Rajkumar Nagda @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

,,,

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying the following reliefs :-,,,

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-",,,

(i) the advertisement notification dated 10.05.2016 (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed and set aside ;,,,

(ii) the respondent University may be directed to comply with the direction issued by the State Government by communication dated 23.02.2017,,,

(Annex.5);,,,

(iii) the State Government may be directed not to act upon the report so submitted by the Search Committee pursuant to the advertisement (Annex.6);,,,

(iv) the respondents be directed to give the benefit of the provisions of Section 49(4) of the Act of 2010 with regard to the qualifications;â€​,,,

The petitioner has prayed for consideration for appointment as Vice Chancellor in pursuance of the notification dated 10.5.2016.,,,

Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Section,,,

24(3)(a) of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010 (for short ‘the Act of 2010’) debars the petitioner from",,,

consideration for appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor as it requires that a candidate applying for the said post must have recognized veterinary,,,

qualification as defined in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. Counsel for the",,,

petitioner has sought to make out a case on account of the fact that Section 49 of the Act of 2010 provides some relaxation to the Teachers who are,,,

migrated from other Universities to the Veterinary Universities and further that the stand of the State Government vide letter dated 23.2.2017 is to the,,,

effect that there is a contemplation of the State for making necessary amendment in the Act of 2010 in regard to Section 24 thereof.,,,

4.1 Learned Advocate General, however, has vehemently opposed the submissions of the petitioner and has shown the judgment of this Court passed",,,

in the matter of the petitioner himself in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2872/2017 (Rajendra Kumar Nagda vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on,,,

1.6.2017, which reads as follows :-",,,

“The petitioner is Dean in the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner. He applied for the post of Vice Chancellor in the",,,

said University in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.02.2017. As per the Condition No. 2 of the said advertisement, one of the eligibility",,,

conditions is that a candidate should possess the requisite veterinary qualification as prescribed in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 for the post",,,

of Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said condition has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers :-,,,

“(a) Quash the constitution of Search Committee for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal",,,

Sciences, Bikaner being contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2010;",,,

(b) modify the condition No. 2 prescribed inadvertisement (Annx.1) so as to be in consonance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 49 of,,,

the Act of 2010 thereby providing relaxation to the inservice candidates and the petitioner in particular;,,,

(c) the nomination of Convener be declared illegal andcontrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of,,,

2010; andâ€​,,,

While praying for the relief claimed in prayer (a), it was contended that the constitution of the Search Committee itself is in conflict as the English",,,

version of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010 (hereinafter ‘the Act of",,,

2010’) provides that one member,,,

(out of four) shall be nominated by the Veterinary Council of India, whereas, the Hindi version of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2010",,,

provides that “,d O;fDr fo|k ifj""kn }kjk funsZf'kr fd;k tk;sxkA†Thus, as per English Version, one of the members has to be nominated by the",,,

Veterinary Council of India and as per the Hindi Version, one of the members has to be nominated by the Academic Council. Therefore, both English",,,

and Hindi versions are different and till both versions are corrected in consonance with each other, the Search Committee for selection to the post of",,,

Vice Chancellor cannot be permitted.,,,

With respect to the Prayer (c), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nomination of the Convener of the",,,

Search Committee is per se, illegal and dehors the provisions contained in the Act of 2010 because the controversy to Section 24 of the Act of 2010",,,

provides that person nominated shall not be a member of any of the authorities of the Universities but the person so indicated in the advertisement,,,

nominated as Convener of the Search Committee is none else than a retired Professor and Faculty Member and was also the member of the Board.,,,

He is presently a pensioner of the respondent â€" University, therefore, he cannot be said to be a person not having any personal interest in the",,,

University. His nomination is contrary to Section 24 of the Act of 2010.,,,

While praying for modification of Condition No. 2 of the advertisement, it was vehemently argued that the respondent University has committed",,,

illegality in providing minimum eligibility criteria i.e. one should have recognized veterinary qualification as described in the Indian Veterinary Council,,,

Act, 1984 for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor as the same is contrary to sub-section (4) of Section 49 of the Act of 2010.",,,

Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 being the State and the Search Committee, respectively.",,,

Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, at the outset, sought permission to raise the preliminary objection. By way of",,,

preliminary objection, it was submitted that as per Section 24(3)(a), a candidate for the post of Vice Chancellor must have recognized veterinary",,,

qualification as defined in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. The petitioner does not",,,

have the said qualification. Hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition as he does not have the requisite qualification for",,,

the post of Vice Chancellor. It was further contended that the petitioner has challenged the nomination of Dr. K.M.L. Pathak as Convenor. In such,,,

circumstances, he should have been made him a party by name but this has not been done. The writ petition, therefore, suffers from non-joinder of",,,

necessary parties. He was named as Convenor vide Order dated 25.01.2017. The advertisement for notification for appointment on the post of Vice,,,

Chancellor was published on the website on 06.02.2017. The petitioner has filed the so-called representation by email on 02.03.2017 (at 6.25,,,

