PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Lalit Kumar v. University Grants Commission and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7545/2017) decided on 28.11.2017. In the said cases, the interim order was in currency.
(2.) The order dated 28.11.2017 passed by this Court in Lalit Kumar v. The University (Supra) the judgment reads as under:- "1. Petitioners have preferred writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure- 1) and its corrigendum advertisements be declared illegal so far as they prescribe wrong eligibility criteria for reserved category candidates for the purpose of according appointments on the post of college lecturer. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide relaxation of 5% marks at UG Level, PG Level and for assessment of good academic record to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and PH category as being mandated by the UGC Regulations of 201- and 2016. (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of relaxation of 5% marks at UG Level, PG Level and for assessment of good academic record to all the petitioners they being belonging to reserved categories; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioners may kindly be declared eligible to be accorded appointment on the post of college lecturer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 and its corrigendum advertisements; (v) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners; (vi) Costs throughout may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners. 2. The RPSC issued an advertisement dated 12.01.2015 under the Rules of 1986 for making appointments on the post of lecturers in various subjects in Colleges all across the State of Rajasthan. The appointment of college lecturers being made by the said advertisement are governed Rajasthan Educational Collegiate Branch Rules 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986')." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically made out a case that as per the Rules of 1986 read with the UGC Regulations of 2010, the petitioners were entitled for 5% relaxation in the good academic record which was stipulated as 55 %. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court on the amendment made in the Rules of 1986 in exercise of power conferred under article 309 of the Constitution of India vide notification dated 17.06.1993. The notification amending the Rule of 1986 reads as follows:- "1. At the end of clause (1) of Rule 11, of the said rules, the following shall be added, namely:- "have qualified the eligibility test specifically conducted by the University Grants Commission/Council for scientific and Industrial Research or a similar test accredited by the University Grants Commission and conducted by any other agency authorised/accepted by the State Government; and" 2. Amendment of ScheduleThe existing entry in Col. No. 4 against serial No.5 in the Schedule appended to the said rules shall be substituted by the following namely:- "Qualifications as laid down from time to time by the University Grants Commission. Or Where no qualification have been prescribed by the University Grants Commission for the posts in certain subjects, the qualification as prescribed by the State Government through a notification in consultation with the University Grants Commission and/or the University where that particular subject is being taught." By order and in the name of the Governer,Sd/-(Alka Raja)Secretary to the Government." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further shown that as per the amended Rules of 1986 the respondent had no option but abide by qualification laid down by the University Grants Commission from time to time. Thus, the University Grants Commission notification would be amounting to have the sanctity of the Rules of 1986, particularly the schedule which has been amended by notification dated 17.06.1993. The learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the notification dated 30th June, 2010 known as Ugc Regulations On Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Universities And Colleges And Measures For The Maintenance Of Standards In Higher Education 2010 stipulates recruitment conditions and qualification. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the Regulation 3.3.0 which stipulates 55% marks at the master's level and qualifying marks in the National Eligibility Test(NET) and Regulation 3.4.1 stipulates that relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and master's level for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Differently-abled category. The Regulation 3.3.0 and 3.4.1 are reproduced herein below:- "3.3.0 The minimum requirements of a good academic record, 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the master's level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test (NET), or an accredited test (State Level Eligibility TestSLET/SET), shall remain for the appointment of Assistant Professors. 3.4.1 A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and master's level for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Differently-abled (Physically and visually differently-abled) categories for the purpose of eligibility and for assessing good academic record during direct recruitment to teaching positions. The eligibility marks of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) and the relaxation of 5% to the categories mentioned above are permissible, based on only the qualifying marks without including any grace marks procedures. " 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of the Court to the cover note of the Regulations and particularly the clause 1.2 and clause 2 which make the notification applicable upon every University established under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the Commission. The minimum qualification for appointment has also been spoken in Clause 2. Clause 1.2 and Clause 2 reads follows:- "1.2 They shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every Institution including a constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the Commission, in consulatation with the University concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act. 2. The Minimum Qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of University and College teachers, Librarians be as provided in the Aneexure to these Regulations. " 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown from the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 that the relaxation of 5% in good academic record had been given for the post graduates and has been given for the graduates. The counsel for the petitioners has further drawn attention of this Court upon an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan University Jaipur which is Annexure-7 dated 22.05.2017 in which the 5% relaxation is provided for the post graduates as well as graduates. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further shown the notification issued on 11th July, 2016 whereby the relaxation clause of 3.4.1 has been amended and it reads as follows:- "A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Masters level for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Differently-abled (physically and visually differently-abled) / Other Backward Classes (OBC) (Non-creamy layer) categories for the purpose of eligibility and for assessing good academic records during direct recruitment to teaching positions. The eligibility marks of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) and the relaxation of 5% to the categories mentioned above are permissible, based on only the qualifying marks without including any grace mark procedures." