Dr. Sulochana Bawri vs The Shillong College and Others

S.L. Saraf, J.—The Petitioner is an M.A. in Political Science and has obtained her M.Phil, in the year, 1984 and Ph.D. in the year, 1988 from the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU in short). The Petitioner has filed this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 20 as a Lecturer of the Political Science Department of the Shillong College, the Respondent No. l, and for non-consideration of the Petitioner for the post.

The facts of the case is as follows:

On the 24th of June, 1990, the Principal of the Respondent No. 1 published an advertisement in News Paper, Annexure III to the petition, calling for applications for the post of lecturers in nine subjects including Political Science in the Shillong College. In the said advertisement, it was stated that the qualifications of the Applicants will be as per the University Grants Commission (UGC for short) norms and preference will be given to experienced candidates with Honours at the Graduation level and Ph.D. degree in the respective subjects. It was further stated that specialisation in Public Administration with Electoral Politics in the North East/Political Sociology/Modern Political Analysis at the Pont Graduation level will be required for the candidates for the post of Lecturers for appointment in Political Science in the Shillong College, Shillong. The advertisement issued is set-out hereunder.

"Applications with attested copies of certificates/mark sheets/testimonials etc. right from Matriculation/HSLC examinations onwards in duplicate and through proper channel, if in service, will be received by the undersigned for the posts of Lecturers in (i) Bengali (ii) Garo (iii) Economics (iv) Education (v) Commerce (vi) Chemistry (vii) Botany (viii) Physics (ix) Political Science in the Shillong College, Shillong-3, Meghalaya having qualifications as per U.G.C. norms at the U.G.C. Scale of Pay and allowances as admissible under deficit Grant-in-aid rules within 20 (twenty) days from the date of publication of the advertisement.

Preference will be given to experienced candidates and Honours Graduates/Ph.D. Degree in respective subject except Garo.

Special papers required for the candidates for the post of Lecturer in (iii) Economics : Quantitative technique as one of the papers in graduate level and Mathematics for Economics as one of the papers at the post graduate level, (iv) Specialisation in Experimental Education and Statistics find M. A. in Education (v) Advanced Accountancy/Management as special subject at P.G. Level or Statistic and or Maths at Degree and P.G. Level. (vi) Specialisation in Organic or Physical Chemistry at P.G. Level (vii) Cytogenetics or Physiology as special paper at P.G. Level, (ix) Specialisation in Public Adm. with Electoral politics in North East/Political Sociology/Modern Political Analysis at the P.G. Level.

Sd/ D.S. Rawat Principal

Pursuant to such advertisement, about ten candidates were interviewed for the post of Lecturer in Political Science by the Selection Committee formed for the purpose of selecting and forwarding the names of the candidates to the Governing Body for the purposes of appointment. In the panel in order of merit prepared by the Selection Committee, the name of the Petitioner appeared first, However, while considering for the appointment to the port, the Governing Body refused to consider the name of the Petitioner for appointment to'' the post inasmuch as according to them, the Petitioner did not obtain the minimum requisite marks in her M.A, examination. In that premises, the Respondent No. 20. Miss R.P. Laitphlang, was appointed against the vacancy caused by the death of Professor S.R. Bhattacharjee as a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and the third candidate in the Selection Committee''s list, Mrs. K. Lyngdoh, was appointed as part time Lecturer.

The Petitioner has contended that the said appointment of Respondent No. 20 as Lecturer in the Political Science was illegal, wrongful and the Governing Body has acted illegally and contrary to the provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, as amended in 1987 and the rules made thereunder and the directions issued by the UGC from time to lime. Her case is that she was an M.A. in Political Science and has obtained M.Phil, in Electoral Politics in Meghalayaa case study in the Mawkhar Constituency in 1984. The Petitioner further obtained Ph.D. degree in Electoral Politics in Meghalaya - A case study of greater Shillong area in the 1983 Election. Further she had done Folkloristic studies in relation to the North East India - Folklore of Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram. She had experience as Lecturer in the St. Anthony''s College in 1980 and she was a Lecturer in the Post. Graduate Training School for B.Ed., classes in 1989. She was a Lecturer in St. Anthony''s College, an Honorary Lecturer in the Shillong College and a counsel in Public Administration for Graduates in the Indira Gandhi National Open University, Shillong. She was also Project Officer for the evaluation of the Adult Education Programme in the states of Assam and Meghalaya. As such, she was the best qualified amongst the candidates recommended for appointment as Lecturer in Political Science.

One, Kare Heiman Shen, filed an affidavit as an intervener in this matter and had alleged that. Miss, Laitphlang, Respondent No. 20, who has been appointed as Lecturer does not possess any Ph.D. or M.Phil., nor she has been qualified in the National Eligibility Test or in any other accredited lest as per the UGC norms, as such, she was not qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer. The said intervener/Respondent had further stated that Miss section Bawri''s appointment as a Lecturer would jeopardise the reservation policy in force in the state of Meghalaya, He had referred to a Circular issued by the UGC dated 30th January, 1990, whereby the UGC has laid down that all those candidates who have secured 55% marks at the Master Degree level may be exempted from appearing in Eligibility Test for recruitment as Lecturers in the University and Colleges if the candidates have passed the UGC/C.S.I.R./J.R.F. Examination or have already been awarded Ph.D./M.Phil. degree. The Circular of the University Grants Commission dated 30th Jan., 1990 is set-out hereunder:

The University Grants Commission has decided that all those candidates who have secured 55% marks at Master''s Degree level may be exempted from appearing in "eligibility test'' for Recruitment of Lecturers in Universities and Colleges as under:

All candidates who have passed UGC/CSIR/JRF Examination.