P.M.) meaning thereby that, it was sent after office hours. The petitioner gave no time to consider his representation and has immediately filed the",,,

present writ petition on 04.03.2017. Dr. Pathak was appointed as Member of the Board of Management and his appointment came to an end on,,,

31.12.2015. At present, he is a retired Professor of the University and is getting pension and hence, he cannot be termed as member of any of the",,,

authorities of the Universities. As per Section 10 of the Act of 2010, the authorities of the University have been prescribed in the Act itself. The",,,

petitioner is not presently holding any of the positions and hence, having retired cannot be said to be a member of the authorities of the University. The",,,

ground taken by the petitioner to show bias on behalf of Dr. Pathak that his hard copy of the email was not accepted is only an apprehension in the,,,

mind of the petitioner as the application sent by the petitioner through email was duly entertained. Moreover, the hard copy of the email was sent by",,,

the petitioner after expiry of the last date and was, hence, refused.",,,

With respect to the constitution of the Search Committee being in conflict in view of the English and Hindi versions of the Act of 2010, it was",,,

submitted that the same shall have no effect in view of the provisions contained in Article 348 of the Constitution of India vide which the English,,,

version of the Act will prevail and in the present case, the nomination has been done as per the English version i.e. by the Veterinary Council. This",,,

75,"Rajasthan University of Veterinary &

Animal Sciences, Bikaner in respect

of College of Veterinary and Animal

Sciences, Bikaner","Bachelor of Veterinary

Science and Animal

Husbandry","B.V.Sc. & A.H. (This

qualification shall be a

recognized veterinary

qualification as aforesaid

only when granted on or

before the 13th May,

2010.

case may be, the employee of the University on the same terms and conditions.â€​",,,

A bare reading of Section 49(4) shows that the said protection is given to a teacher or an employee and does not refer to an officer, whereas, the",,,

Vice-Chancellor is termed as ‘Officer’.,,,

Section 23 of the Act of 2010 provides the list of officers of the university as under :-,,,

“23. Officers of the University,- The University shall consist of the following officers, namely:-",,,

(i) the Vice-Chancellor;,,,

(ii) the Pro-vice-Chancellor;,,,

(iii) the Registrar;(iv) the Comptroller; (v) the Deans:,,,

(vi) the Director of Research:,,,

(vii) the Director of Clinics;,,,

(viii) the Director of Extension Education; and,,,

(ix) such other directors as may be declared by theStatutes to be officers of the University.â€​,,,

Similarly, the definition of a teacher as per Section 2(zh) of the Act of 2010 does not include an officer. Section 2(zh) too clarifies the same and reads",,,

thus :-,,,

“2(zh) “teacher†means a person, known by any rank, appointed or recognized by the University or  affiliated college or institution or unit for",,,

the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension education programmes and includes any other person declared by,,,

the Statutes to be a teacher;â€​,,,

The definition of an ‘employee’ in the Legal Glossary issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law is “one who is employed by",,,

another, especially by a business concern or government ; one employed in a position below the executive level.â€​",,,

In short, a reading of Section 23 of the Act of 2010 wherein list to various officers of the University read with the definition of the teacher as given in",,,

Section 2(zh) of the Act of 2010 along with the definition of the employee in the Legal Glossary leaves no doubt in mind that a teacher, employee and",,,

an officer are three separate categories. Section 49(4) gives protection only to a teacher and an employee but no such relaxation is provided for an,,,

officer. The petitioner was entitled only to the protection under Section 24(3)(b) and not 24(3)(a) as Section 24(3) (b) refers to experience as teacher,,,

alone. Thus, the petitioner by virtue of Section 49(4) was able to get the relaxation for his appointment on the various posts and promotions given to",,,

him in the capacity of a teacher but cannot claim the same relaxation while seeking appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor.,,,

Having held so, the Condition No. 2 in the advertisement dated 06.02.2017 against which the petitioner has applied for appointment on the post of Vice",,,

Chancellor is in consonance with Section 24(3)(a) of the Act of 2010. The petitioner has not challenged the provisions of Section 24(3)(a) of the Act,,,

of 2010. Hence, without amendment to Section 24(3)(a) of the Act, no writ can be issued for modification of the Condition No. 2 of the advertisement,",,,

which is akin with the provisions of the Act. No fault can be found with the action of the University in laying down the Condition No. 2, which is",,,

requisite qualification for the post of Vice Chancellor. Thus, the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification laid down under Section 24(3)(a) of",,,

the Act for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Being not qualified, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the constitution of the Search Committee or",,,

the appointment of the Convenor of the Search Committee constituted for the purpose of selection to the post of ViceChancellor.,,,

The Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dass Mehla Vs. Om Prakash Saini & ors. reported in JT 2002 (2) SC 403 set aside the order of the High,,,

