Niraj Kumar Singh vs University of Delhi and Others

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of a Lecturer in History in the evening shift of Moti Lal Nehru College (Respondent No. 2).

(2) The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and other candidates bad applied for the post of Lecturer in History, pursuant to an advertisement which was published in the newspaper. The relevant portion of the said advertisement reads as follows :

"MOTILAL Nehru College (Evening)(University of Delhi) Boento Juarez Marg, New Delhi- 21 Applications on plain paper are invited for the posts of Lecturers in the following subjects in the grade of Rs. 2200-4000.00 plus allowances admissible under Delhi University rules :(1) *History-Two (Permanent)(2) Political Science-One (Permanent)*Essential for posts of Lecturers in History :The candidates are required to teach History of China and Japan, History of United States of America, Modern India and Rise of Modern West. Qualifications: (a) A Doctorate''s degree or Research work of an equally high standard; and(b) Good academic record with second class (C in the seven- point scale ) Master''s degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary programmes, the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects......"

(3) In the interview which was conducted on 28th of September 1992,respondent No. 5 has been selected for being appointed to the said post of Lecturer in History.

(4) The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 was not qualified to be appointed to the post of Lecturer in History. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 had obtained B.A. Degree in Sociology with third division marks. Thereafter, he did M.A. in Buddhist Studies which, according to the petitioner, is not a part of the subject of History. The submission which is being made on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 did not fulfill the essential qualifications which were prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement. A number of other contentions have also been raised in the writ petition but we do not intend to deal with them because, in our opinion, the challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the ground of his being ineligible is well-founded.

(5) It is not in dispute that respondent No. 5 did his B.A. in Sociology and only obtained third division marks. It is also not in dispute that the said respondent No. 5 did his M.A. in Buddhist Studies. It is admitted by all, Buddhist of that be would 5?scertificate No. respondent in mentioned is which subject the whereas in History M.A. done having as known will (History) do who that persons sense different also Course Master''s doing success his candidate after a on conferred are degrees The different. and Studies for prescribed courses Head. The own its has Departments two Each History. Department from the distinct Delhi, University of under University Counsel by

(6) It is contented by learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 4 and 5that the petitioner was eligible for appointment to the said post in view of the requirement of Ordinance Xxiv, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"LECTURERS: (Other than those in Foreign Languages, Education, Management Studies and Law) :(a) A Doctorate''s degree or research work of an equally high standard; and(b) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven point scale) Master''s degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary Programmes, the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects."

(7) It is contended by Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 that the words "relevant subject" occurring in Clause (b) above would mean the subject which is relevant to History and it need not be the subject of History itself. Ordinarily, we would have commented that we are surprised by such a submission but in the academic world, which exists today, one is used to surprises. The relevant subject must mean the subject which a lecturer is supposed to teach. It can not be a subject other than that. In the present case, the petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement which was published wherein the college had required candidates to apply for Lecturer posts in two different subjects, namely. History and Political Science. It was in relation to that that it was mentioned that the candidates must have Master''s Degree in a relevant subject. What this would imply is that a candidate who would be applying for the post of Lecturer in Political Science, the Master''s Degree should be in Political Science whereas the candidates who want to apply for the post of Lecturer in History, the relevant subject would be History. Counsel for respondent No. 2, however. submitted that the advertisement also states that "Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary Programme, the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects". He submits that this shows that a candidate can hold a Master''s Degree in a subject other than the one for which he is required to teach.

(8) We are unable to agree with this. The aforesaid sentence, in our opinion, means that the Doctorate''s Degree or the research work specified in Clause (a) must be in a subject which is relevant to or with the subject in the Master''s Degree. In other words, the subjects of Clauses (a) and (b) must be relevant to each other. This does not mean that the applicant need not have studied the subject for which he desires to be appointed as a Lecturer.

