Jagatguru Ramanand Acharya Sanskrit University @APPELLANT@Hash Rajeev Kumar Chouhan

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J

This appeal has been filed by Jagatguru Ramand Acharya Sanskrit University against the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2009

whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1-Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was allowed.

The case set up by the respondent no.1-Rajeev Kumar Chouhan before the learned Single Judge was that he was substantively appointed by

respondent no.2 on the post of Teacher Gr.II (Sanskrit) under Directorate, Sanskrit Education. He held academic qualification of Post-Graduation in

Sanskrit (Acharya) with Gold Medal and M.A. in Hindi with 2nd Division. While holding the post of Teacher Gr.II in Department of Sanskrit

Education on substantive basis, he worked as Head Master from 10.01.1989. Upon his selection in Lok Jumbish Parishad, he worked as Assistant

Project Officer from 12.8.1994 to 17.8.2001. Thereafter, he worked as Sr. Teacher Gr.I in School Teaching College, Mahapur from 18.8.2001 to

5.9.2004. He then worked as Deputy Inspector in Directorate Sanskrit Education from 6.9.2004. A certificate dated 24.10.2005 was produced on

record to substantiate this fact. According to the respondents, he being fully qualified and eligible applied for appointment on the post of Deputy

Registrar with the appellants pursuant to advertisement dated 23.9.2005.

The following was the eligibility qualification for the post of Deputy Registrar:

“2. Deputy Registrar â€" One â€" Essential qualifications:

At lest a second class post graduate degree and

At lest five years administrative experience in a positioninvolving supervision, control and planning or at lest five years experience of teaching at the

University level with some knowledge and experience of education research planning and administration.

Working knowledge of English and Hindi;Desirable Qualifications:

Familiarity with the life and working of University or withthe educational administration in a college University or an Institute of higher learning or

research;

Experience of teaching in a College of a University;

Working knowledge of Sanskrit;

Experience of University Development planning andproject work and familiarity with UGC Scheme.

Note: Persons who possess a Bachelor’s degree and are already working in the University as Assistant Registrar for at least four years

possessing minimum total administrative experience of 10 years would be considered eligible for the post Experience in the cadre of Section Officer of

equivalent post and above will be counted as administrative experience for this purpose.â€​

A total of 22 applications were received by respondentuniversity and after scrutiny thereof, nine applicants, including the respondent-writ petitioner,

were found eligible and called for interview. The selection committee finally in its meeting held on 10.12.2005 made recommendation wherein name of

the respondent-writ petitioner was mentioned at S.No.1 in the order of merit while another applicant Rajendra Kumar Vyas was placed in wait list.

When these recommendation were placed before the Syndicate of the University for approval in its meeting held on 20.12.2005, it was apprised that

there is a letter dated 12.12.2005 send by Directorate of Sanskrit Education that No Objection Certificate furnished by the respondent-writ petitioner

was not issued by the competent authority and that there was a complaint pending against him before Anti Corruption Bureau. The Syndicate

therefore did not approve of his selection. Finally, the Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur vide its letter dated 4.2.2008 addressed to the Vice

Chancellor pointed out that there was no enquiry initiated or complaint of any nature pending against the writ petitioner and that no objection certificate

was issued by the competent authority and the allegations against the petitioner in the letter dated 12.12.2005 was totally false and baseless. The Vice

Chancellor of the University sent letter dated 14.2.2008 to the Chencellor (His Excellency, the Governor) apprising him of this factual position with the

request to resolve the issue exercising the power under Section 6(2) of Rajasthan University Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act

No.18 of 1974. In pursuance thereof, a letter was sent by Chancellor on 25.2.2008 inter alia observing that once both the factors have been found to

be baseless, the matter be again placed before the Syndicate for further necessary action under intimation to the Chancellor. The matter was again

placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 20.3.2008. This time one of the members of the Syndicate raised the objection that writ petitioner

was working only as a Teacher Gr.II and was having no administrative experience, which is one of the eligibility condition for appointment on the post

of Deputy Registrar and thus he was not eligible. The Syndicate therefore did not approve of the recommendation of the selection committee.

