Dr. Tariq Saleem Khan vs University of Jammu and Others

R.C. Gandhi, J.—Petitioner seeks to quash Order No. Estab/02/7692 dated 9.11.2002 and Order No. Estab/02/8322 dated 30.11.2002

whereby two representations of the petitioner have been rejected and also Advertisement Notice No. Adm., TW.2002/10461-560 dated

1.6.2002 whereby the post of Assistant Registrar has been advertised by the respondent-University for selection of suitable candidates. The

petitioner is working as Head Assistant in the University. He is P.hd. in Urdu. He has secured 55.25 marks in M.A Urdu. He applied to the

University against Advertisement Notice seeking selection to the post of Assistant Registrar. The University-Respondent has rejected the

application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 1.6.2002 on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible to seek selection being bereft of

the eligibility criteria.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner being in service candidate is eligible to the relaxation of

qualifying marks to the extent of 5% as provided under the instructions issued by the University Grants Commission.

The respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the said relaxation as it has been made applicable by the University

only to the teaching staff.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The question only to be addressed is as to whether the petitioner is eligible to seek selection for the post of Assistant Registrar. The eligibility

criteria advertised under the impugned Advertisement Notice is reproduced as under:--

Assistant Registrar

Good academic record plus Master's degree with at least 55% (50% in the case of SC/ST category) marks or its equivalent grade of B in the

seven point scale with the letter grade O, A, B, C, D, E & F.

Petitioner admittedly has secured 54.25 marks in M.A Urdu, therefore, he does not fall within the cut of marks prescribed to determine the

eligibility

Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para 3.50 of the Guidelines of U.G.C which provide for relaxation of 5% (i.e from

55% to 50%) of the marks to the P.hD Degree holders who have passed their Master's degree prior to 19th Sept. 1991. These guidelines have

been considered by the respondent-University, but not adopted to provide this relaxation. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the guidelines are binding upon the University and that the Univeristy is applying these guidelines for providing relaxation in some cases. Mr. J.P

Singh has submitted that the relaxation is made available to the teaching staff and not to the non-teaching staff. It is within the province of the

University to consider and apply the guidelines as are suited. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that these guidelines are being

made available by the University to other employees i.e. to the non-teaching service employees. This argument being without any evidence is

rejected,

So far as the plea that the guidelines are binding in nature and character is required to be rejected as it is not res-integra and has been settled by

the Supreme Court in case titled The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Association of Maharashtra Education Services Class II Officers and

Others, , This Court also while examining the legal aspect and relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court delivered in case Y.N Gupta and Ors.

v. State 1994 KLJ 611 has observed as under:--

As I have already noticed, recommendations of the U.G.C do not have any force of law and are not binding upon the State Government.

Reference to Section 12 of the U.G.C Act was, therefore, totally extraneous because, whereas Section 12 of the Act prescribed some laudable

objectives to be achieved by the U.G.C it could not by even the wildest stretch of imagination be ever construed to mean that the recommendation

of the U.G.C were binding on any State Government in any manner

For the aforesaid reasons, no case for admission of the petition is made out. The petition is dismissed.