Minakshi Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

The petitioner, Ms. Minakshi Sharma, has challenged the legality of the order dated 19.02.2020, whereby she was denied the chance to appear for

interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). She had also prayed that the respondent no. 3, the Uttarakhand Public Service

Commission (for short “the Commissionâ€), should be directed to consider her degree of M.A. in Public Administration as an eligible degree for

being appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science).

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had done her graduation in the year 2005 with the subjects of English, Economics and Political

Science. In the year 2008, she had completed her M.A. in Public Administration. She had also qualified the Uttarakhand State Eligibility Test (USET)

in Political Science. Eventually, she had completed her Ph.D. in Political Science. After having completed her studies, she was appointed as a Guest

Lecturer in Political Science in the Government Degree College, Jakholi, Rudraprayag.

On 04.08.2017, the respondent no. 3, the Commission, had advertised post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) in various degree colleges in

the State. Since the petitioner was eligible for the said post, she had applied for the same. She had appeared in the written examination, and cleared

the same. However, subsequently respondent no. 3, the Commission, refused the petitioner the right to appear in the interview ostensibly on the ground

that her M.A. degree was in Public Administration. Therefore, she did not have the equivalent degree of M.A. in Political Science. The petitioner filed

a representation on 11.02.2020, wherein she clearly pointed out that, according to the UGC guidelines issued on 04.07.2018, a degree in Public

Administration is deemed to be equivalent to a degree in Political Science. Therefore, she should be deemed to be qualified for appearing in the

interview. However, by order dated 19.02.2020, her representation was rejected by respondent no. 3. Hence, the present writ petition before this

Court.

By order dated 21.10.2020, this Court had directed the Commission to consider the candidacy of the petitioner, and to permit her to appear in the

interview on a provisional basis. Furthermore, by order dated 08.04.2021, this Court had called for the result of the petitioner. The same has been

produced by respondent no. 3, the Commission, before this Court. A bare perusal of the result clearly reveals that the petitioner has passed the

examination.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the abovementioned facts. He further submits that, since the petitioner has passed the

examination, her candidacy for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) should be considered by the Commission.

On the other hand, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3, the Commission, submits that the petitioner’s candidacy cannot

be considered for the said post. For, according to the Service Rules, there is no stipulation that an equivalent degree would be considered as an eligible

criteria.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and examined the record.

Admittedly, the petitioner has completed her M.A. in Public Administration. Undoubtedly, according to the UGC guidelines issued on 04.07.2018, a

degree of M.A. in Public Administration is equivalent to a degree of M.A. in Political Science. Therefore, according the UGC, the petitioner would be

deemed to be equipped with a degree of M.A. in Political Science. Moreover, according to the petitioner, she has already completed her Ph.D. in

Political Science. Lastly, according to the result submitted by the Commission before this Court, the petitioner has already qualified the entire

examination. Therefore, she has a right to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science).

Hence, this Court directs the respondent no. 3, the Commission, to consider the petitioner’s case for the post of Assistant Professor (Political

Science), if she is found to be eligible and suitable for the said post.

The respondent no. 3, the Commission, is directed to decide the petitioner’s eligibility and suitability within a period of three weeks from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and to issue the necessary order.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.