AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rohini, J.—The 2nd respondent - Salar Jung Museum - is managed by the Salar Jung Museum Board (for short, ''the Board'') established u/s 4 of the Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961 (for short, ''the Act''). Section 12(1) of the Act empowers the Board to appoint such number of officers and other employees as it may think fit for the purpose of enabling it efficiently to perform its functions under the Act. Section 12(2) of the Act further provides that the recruitment and conditions of such officers and employees shall be such as may be provided by Regulations made under the Act. u/s 28 of the Act, the Board is empowered to make Regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette for enabling it to discharge its functions under the Act. In exercise of the said powers, Regulations have been made by the Board in the year 1962 governing the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and the Employees of the Board. Regulation 8 (3) of the said Regulations empowers the Board to make Rules with regard to recruitment and to set out the qualifications and other ancillary provisions. As per the Rules so made by the Board, the post of the Director of the Museum can be filled up by direct recruitment and the qualifications required are also prescribed in the Rules.
On the retirement of the Director, Salar Jung Museum on 31.5.2008, a vacancy arose to the said post and for filling up the same, the 2nd respondent published a notification on 5.4.2008 inviting applications from the eligible candidates.
The educational and other qualifications required for the said post have been specified as under:
(A) Educational and other qualifications required for the above post: Eminent Museologist, or scholar with any of the following qualifications.
Essential: (a) Atleast a second class Master''s degree in Fine Arts including History of Indian or Foreign Art or Indian or European History from a recognized university or its equivalent and about 15 years experience in a senior administrative position in a Museum of repute. For a person with Diploma in Museology, the period of such experience may be about 10 years. Or (b) Doctorate in Fine Arts, History of Indian, or Foreign Art, or Indian or European History, with experience of working in a College, University, or other academic institution or in a cultural organization in a responsible position with sufficient experience or original research, or guiding of research work, as proved by Published books, or articles, or monographs.
Desirable: Knowledge of one more language from any of the following: Sanskrit, Prakrit, Persian, French, or German.
Though the age limit was originally specified as 50 years, subsequently, an Addendum was issued on 1st January, 2009 increasing the maximum age limit from 50 years to 56 years.
The writ petitioner, who is working as Keeper (Education, Publication and Public Relations) in the 2nd respondent Museum, applied for the post of Director pursuant to the notification dated 5.4.2008, claiming that she fulfills the educational qualifications as well as experience prescribed in the notification, dated 5.4.2008.
However, no call letter for the interview was received by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent nor any information was furnished to her about the rejection of her candidature, though the interviews were commenced in September, 2008 itself. It is averred by the petitioner that initially only one candidate was found to be qualified by the Scrutiny Committee and the said candidate was interviewed. However, subsequently after increasing the maximum limit upto 56 years, few more candidates were interviewed in April, 2009. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not calling the petitioner for interview for the post of Director, Salar Jung Museum in pursuance of the notification dated 5.4.2008 and on the other hand calling unqualified candidates for interview as arbitrary and illegal.
A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Director In-charge, Salar Jung Museum stating that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements mentioned in the notification dated 5.4.2008 as found by the Search-cum- Selection Committee and therefore she was not called for the interview. It is also stated that on the basis of the interviews held on 5.9.2008 and 15.4.2009 the selection has been finalized and the same is awaiting formal publication. It is explained that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, who is the Chairman of the Board and it is headed by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Culture, as Chairman and 3 other members namely., the Director General, Archeological Survey of India; Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University; and one Member of the Salar Jung Museum Board.
While denying the petitioner''s claim that she is eligible to be called for interview, it is contended that the experience of 15 years as stipulated in the notification is relatable to the administrative experience and supervision and has no nexus to the posts and scale of pay relatable thereof. The petitioner having not been within the zone of consideration of experience of 10 years having regard to Diploma in Museology, notwithstanding the educational and academic qualifications she could not be considered for interview by the Search- cum-Selection Committee.
It is also contended that the posts of Deputy Keeper and Keeper were occupied by the petitioner without the essential qualifications of Diploma in Museology on the date of respective notifications and her selection as well as the appointment were made on a mistake of fact as the Selection Committee by inadvertence failed to notice the requirement of essential qualification of Diploma in Museology stipulated in the notification. Even at the time of appointment as Keeper notified on 18.3.2000 the petitioner lacked the 7 years experience and also the requisite 5 years experience with Diploma in Museology. The petitioner''s service from entry as Deputy Keeper to the Post of Keeper being fortuitous, she has no vested right to claim that the same shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of the post of Director advertised in the Notification dated 5.4.2008.
Heard both sides in detail.
A reading of the notification dated 5.4.2008 shows that the applicant must be either an eminent museologist or a scholar. It is also clear that the notification prescribes two different combinations of educational qualifications and experience under Clause (a) and Clause (b) respectively.
As could be seen, Clause (a) deals with the applicants who possessed educational qualification of Master''s Degree in Fine Arts including History of Indian or Foreign Art or Indian or European History and Clause (b) deals with the applicants who possessed Doctorate in the said subjects.