Court allowing the writ petitions in spite of holding the petitioners ineligible for the post by observing that once the High Court had come to a,,,

conclusion that the writ petitioners were not eligible, the other question of qualification of the appellants who were respondents in the writ petition",,,

should not have been gone into and held in Para 8 and 9 as under :-,,,

“8. Similarly, in the case of other respondent, it has been stated that the concerned respondent is not having 10 years’ experience as a deputy",,,

librarian in a university or 15 years’ experience as a college librarian and he is not having one year specialization in the area of information,,,

technology/archives and manuscript making and this fact found favour with the High Court. The High Court categorically stated that the petitioners in,,,

both the cases were not eligible for the post. That finding has been recorded on consideration of these aspects of the matter. If that is so, other",,,

questions need not have been examined in this case at all, though raised by either of the parties.",,,

In that view of the matter, we allow these appeals, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the",,,

respondents. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.â€​,,,

Similar view was adopted by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi Pandow Vs. State of J & K and others reported in (2001) 10 Supreme Court,,,

Cases 447 as well as Utkal University etc. Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and others reported in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 943.,,,

In the case of Kumari Chitra Ghosh and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 35, the Apex Court refused to",,,

go into the question that some of the nominations were illegal as some of the candidates who had been nominated had not applied in time by observing,,,

that it had already been held by the court that the appellants did not have any right to challenge the nominations made by the Central Government i.e.,,,

they had no locus standi in the matter of nomination to the seats. Para 13 of the judgment is relevant which reads thus :-,,,

“13. Finally, Mr. Misra attempted to agitate the question of some of the nominations being illegal as the candidates who had been nominated had",,,

not applied in time â€" the prescribed date being August 1, 1968. This contention cannot be entertained for two reasons. The first is that no such point",,,

appears to have been raised before the High Court when the writ petition was disposed of on December 3, 1968. It is only at the stage of review that",,,

this matter seems to have been pressed. Secondly, it has been held by us that the appellants had no right to challenge the nominations which had been",,,

made by the Central Government. It was not, therefore, open to them to assail any of the nominations which had been made.â€​",,,

Coming back to the case in hand, this Court has already held while dealing the preliminary objection that the petitioner does not have the requisite",,,

qualification for the post of ViceChancellor. The Condition No. 2 of the advertisement is in consonance with the Act. The petitioner has not,,,

challenged the provisions of the Act. Hence, no fault can be found with the Condition No. 2 of the advertisement, which cannot be modified till the",,,

requisite amendment is brought about in the Act. In these circumstances, applying the settled proposition of law as above, the petitioner being not",,,

qualified has no locus standi to challenge the constitution of the Search Committee and the nomination of the Convenor. Accordingly, this Court is not",,,

required to deal with the same at the behest of the petitioner.,,,

Dismissed accordingly.â€​           (Emphasis Supplied),,,

 4.2 The aforesaid judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.486/2017 (Rajendra Kumar Nagda. vs.,,,

State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 4.7.2017, the judgment whereof reads as follows :-",,,

“1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned decision dated June 01, 2017 we find no merit in the appeal.",,,

It is not in dispute that as per the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010 a ‘teacher’ is defined as per Section",,,

2(zh). As per Section 23 officers of the University are enlisted. The Vice-Chancellor is an officer of the University. The view taken by the learned,,,

Single Judge that statutory provisions concerning educational qualifications, eligibility conditions and relaxations therefrom pertaining to teachers would",,,

not embrace similar relaxations for officers unless there is a specific provision in the Act to do so is correct.,,,

The learned Single Judge has noted Section 24 of the Act as per which for being appointed as a Vice-Chancellor of the University the essential,,,

educational qualification is a recognized veterinary qualification as defined in the Veterinary Council Act, 1984. The appellant admittedly does not",,,

possess the said qualification.,,,

The writ appeal is dismissed in limine. No costs.â€​,,,

4.3 Learned Advocate General has shown that even if the contemplation was being made by the State Government, it would be for future. He further",,,

clarified that the contemplation was limited only to Section 24(3)(b).,,,

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the question of the petitioner being",,,

considered for appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor does not arise in the present circumstances when Section 24(3)(a) of the Act of 2010 is,,,

operating and no relaxation has been given as per Section 49(4) of the Act of 2010. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the mandatory",,,

qualifications. This court has already pronounced its verdict on proposition of Section 24(3)(a) as well as Section 49(4) in the aforementioned,,,

precedent law which was a writ petition moved by the petitioner himself and the preposition has been affirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, this",,,

Court does not find any reason to interfere in the said writ petition because even if it is believed that there is a contemplation by the State Government,,,

for amendment in Section 24(3)(a) of the Act of 2010 then also the same cannot be done retrospectively as the notification was issued on 10.5.2016.,,,

Thus, no interference is called for in this writ petition.",,,

Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to give representation to the",,,

State Government requesting for consideration and contemplation of amendment in Section 24(3)(a) of the Act of 2010, which may be done by the",,,

State strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to make a detailed representation if he wants to go back to his parent,,,

university, which shall also be considered in accordance with law.",,,