All candidates who have already been awarded Ph.D./M.Phil degree.

All candidates who will be awarded M.Phil, upto December'' 90 and Ph.D. upto December, 1992.

Sd/- N.K.Jain, Deputy Secretary.

Mr. Deb, the learned Counsel appearing for the Shillong College had submitted that the Petitioner�s name was not considered by the Governing Body only on the ground that she had not obtained 55% marks in her M.A. Examination. Mr. Deb also refers to a Circular issued on 31st May, 1989, wherein the minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of Lecturer is atleast 55% marks in M.A, degree in the relevant subject. Miss Laitphlang, Respondent No. 20, has filed an affidavit but has not appeared at the time of hearing of the application. In her affidavit, she states that she passed her M.A. examination in me year, 1986 and secured 56.44% marks in me aggregate in the said examination. She had also done a semester course in M.Phil, programme of the NEHU in 1987, but she did not obtain M.Phil, degree.

On the above facts, it is manifestly obvious that the Respondent No. 20 did not qualify herself for appointment as a Lecturer in the Shillong College as she did not satisfy the UGC norms as per the Circular dated 30th January, 1990. Respondent No. 20 had obtained 55% marks in her Master Degree, but she had not appeared in any eligibility lest for recruitment as Lecturer in University and Colleges; nor was she a holder of Ph. D. or M.Phil. degree. She was not qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer us per the terms set out in the Circular dated 31st May, 1989, by the Govt. of Meghalaya, Education Department, wherein the minimum qualification required is 55% marks in the Master degree and besides fulfilling the minimum academic qualification, one would have to be qualified in a comprehensive test specially conducted for the purpose on the basis of the scheme prepared by the UGC. As such, her appointment as Lecturer in the, Political Science Department in the Shillong College was not according to the norms laid down by the UGC or even us per the Circular of the Education Department. Govt. of Meghalaya, and was contrary to the advertisement issued on 24th of June, 1990.

The non-consideration of the name of the Petitioner for appointment as a Lecturer was improper and contrary to the Circular of the UGC as also the Circular of the Govt. of Meghalaya, Education Department, dated 31st May, 1989. From the said two Circulars, it is obvious that the minimum qualifications referred thereunder relate only to candidates who were only Master degree holders but they do not relate to persons who have acquired higher degrees like M.Phil, or Ph.D. The Petitioner was M.Phil, as well as Ph.D. degree holder, as such, the rejection of her name for consideration for appointment as a Lecturer was illegal and unjustified. She had qualifications which was much higher than the minimum qualifications prescribed. As such, amongst the three candidates whose names were selected in order of merit by the Selection Committee, she was the most eligible for appointment, in Shillong College as Lecturer in Political Science. According to the advertisement inviting applications, Ph.D. or M.Phil, degree holders were to be given preference. The candidates to be selected to the post of Lecturer in Political Science was to possess special papers showing specialisation in Public Administration with Electoral Politics in the North East/Political Sociology/Modern Political Analysis at the Post Graduate level. From the affidavits filed before this Court, it appears that the Petitioner was the only person qualified amongst all the candidates who had specialisation in the above subject, The Petitioner though a holder of M.Phil. and Ph.D. and having specialisation in Electoral Politics, instead of getting any preference was not even considered by the Governing Body though selected as first candidate by the Selection Committee. The same was illegal, mala fide, without any application of mind, arbitrary and in violation of several Circulars referred to above. As such, the Petitioner�s candidature was rejected unjustly, unfairly and contrary to all norms and qualifications required. The Governing Body has not rejected her name on the ground of the Petitioner not being a member of the Scheduled Tribe or the Scheduled Caste, nor the advertisement states anything of reservation Policy The only ground as Mr. Deb, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 the Shillong College, concedes for not considering the name of the Petitioner was that the Petitioner did not possess 55% marks in her M.A. Examination. From the records, it appears that on the death or one Professor, Shri S.R. Bhattacharjee, from the post of Lecturer and head of the department, of Political Science, a post of lecturer in Political Science department had become vacant and a new appointment was to be made in place and stead of the deceased who was a non-Tribal. As such, I find that the appointment of the Petitioner would not have come in the way of the Reservation Policy either. At the time of final hearing of the matter, I had suggested to Mr. Deb to inquire if both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 20 could be accommodated as Lecturers in the said College. Mr. Deb under instructions from his client, had submitted that the same was not possible at present.

In view of the above, the rule issued is made absolute. The appointment of the Respondent No. 20 as Lecturer of Political Science in the Shillong College was subject to the result of the rule as per the interim order passed by this Hon''ble Court on the 21st of October, 1991. As such, the appointment of the Respondent No. 20 is set aside and cancelled for the reasons stated above. The authorities are directed to issue a fresh advertisement for appointment of the most qualified candidate without changing the busies of the previous advertisement dated 24th June, 1990. The application is accordingly disposed of and there will be no order as to costs.