Coming to experience, Clause (a) (i.e., applicants possessing Master''s Degree) requires 15 years experience in a senior administrative position in a museum of repute. However for a person with Diploma in Museology, the period of such experience may be about 10 years.
So far as Clause (b) is concerned (i.e., applicants possessing Doctorate), the experience of working in a College, University or other academic institution or a cultural organization in a responsible position with sufficient experience or original research or guiding of research work as proved by published books or articles or monographs is prescribed.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Museology, having obtained the said qualification from Osmania University in the year 2000. The petitioner states that she was appointed through direct recruitment as Deputy Keeper in the Salar Jung Museum on 23.11.1996. Thereafter, she was appointed as Keeper, again through direct recruitment vide proceedings dated 4.12.2000. Thereafter, vide G.O. Rt. No. 4877, dated 5.10.2003 the petitioner was appointed as Director of Archeology, Government of A.P. on deputation while holding her lien as Keeper in the Service of Salar Jung Museum. The deputation was extended from time to time and she functioned as Director of Archeology till 7.11.2007 during which time she was the Head of the Department and had the control of all the 27 museums in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On 7.11.2007 she was appointed as Additional Commissioner Heritage, GHMC and in the said post she worked till 31.03.2009. Thereafter, she has come back to the original organization i.e., Salar Jung Museum and as on today working as Keeper. The petitioner claims that having regard to the duties and responsibilities attached, both the Keeper and Deputy Keeper hold a Senior Administrative position. The petitioner relies upon the Minutes of the Board dated 31.03.1970 in which the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Keeper were enumerated as "they shall have full administrative control over their staff members from the Attender upwards in the Section or Rooms under the Direct Charge". It is claimed that since the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Keeper on 23.11.1996, her experience in the Senior Administrative position has to be calculated from the year 1996 onwards and thus she has put in 12 years of service (1996 to 2008) as on the date of the notification. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she has fully satisfied the qualifications and experience prescribed in Clause (a) of the Notification.
It is contended by the petitioner that she has also satisfied the educational qualifications as well as experience prescribed in Clause (b) of the Notification. It is stated that the petitioner is a Doctorate in History of Arts and that apart she has teaching experience as she had been teaching and delivering lectures. It is also stated that she has sufficient experience in a cultural organization in a responsible position and that Victoria Memorial Hall, Kolkata and Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad where the petitioner functioned/functioning fall under the Department of Culture, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Government of India. Further the petitioner had also functioned as Director of Archeology and Museums, under the control of Department of Tourism and Cultural, Government of A.P., which would fall under the definition of "Cultural organization". It is also stated that the petitioner was appointed as Director, State Art Gallery, at Kavvuri Hills vide G.O.Ms. No. 1728, dated 27.12.2003 which also falls under "cultural organization". The petitioner has original research also to her credit and published several articles/books/monographs/ reports. Therefore it is claimed that even under Clause (b) of the Qualification criteria prescribed in the Notification, she is eligible for consideration.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the educational qualifications of the petitioner have not been disputed. However it is contended that so far as the experience required under Clause (a) is concerned, she did not possess the required period of experience in a senior administrative position in a museum of repute. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the fact that the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Museology is not in dispute. Thus it is not necessary for her to have 15 years experience and the period of experience may be about 10 years.
However, according to the respondents, the petitioner did not put even 10 years of experience. It is contended that the selection of the petitioner both in the posts of Deputy Keeper and Keeper in the Salar Jung Museum was by a mistake of fact since the petitioner did not possess the Diploma of Museology as on the date of the notifications issued to the said posts. It is contended that the Selection Committee by inadvertence failed to notice the requirement of essential qualification of Diploma in Museology stipulated in the notifications. Thus, according to the respondents, the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Keeper and Keeper is fortuitous and cannot be taken into consideration for computing the period of experience prescribed under Clause (a) of the Notification.
Even otherwise, it is contended that the Deputy Keeper of the Museum does not have any administrative control and therefore the 4 years period during which the petitioner worked as Deputy Keeper i.e., from 23.11.1996 to 3.12.2000 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of experience required under Clause (a) of the Notification. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner had only 8 years of experience in a senior administrative position in a museum of repute. Since 10 years experience is essential even for a person with Diploma in Museology, the petitioner, according to the respondents, is ineligible for consideration.
On a careful consideration of the language of the Notification dated 5.4.2008 as well as the other material available on record, I do not find any substance in the contentions of the respondents. It is true that the petitioner had obtained a Diploma in Museology on 3.7.2000 while functioning as a Deputy Keeper in the Salar Jung Museum. However the contention of the respondents that the Diploma in Museology is essential for appointment to the post of Deputy Keeper appears to be factually incorrect. The educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment prescribed for the post of Deputy Keeper under the Recruitment Rules are as under:
Master''s Degree in Arts or Science or equivalent degree.
Diploma in Museology with 3 years experience in a big Museum.
OR
5 years experience in a Museum of standing on a responsible position.
