- (1.) BY present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing U. P. Higher Education Services Commission (for short the Commission), to allow the petitioner to appear before the interview board for the post of Lecturer in Defence Studies and to interview the petitioner along with other candidates and not to enforce Regulation 6 framed under section 31 of U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (for short the Act) in respect of screening the candidates before being called for interview.
(2.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Defence Studies in pursuance of the advertisement dated 2nd August, 1986. THE application of the petitioner in the prescribed from was accepted. In the first week of January 1987 the petitioner came to know that other candidates have been called for interview but he did not receive any interview letter. He went to the office and came to know that the interview shall commence since 6th of January 1987 but he was not called for interview as he was not within the criteria prescribed under the guide lines framed by the Commission. According to the petitioner he fulfilled the requisite qualification as he has secured good second class marks (54.3%) in Intermediate and 50% marks in B. A. 58% marks in M. A. in Defence Studies. The petitioner joined his research course for obtaining D. Phil degree under Dr. S. P. Pandey, Reader in the department of Defence Studies, University of Allahabad and has got published one research paper in 'Quarterly Strategie Studies' 1 New Delhi and deserve to be called for interview. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Commission and rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. As suggested and learned counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition may be decided finally on merits, we proceed to decide the petition as such.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner fulfilled all the requisite qualifications as specified in Annexure SA 7 to the supplementary affidavit under heading 4.1 which was consistent with the relevant Studies of the University. Although the petitioner was not having Master of Philosophy degree but he has got a research paper published which indicates that he has got capacity of independent research work and he was having the qualification prescribed under 4.1 (kha) consistently good academic record but nevertheless he was not called for the interview. The criterian laid down under regulation 6 framed under section 31 of the Act was invalid. Learned counsel for the Commission on the other hand urged that under Regulation 6 criterian has been laid down to make screening in accordance with the principles laid down by the Commission under the guidelines and accordingly the candidates higher in merit are called for interview and those candidates who were comperatively of lesser merit are not called for the interview. The petitioner was having consistently good academic record no doubt but other candidates were better qualified than the petitioner inasmuch as some of them were having Ph.D. degree or having at least one first class and similarly some of them were having consistently better academic records than the petitioner. A number of categories have been created and on that basis the candidates are screened. No doubt the petitioner indicated that he was having a paper published but unless the petitioner was having Ph.D. degree or equivalent degree, just publication of a research paper was not sufficient to enable the petitioner to be brought in the category of persons called for interview. The screening is done in the office of the Commission by the persons deputed on the posts created for this purpose but they need not be having so much high qualification as to judge the merits and demerits of the research papers and they do not possess such high merit as to adjudge whether the publication of particular paper would indicate that the candidate concerned has got capacity for independent research work. The petitioner was therefore, not assigned any mark on the basis of the publication of research paper. Reliance was placed on Division Bench decisions of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19710 of 1986 Smt. Kavita Srivastava v. State of U. P. decided on 4th December, 1986 and Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 10377 of 1987 Umesh Chandra Sharma v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission decided on 29th October, 1987. The records pertaining to the screening and guidelines laid down under Regulation 6 were also produced before us in original and we have perused the same in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner.;