University. The learned Single Judge referred to the decision rendered in Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai and Others, and opined that laying down the principle of equivalence is fundamentally an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority. That apart, the learned Single Judge opined that a diploma can never be equivalent to a Degree. To arrive at the said conclusion, the learned Single Judge relied on the decision in Tirath Raj Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, wherein it has been held that there is a difference between a Degree and a Diploma. Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shailendra Dania and Others Vs. S.P. Dubey and Others, It was also contended before the learned Single Judge that once he had been selected and appointed, the University cannot exercise the power to cancel the appointment. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on Mahatma Gandhi University v. Gis Jose (2008) 17 SCC 611 and Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, and expressed the view that the appointment being void ab initio, no right accrued in favour of the persons concerned and there is no estoppel on the part of the public authority from enforcing a statutory provision.

We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Having perused the order of the learned Single Judge, we have no scintilla of doubt that the Appellant does not meet the basic eligibility criteria inasmuch as the requirement was for a post graduate degree or an equivalent qualification. The Appellant had only a diploma in his favour. There is a distinction between a degree and diploma. When he did not have the basic eligibility criteria, the order of appointment was void ab initio. That apart, the appointment was subject to approval of the University. When the University found that the Appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria, directed the college to terminate the services. No error can be found with the said order. The principle of estoppel cannot be attracted in that regard. Thus, the order of termination cannot be found fault with and giving stamp of approval to the same by the learned Single Judge is absolutely impeccable.

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed in limine.