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out from the advertisement itself on page 27 of the paper book that the service conditions as amended from time to time shall govern the selection process. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, made out the case that it is within the power of the State to prescribed any relaxation. It was prerogative of the State to have given the relaxation to the post graduates and given the relaxation of 5% to the graduates for selection to the post Lecturers initiated vide advertisement dated 12th January, 2015. The learned counsel for the respondents has strongly defended the prerogative of the State which is meant for the good purpose of maintaining the minimum standard of the education. The counsel for the respondents also made out a case that the minimum qualification was laid down by the UGC but they did preclude the State from making a higher standard than what has been prescribed in the larger interest of the maintenance of the standard of education. The counsel for the respondent also stated that the petitioners are OBC candidates and even if the relaxation clause of earlier notification was to be accepted then also the notification of OBC is of 2016 and could be given a retrospective effect. 9. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of RPSC Ajmer v. Pushpa Panwar, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 532/2002 decided on 8th April, 2010 whereby the Hon'ble Divisional Bench of this Court has upheld the criteria of good academic record. The counsel for the respondent has also referred to the judgment of Pawan Kumar Balai v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil writ petition No. 3244/2015 decided on 20.09.2016 whereby the good academic record has been upheld by the Single Bench of this Court. 10. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Suresh Garg v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ petition No.5706/2015 decided on 25.03.2017 whereby the parties had admitted the matter to be covered by the judgment of Pawan Kumar Balai. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also shown from the UGC regulation that the language used in Clause 3.4.1 is using word 'may' and therefore is merely directory in nature. The counsel for the respondents states that if the 'may' is virtually taken than the complete discretion to the State of Rajasthan shall be open to give to give the relaxation to the graduates and the under graduates as per clause 3.4.1 of the notification of 30th June, 2010. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the post graduates have already been given relaxation using their prerogative while following the same notification whereas the relaxation is been given for the purpose of graduates. 13. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited, this Court is of the opinion that in its legislative wisdom, the State has amended the Rule of 1986 vide notification dated 17.06.1993 and has closed all options by adopting the qualification laid down from time to time by the University Grant Commission. The State of Rajasthan has all its prerogative in its legislation but once the legislation itself adopted the UGC qualification then it was for the State of Rajasthan to contest the case contrary to the terms of the Rules itself. 14. This Court has seen that Rules of 1986 have given the complete qualification to be laid down as per the University Grant Commission and admittedly the University Grant Commission has vide regulations dated 30th June, 2010 prescribed for recruitment and qualification in which as per the Regulation 3.3.0 the good academic record of 55 % has been made mandatory for the said post. 15. The bare reading of Regulation 3.4.1 also makes it clear that in the UGC notification, 5% relaxation is provide for the good academic record for the graduates and the post graduates level and strangely the State has abided some portion of the notification of the Regulation whereas other portion of the notification has been ignored. Admittedly the State utilizing the same Regulation has provided 5% relaxation at post graduates level but ignoring the same notification has denied relaxation at graduate level with no possible reasons for making such discrimination. 16. This Court has seen that this notification of 2010 was absolutely binding if read in consonance with the rules of 1986 upon the State of Rajasthan and the same is further fortified by the cover note of the NCTE notification particularly condition No.1.2 and condition No. 2 which has been reproduced above which made the condition binding upon any college affiliated with the UGC. 17. This Court has seen the precedent law cited in which the overall concept of good academic record has been upheld by this Court but at the same time it was held that the good academic record was to be decided by the expert. This Court upheld the expert's opinion of stipulation of the minimum qualifications for recruitment prescribed. It is no doubt that the University Grants Commission has best experts in the country who have brought together the recruitment and qualification standards which were to be followed by every University and college. 18. It is not disputed that the all the Colleges of State of Rajasthan are affiliated to UGC. The condition of the advertisement stating that any amendment in the Rules from time to time shall govern the selection process makes it very clear that any changes in the Rules shall be governed even when the selection process is going and thus the notification of 11th July, 2016 by which University Grants Commission has amended regulation 3.4.1 by extending the scope of relaxation of 5% to the other backward classes (Creamy layer) and the same shall be applicable in the present recruitment process as per the respondent themselves. 19. Thus in view of the aforesaid observations the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to provide relaxation of 5% marks at UG Level, PG Level and for assessment of good academic record to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC and PH Category as being mandated by the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2016. Since already an interim order was operating in favour of the petitioners and they have participated in the selection process for the post and the selections have not culminated into finality therefore the present order shall be applicable for all petitioners only as reinitiating the selection shall be prejudicial to all the participating candidates."
(3.) In light of the afore-quoted judgment, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner strictly in terms of the law laid down in the aforementioned precedent law. The necessary consideration shall be made within a period of 30 days from today. If the consideration is positive then the respondent shall be required to give appointment to the petitioners, if they are eligible and meritorious.;