(9) The matter may be viewed from another angle. The requirement of the college was that the Lecturer who is to be appointed, should be able to teach History of China and Japan, History of United States of America, Modern India and Rise of Modern West. This was described as essential for the post of Lecturer in History. The under-graduate (Hons.) Course of the Delhi University providing for various papers being taken by the candidates, each Faculty of the college would consist of more than one History teacher, each being specialist in different aspects of History. The requirement of the college was clearly spelt out in the advertisement which was published. Respondent No. 5 who has been selected, does not answer to this requirement at all. He did not fulfill any of these essential conditions. What is more surprising is that respondent No. 5, as a student in B.A. or M.A., and evening M. Phil, has not studied any of the topics which he was required to teach. Merely because respondent No. 5 had done M. Phil and M.A. in Buddhist Studies, he does not fall in any of the topics mentioned in the said advertisement. For example, the compulsory papers which are studied by a student of M.A. (Buddhist Studies) are Pali. Buddhist Sanskrit, History of Buddhism in India and abroad, Buddhist Philosophy and either Chinese language or Tibetan language. The optional papers which are available for a candidate also have nothing to do with any of the topics mentioned in the advertisement. In M. Phil, the courses which are required to be undertaken also do not cover the topics of History of China and Japan or History of United States of America or History of Modern India or Rise of Modern West. At no point of time has respondent No. 5 studied any of the topics as a part of his M.A. or M. Phil. courses.

(10) We are conscious of the fact that M. Phil. Course Ii refers to Historiography of Indian History but this pertains to historical writings on ancient, medieval and modern India and the emphasis is not on the subject itself. In any case, the requirement as per the advertisement was for a candidate to know History of China and Japan plus History of United States of America plus Modern India plus Rise of Modern West. It is only such a candidate who would have been in a position to teach the numerous students who would be studying and doing B.A. (Hons.) Course in History in the college.

(11) In our opinion, respondent No. 5 was not eligible for being even considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History. The mere fact that he was called for interview not only by this college but by other colleges would not make him eligible when, on the face of it, he is ineligible. Respondent No. 5 may be a very competent teacher in Buddhist Studies but be was certainly not qualified for being appointed to the post of Lecturer in History.

(12) Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 has placed before us the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee. The said minutes disclose the names of the candidates in the panel and against the name of respondent No. 5, there is an asterisk mark and the remark in respect thereof is asunder :

"THE question whether Shri Dinesh Chandra Varshney can be appointed as Lecturer as he did not appear to fall in any of the categories specified in the Delhi University Circular No. CB-111/91.0072789 dated the 27/06/1991 was raised. However, it was pointed out there was nothing in the ordinances which would make him ineligible. There were similarly qualified persons who have been appointed in many cases. further, it was pointed out that he had been already appointed on adhoc and temporary positions through properly constituted Selection Committee earlier in other colleges."

(13) It is also mentioned in the said minutes that. The Head, Department of History, University of Delhi did not agree with the inclusion of respondent No. 5 in the above panel on the ground that, in addition to THE question of his eligibility, he would not also be able to teach the advertised course for B.A. (Hons.). He and others with similar qualifications were not shortlisted by the Head of the Department. However, he was called for interview by the college authorities.

(14) In our opinion, the Head of the Department of History of the University of Delhi was fully justified in the views which are reflected in the said minutes of the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 5 was neither qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer of History nor was he eligible to teach the advertised courses for B.A. (Hons.). The decision of the selection committee. over-ruling the objection of Head of the Department of the History of University of Delhi, was clearly misdirected and was arrived at on irrelevant considerations. the fact that respondent No. 5 had been appointed on ad-hoc basis in other colleges would not make him eligible for appointment to teach the courses which were advertised.

(15) For the aforesaid reasons, we issue a writ of mandamus quashing the appointment of respondent No. 5 as a Lecturer in History in Moti LalNehru College (Evening Shift). We further issue a writ of mandamus directing the college to re-advertise the post and to select a fresh candidate for one post of Lecturer (History) answering the requirement which was advertised.

(16) The writ petition is allowed. Petitioner will be entitled to costs against respondent No. 2. Counsel''s fee Rs. 2.500.00.