Dr. Mohd. Ayub Khan vs Punjabi University and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner prays for the quashing of selection of respondent No. 5 and his exclusion from the process of selection on the ground that it is arbitrary. The petitioner had applied to be considered for the post of Reader/Associate Professor for Urdu which was advertised by respondent No. 3 on 8th July, 2009. The essential qualification prescribed for the post is extracted herewith:

Reader in Urdu-1 (12,000-18300) for Nawab Sher Mohd. Khan Institute of Advance Studies in Urdu, Persian and Arabic, Materkotla.

Qualifications:

As prescribed by the U.G.C., Preference will be given to the candidate having M.A. Persian and Arabic.

The U.G.C. guidelines mentioned are as follows:

Qualifications and grade for the post of Reader/Associate Professor: Grade Rs. 12000-420-18300/- (U.G.C.)

a) Arts & Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical Education, Humanities & Religious Studies, Languages, Law Physical Sciences, life sciences and vocational courses.

Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these candidates who join from outside the University system, shall also possess at least 55% of the marks of an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades, O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Master''s degree level.

Five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of Scholarship as evidence by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula.

The claim of the petitioner would centre around the following stipulation which is extracted once again at the cost of repetition:

Five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of Scholarship as evidence by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula.

The petitioner was dusted from the zone of consideration and the reasons given by the respondent No. 1 are two fold:

(i) That the original documents, were not appended with the application and thus the form was incomplete.

(ii) The petitioner does not have five years of teaching experience.

Both these aforesaid objections raised by the University seem to be misplaced with the one being outrightly false and contrary to the facts. The petitioner has appended his form which he has obtained under the Right to Information Act and where he has mentioned all the documents which he has appended along with the form in original. A perusal of the form would indicate that the University has looked into original documents appended with the application and has found the petitioner suitable for consideration. The notings on the form itself would indicate that the authorities had the opportunity to delve into the documents appended to the form. This objection, therefore, is negated and the Court opines that the petitioner could not have been ousted at least on this consideration.

This would now lead to the subsequent question which is of more importance than the first objection and that is whether the petitioner had the prescribed experience of five years of teaching. The petitioner has referred to his bio-data which he had furnished to the University where he has mentioned his teaching experience and research experience which may be relevant to extract herewith:

The respondent No. 1 has placed interpretation on the U.G.C. Guidelines extracted above to say that the period of research spent by an incumbent which leads to its recognition by way of a Doctorate Degree has to be excluded and this is the reason why the petitioner was not considered as the period of research spent by him is from 25.03.1992 to 24.3.1997 which is also the period indicated against the teaching experience and, therefore, the University has rightly applied the U.G.C. guidelines to keep the petitioner out of the zone of consideration.

This to the mind of this Court is erroneous. The petitioner was qualified to hold the post of a Lecturer as he has a degree of M.Phil to his credit which is acquired in the year 1993 and at that point of time, there was no inhibition or constraint of qualifying the eligibility test which is now a condition for taking up an assignment in teaching. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had been working with respondent No. 3 itself as a Lecturer and a certificate of this recognition is also on record. There is nothing to suggest that a person would be disabled from taking up both the assignments together that is teaching and research. If it were a case where an incumbent had only been pursuing his research and not simultaneously taking up an assignment in teaching then the interpretation placed by the University would have been acceptable and this period would necessarily have to be excluded from the purview of consideration but if a person takes up his teaching assignment being qualified for the same but also pursues his research alongside then he distinctively acquires teaching experience independently of the research that he has carried out for which he has been awarded a Doctorate Degree. It is nowhere the case of the respondents that such an arrangement of simultaneous teaching and doing the research work was prohibited and that a person pursuing his teaching vocation is debarred from carrying out research or vice versa. Placing such an interpretation would be inhibiting the pursuits of a person desirous of doing so. Rather, the university should adopt an approach of encouraging such individuals who teach and research at the same time rather than placing a deterrent by a narrow interpretation which, in any case, is an unacceptable interpretation.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 states that the post is for Reader in Urdu and the petitioner is not having a degree in Urdu. This is not the stand taken by the respondent-University to oust the petitioner from consideration and if the petitioner has been found eligible on all fronts then, he cannot be denied consideration. Moreover, it is the Selection committee, who is to consider this aspect at the time of consideration of the process. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner had been greatly prejudiced for being ousted from the zone of consideration. The selection process is, therefore, set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as against the one who has been selected. The exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible.

Petition stands allowed.