The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid background, allowed the writ petition with the following directions:

“Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Reason for rejection assigned by the syndicate in its meeting held on 20.03.08 for the

post of Deputy Registrar is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent-University is directed to proceed further with process of selection for its

finalisation based on recommendations made by selection committee pursuant to advertisement dt. 23.03.05 (Schedule A) in accordance with law,

Compliance be made within three months. No costs.â€​

When the appeal was filed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, the division bench of this Court while issuing notice of the appeal has

passed the following order on 22.04.2009:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Issue notice to respondents, returnable within for weeks. The University shall proceed with the selection agreement the Advertisement dated

23.09.2005 for the post of Dy. Registrar in terms of the eligibility in the notification or any other experience as sought for in the notification.â€​

Shri Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has rejected the

candidature of the respondentwrit petitioner treating him as ineligible and directed the university to proceed further to go ahead with the process of

selection for its finalisation based on the recommendations made by the selection committee. In view of the aforesaid interim order dated 22.04.2009

passed by division bench of this Court, the matter was placed before the 30th Meeting of the Working Council of the appellant-university. The Council

in the meeting held on 22.04.2009 noted that the respondent-writ petitioner has claimed that he was possessing the experience of 7 years, but Director,

Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur by his letter dated 12.09.2008 has conveyed that this experience he acquired while being posted as Teacher

Gr.II in the pay scale of that post. Pursuant to another letter of the Sanskrit Education Directorate dated 8.10.2008, Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was

posted as Senior Teacher-Hindi (Gr.-I) in his own pay scale on the post of Teacher Gr.II. Thereafter by order of the Directorate, Sanskrit Education

dated 4.9.2004, he was given the charge of the post of Deputy Inspector. The experience furnished by Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was that of the

teaching at the school level and not of the standard of college. Moreover, Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was not appointed substantively on any

administrative post and, therefore, he cannot be held to have any administrative experience of five years. He therefore could not be appointed as

Deputy Registrar.

Smt. Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent no.1writ petitioner has submitted that once the single bench of this Court has held decision of

Syndicate as bad in law and the reasons assigned by the Syndicate have been held to be illegal, the Working Council of the university could not have

on those very reasons, non-suited the respondent-writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. The appeal be therefore dismissed

and the appellant should be therefore directed to be appointed.

Although the division bench of this Court while issuing notice of the appeal though did not specifically stay the operation of the impugned judgement

passed by the learned Single Judge, yet the appellant-university was permitted to proceed with the selection pursuant to advertisement dated

23.09.2005 for the post of Deputy Registrar in terms of the eligibility in the notification or any other experience as sought for in the notification. The

appellant in a bonafide way interpreting the aforesaid order permitting them to consider the eligibility of the respondent again, placed the matter before

the Working Council of the University in its 30th meeting dated 22.04.2009, which held that the experience furnished by Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was

that of the teaching at the school level and not of the standard of college. Moreover, Rajeev Kumar Chouhan was not appointed substantively on any

administrative post and, therefore, he cannot be held to have any administrative experience of five years. He thus could not be appointed as Deputy

Registrar.

We have carefully gone through the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge do not persuade

us to disapprove of the reasons given by the Working Council in maintaining that while holding the post of Teacher Gr.II in Department of Sanskrit

Education, he worked as Head Master from 10.01.1989 and upon his selection as Assistant Project Officer, then in Lok Jumbish Parishad from

12.8.1994 to 17.8.2001 and thereafter from 18.8.2001 to 5.9.2004 as Sr. Teacher Gr.I in School Teaching College, Mahapur. He then worked as

Deputy Inspector in Directorate Sanskrit Education from 6.9.2004. His substantive appointment was all throughout on the post of Teacher Gr.II.

There was thus serious dispute about his administrative working of five years and also the teaching experience at the college level. Be that as it may,

the learned Single Judge merely declared the respondent eligible, but thereafter nothing was directed further. The respondent-writ petitioner was 45

years old when the writ petition was filed in 2006 and the writ petition was decided by impugned order dated 29.1.2009. He has by now attained the

age of 57 years, with only three years left for his retirement.

The process of selection in the present case has been lying standstill for last 13 years. We, therefore, do not deem it appropriate now to reiterate the

same direction, which the learned Single Judge has given to the appellant to proceed with the same selection process and appoint the respondent no.1.

The present appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned judgement dated 29.01.2009 is set aside. It would be open to the appellant to proceed afresh in

accordance with law re-initiating the process of selection following the relevant rules.