- (1.) The short question raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether respondent No. 2 answers all the required academic qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in the Discipline of Public Administration in the Department of Public Administration, Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa.
(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The respondent University issued an advertisement for direct recruitment for various posts including the post of Reader in the Discipline of Public Administration. The petitioner being fully eligible and qualified in the field of Public Administration applied for the aforementioned post on the prescribed format. A Selection Committee interviewed the petitioner on 18.7.2004 as per the call letter dated 8.7.2004 (P-3). However, respondent No. 2 was selected as Reader and he joined as such on 4.4.2005. According to the advertisement and application form for all the posts including that of Reader in Public Administration the academic qualification could be ascertained from the University's Website, which in turn referred to the Regulation framed by the University Grants Commission (for short UGC) laying down minimum qualification for appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and Colleges. These Regulations are known as the University Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Regulations'). According to Regulation 2 of the Regulations, the qualification for various posts have been prescribed in the Appendix. With regard to Reader the qualifications are available in para 1.3.2. It requires good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. A candidate who has joined from outside the university system is required to possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades as specified. The further requirement stipulated is five years of experience of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degrees and one should have made mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new course and curricula. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 did not possess the basic qualification of doctorate in Public Administration. It has been alleged that respondent No. 2 is M.A. Ph.D. in Political Science whereas the petitioner, who is M.A. Ph.D. in Public Administration and fully eligible, has been ignored. It has been asserted in para 7 of the petition that the application of respondent No. 2 for the post of Reader was sent for scrutiny to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, which has marked his application as "not eligible" because he lacked M.A. Ph.D. in Public Administration and on the contrary he possessed M.A. Ph.D. in Political Science. It has been alleged that the Executive Council was never informed about the comments given by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and it called respondent No. 2 for interview, selected and finally appointed him. The petitioner made a representation through respondent No. 1 against the illegal appointment of respondent No. 2 on 1.4.2005 (P-5). The petitioner has sent a communication to the UGC seeking clarification as to whether a person could be appointed on the post of Reader in Public Administration without possessing M.A. degree in the aforementioned discipline. The reply given by the UGC is that M.A. with 55% marks in the subject concerned i.e. Public Administration is one of the essential requirement for the post of Reader.
(3.) In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 it has been admitted that respondent No. 2 has all his degrees in M.A., M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Political Science and he was selected as Reader in Public Administration. The stand taken is that Public Administration is one of the branches of Political Science, therefore, he was rightly selected by a Selection Committee consisting of eminent experts after evaluating his qualifications. The expression 'relevant subject' is sought to be widely interpreted by respondent No. 1 by asserting that it would include allied and inter-disciplined subjects like Political Science because Political Science is a mother subject. However, the averments made by the petitioner in para 7 declaring respondent No. 2 ineligible by the Scrutiny Committee of the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, have not been controverted. It is, in fact, admitted that Scrutiny Committee has declared respondent No. 2 as ineligible and for that reason in para 8 of the written statement it has been averred that respondent No. 1 was not under obligation to inform the Executive Council about the report of the Scrutiny Committee.;