- (1.) Heard Shri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
(2.) Present writ petition has been preferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India assailing the selection/appointment dated 19.7.2016 of fifth respondent for the post of Deputy Registrar and further assailing the report dated 3.3.2016 as well as office memo dated 10.03.2016 issued by the office of third respondent.
(3.) Factual matrix of the case is that the Aligarh Muslim University1 published an advertisement being Advertisement No.3/2016 dated 14.5.2016 inviting applications for the Teaching /Non-Teaching posts. The controversy relates to the appointment of Deputy Registrar, AMU. In response to the advertisement the petitioner being eligible applied for the said post. The educational qualification for the said post was Master's Degree with at least 55% marks or its equivalent Grade of "B" in the U.G.C. 7 points scale along with (i) nine years of experience as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.6000 and above with experience in educational administration; or (ii) comparable experience in research establishment and/ order other institutions of higher education, or (iii) 5 years of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or in an equivalent post. The petitioner was called for interview along with 15 other candidates and finally the fifth respondent was recommended for appointment in order of merit by the AMU. The petitioner after the result had obtained certain information from the AMU under the Right to Information Act , 2005 including the selection letter/ recommendation for the appointment of the post of Deputy Registrar. On the basis of said documents it is alleged that the fifth respondent is not holding Master Degree. Infact he did his B.B.M. in the year 1999; Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration (P.G.D.B.A.) in the year 2005 and G.M.P. in the year 2011. More so the fifth respondent was selected for the post of Deputy Registrar despite the fact that he was also not having 9 years experience as Assistant Professor and he was not having master degree. Inspite of said deficiencies the AMU Selection Committee in most arbitrary and illegal manner selected non-qualified person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that P.G.D.B.A. from Symbiosis is not equivalent to the Master Degree, hence he was not qualified for the post of Deputy Registrar. The fifth respondent was working as Chief Security Officer at Department of Property and Wakf, AMU. On 10.09.2015 the fifth respondent wrote a letter to the second respondent regarding the equivalency of P.G.D.B.A. with Master's Degree of AMU. In this regard it was decided by the Academic Council on 21.1.2016 that the Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration awarded by Symbiosis Centre for Distance Learning and M.B.A. awarded by AMU cannot be considered equivalent. The Deputy Controller (Admn.)/Office of third respondent also wrote a letter to the Registrar, Symbiosis International University, Pune asking them whether the P.G.D.B.A. of Centre for Distance Learning of the year 2003-05 is equivalent to M.B.A. Programme of the AMU or not. In reply of above letter the Symbiosis Education Society vide letter dated 3.3.2016 informed the office of third respondent that P.G.D.B.A. of Symbiosis Center for Distance Learning (SCDL) is not equivalent to M.B.A. Programme offered by Symbiosis International University. It is contended that contrary to report dated 21.1.2016 submitted by the Committee, another report was submitted by the Equivalence Committee, AMU, Aligarh on 4.3.2016 holding that P.G.D.B.A. of the SCDL, Pune can be considered equivalent to the MBA degree. The same was also approved by the Vice Chancellor on behalf of academic council. As such it is submitted that once Symbiosis International University had already held that his PGDBA of Centre for Distance Learning is not equivalent to the Master's Degree, then recognising the said PGDBA as Master's Degree by the AMU is absolutely arbitrary, malafide and illegal and as such the appointment of fifth respondent is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.5.2011 passed by Delhi High Court in Dipin Arora v. Shivaji College and Ors .2 Per contra, learned counsel for AMU has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the appointment of the fifth respondent has been made strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in it. The appointment was made on the basis of performance in written-cum-interview test conducted by the nominees appointed by the Executive Committee. So far as degree and experience of fifth respondent is concerned, it is categorically stated that the academic council in its meeting dated 16.6.2015 constituted a sub-committee of the academic council to determine the equivalent of the various degrees diplomas or general courses of other universities with the degree and diplomas awarded by the AMU. The above sub-committee in its meeting held on 3.3.2016 considered the application along with relevant documents of fifth respondent to determine the equivalency of 2 years of PG Diploma in Business Administration passed by him from Symbiosis Centre for Distance Learning (SCDL) with the Master's Degree of AMU. After examining all the aspects and contents of the PG Diploma in Business Administration course conferred by the Symbiosis Centre for Distance Learning, the Committee opined that the PG Diploma in Business Administration can be considered equivalent to master's degree. The minutes of the sub-committee have been approved by the Vice Chancellor on behalf of Academic Council and the same was notified vide letter dated 30.03.2016. It is further stated that the question of equivalence is within the domain of expert knowledge of the person, who are appointed for this purpose and it is settled principle of law that the decision of expert knowledge cannot be interfered by the courts. It is further contended that the petitioner was not selected due to lower merit in the performance of written-cum-interview test. He stood at merit list no.8. He cannot have a right over the post even if the claim of the petitioner is rejected. The fifth respondent got 85 marks out of 100 and the petitioner has secured 59 marks.;