Shri Sandeep Sharma vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, Judge

Petitioner has filed rejoinder today, which is taken on record. In the petition, he has prayed for the following relief:

That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the selection of respondents No.3 to 8 as lecturers (college cadre) Chemistry may be quashed and set aside by further quashing the result (Annexure P-11) declared by the respondents whereby the respondents No.3 to 8 have been selected.

For the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) applications were invited by the Public Service Commission, in terms of notice dated 28.8.2008 (Annexure R-2/1). It is not in dispute that petitioner and private respondents participated in the selection process. Unfortunately, petitioner could not qualify and private respondents, after due compliance of procedure, were selected by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (respondent No.2).

Selection and appointment of the private respondents is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the same is in violation of the following criteria laid down by the University Grants Commission vide Regulation dated 23.9.2009:

3.3.1. NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D decree in compliance of the "University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree), Regulations 2009, shall be exempt from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions."

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, private respondents, who have acquired decree in M.Phil and not Ph.D, were thus ineligible for being considered for the post in question.

Condition with regard to essential qualification laid down by respondent No.2 for the post in question specifically provides that qualification of NET shall not be an essential condition in the case of candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject and such candidates are exempt from NET for UGC level teaching only.

Now, Regulations framed by the UGC cannot override the Statutory Rules framed by the State, governing the conditions of appointment/service for the post in question, which undoubtedly provide that candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are not required to qualify NET examination. This view is totally in consonance with the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao and Another, referred to and relied upon by Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned counsel for H.P. Public Service Commission (respondent No.2), wherein it is held that "A fortiori, the recommendations made by the Council or the Regulations framed by it are only recommendatory and not mandatory. It is not for the Council to prescribe qualifications for recruitment to posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. It can only lay down broad guidelines therefor. Such qualifications have necessarily to be prescribed by the framing of Rules under the proviso to Article 309. Right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service and it can only be regulated by a rule framed under the proviso to Article 309 Private respondents who are M.Phil qualified are not required to fulfill the eligibility criteria of SET examination.

Consequently, present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.