As could be seen, the Diploma in Museology with 3 years experience in a big museum is not an absolute requirement and in the alternative a candidate with five years experience in a museum of standing on a responsible position is also eligible for consideration. The specific case of the petitioner is that by the date of the notification for the post of Deputy Keeper, she had 5 years experience in the Museum of standing on a responsible position.
Similarly, for direct recruitment to the post of Keeper also the Diploma in Museology does not appear to be an absolute requirement. The educational and other qualifications required for the post of Keeper as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules are as under:
ESSENTIAL:
(1) II Class Master''s or Hons'' degree in Arts or science from a recognized University or equivalent qualification from any other recognized institution.
(2) Diploma in Museology with 5 years experience of organizing, Museum educational services and public relations and publication works.
Or
7 years experience in the field or Museum education services, Public relations and Publications.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that she had 7 years experience in the field or Museum education services as on the date of the said notification. Hence the contention that the very appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Keeper and Keeper was only by a mistake of fact appears to be factually incorrect. At any rate, since the petitioner''s services as Deputy Keeper and Keeper were already regularized long back, it is not open to the respondents now to contend that the said appointments are fortuitous.
The other contention of the respondents is that the period during which the petitioner worked as Deputy Keeper cannot be taken into consideration since the post of Deputy Keeper is not a senior administrative position. The stand taken by the respondents is disputed by the petitioner and it is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per the resolution passed by the Salar Jung Museum Board dated 31.03.1970 the Deputy Keeper is also a senior administrative position as the Deputy Keeper shall have full administrative control over the staff members.
It is relevant to note that the expression ''senior administrative position'' is not defined either in the notification dated 5.4.2008 or anywhere under the Recruitment Rules. The notification did not even specify the scale to be attached to a particular post so as to treat the same as a senior administrative position. In the absence of clear parameters as to meaning of the expression "senior administrative position", the question whether the Deputy Keeper post held by the petitioner is a senior administrative position or not, requires consideration by the Board itself or at least by the Selection Committee constituted by the Board. Therefore under no circumstances the application of the petitioner can be rejected at the threshold at the stage of scrutiny on the ground that the petitioner''s service for a period of 4 years in the post of Deputy Keeper cannot be taken into consideration for computing the experience specified in the notification.
It is also relevant to note that even if the period during which the petitioner functioned as Deputy Keeper is excluded, the petitioner has the experience in a senior administrative position for a period of eight (8) years. Clause (a) of the eligibility criteria under the notification made it clear that for a person with Diploma in Museology the period of experience may be about 10 years. In other words, the experience less than 10 years is also acceptable. Whether a particular candidate with less than 10 years experience in a senior administrative position can be considered for appointment or not is again a question which requires consideration by the Selection Committee constituted by the Board.
The expression ''may be about 10 years'' in the notification manifests that there is no compulsion that the experience shall be 10 years but it is the discretion of the Selection Committee to accept even experience of less than 10 years. Such discretion cannot be exercised at the time of the scrutiny of the applications but it is a matter for consideration by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Hence, on that ground also the rejection of the petitioner''s application at the time of the scrutiny is arbitrary and illegal. It is also relevant to note that in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that she is fully qualified even under the second set of qualifications i.e., the qualifications prescribed under Clause (b) of the eligibility criteria under the Notification. In support of the said plea, voluminous material has been included in the material papers filed along with the writ petition. However the said plea of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents in their counter- affidavit. The petitioner''s allegation in paragraph-15 of her affidavit that the three persons named therein were called for interview though they did not have experience in museums has also not been answered by the respondents in the counter-affidavit.
However, the learned Counsel for the respondents across the bar vehemently contended that the requirement of eminent museologists is related to component (a) and the term scholar is related to component (b) in the notification. It is contended that since the petitioner is governed by the component (a), she has to necessarily possess the experience of 10 years with Diploma in Museology in a senior administrative position and the Component (b) does not apply to her case.
The said contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the face of it, is fallacious and cannot be accepted.
''A museologist'' as per dictionary meaning is ''a person having experience and knowledge of museums''. Similarly the word ''scholar'' in the Chambers Dictionary 2000 Edition is defined as ''an educated person''; ''someone whose learning is extensive and exact'' or ''whose approach to learning is scrupulous and critical''
Having regard to the fact that the expression ''scholar'' is used immediately after the word ''eminent museologist'', it is clear that the word ''scholar'' has to be construed in the context of the earlier word. Consequently the word ''scholar'' used in the notification undoubtedly has a nexus with the preceding expression ''eminent museologist'' and it has to be understood as a scholar concerning with museums. Hence the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the qualifications in Clause (b) are not applicable to eminent museologist is untenable.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the respondents committed an error in discarding the petitioner''s application at the threshold at the stage of scrutiny. Having regard to the qualifications, both educational and experience of the petitioner noticed above, I am of the opinion that her candidature requires consideration by the duly constituted Selection Committee, in terms of the observations made by this Court supra as to the discretion exercisable by the Selection Committee with regard to the experience possessed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner''s candidature by the Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted by the Board for appointment to the post of Director pursuant to the notification dated 5.4.2008. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time the selection process to the Post of Director of the 2nd respondent Museum shall not be finalized. No costs.