R.M. Sahai, B.N. Misra, JJ. - (1.) Grievance of petitioner, an ad hoc lecturer in a Degree College with more than 70% marks in I.Sc B.Sc and M Sc is that even though she has high academic qualification as provided in Statutes yet the Commission excluded her from the list of eligible candidates for the post of lecturer in Mathematics in Post Graduate Degree Colleges. From record of Commission, however, it transpired that number of candidates who could be called for interview in accordance with guidelines prepared by Commission exhausted amongst the candidates who were Ph. D. and M. Phil. It is urged that a Ph. D. or M. Phil with second and third Division marks academic career cannot be considered to be candidate with consistently high academic record. Therefore if the Commission has framed any guidelines contrary to Statutes it is arbitrary and liable to be ignored. It is also urged that candidates who have published papers of high quality could be called for interview. But this could be decided by Selection Committed and not the Office. The procedure therefore of excluding such candidates prior to interview is illegal. Another off-shoot of this argument is that the Commission in ignoring this class, namely, with high research paper from the guidelines has acted against Statutes. Learned counsel further submitted that the guidelines prepared by Commission having not been published the exclusion of petitioner in accordance with it is denied without intimation of its basis.
(2.) None of the submissions appear to have any merit. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 31 of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act the Commission had to frame guidelines for screening out applications. The first step is to determine the number of candidates who are to be called for interview. For that it is provided that out of total vacancies the vacancies in women and other colleges should be worked out separately. Then if there are 1-3 vacancies then 8.0 candidates should be called. In 4-6 vacancies 7.0 candidates should be called. The proportion of candidates to be called decreases as number of vacancies increases. Vacancies in Mathematics were nine. The approximate number of candidates who could be called in accordance with the guidelines were 9 X 6.5, that is nearly sixty. No exception can be taken to it. Next step is screening out. For that also guidelines have been prepared under Regulation 6. The guidelines for lecturer in faculties of Arts, Commerce and Science provide for as many as 13 categories in order of merit. The last category, that is thirteenth category is of ineligible candidates. It consists of 9 those who are neither Ph. D. nor are 1963 that is high academic qualification. The first category consists of candidates with Doctorate, with average of 55% in Inter or Higher Secondary and degree and more than 54% in post Graduate. The second is Doctorate, with 50% average in Inter or Higher Secondary and Degree and more than 54% in Post Graduate. Category 3 and 4 consist of M. Phil candidates with academic record as in category I and 2. Category 5 consists of M.A. or M. Sc. with 60% in all three. Then it goes on. The petitioner in accordance with these guidelines fell in category 5. She was excluded because the number of candidates who could be called exhausted in categories 1 to 3. This categorisation does not appear to be arbitrary. It is in accordance with Statutes. The apprehension of the petitioner that a Ph. D. or M. Phil with poor academic record may be given preference has absolutely no merit. In fact if a candidate with M. A. or M. Sc., only having first division all through would have been given preference over Ph. D. or M. Phil then that would have become arbitrary. A Doctorate or M. Phil degree is also an academic degree. The Commission, therefore, in giving preference to Ph. D. and M. Phil with 54% in Post Graduate and average of 55 or 50 in Inter and Degree over M.A. or M.Sc. with first class throughout has not violated either the Statutes or Regulations nor it is arbitrary.
(3.) As regards power conferred on Selection Board to give exemption or weightage to high research work that applies to those candidate who are otherwise ineligible. And that appears to be reason why the Commission did not include it as one of the categories. It could not be determined by Office.;