SHASHI BALA GAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON-appointment to the post of Lecturer in Sarvadarshan with the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, (Respondent No. 2) has led the Petitioner to file the present petition.

(2.) THE Petitioner states that she is a qualified Sanskrit scholar having done her Acharya degree from the Sampuranand Sanskrit University (`SSU') securing 68% marks. She is stated to have obtained an M.A. degree from the Kashi Hindu University in second class securing 50% marks and a Ph. D. from SSU in 1984 in Darshan as well as a bachelor's degree in Library Science from SSU in 1980. She was appointed on 12th December 1997 as a part-time lecturer in Sarvadarshan at Shree Sada Shiva Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha (`SSSKSV') at Puri in Orissa. THE SSSKSV is functioning under Respondent No. 2 and has been established under the auspices of the Ministry of Human Resources Development (`HRD'), Government of India, New Delhi. Her part-time lecturership came to an end on 31st March 1998.

(3.) NOTICE was issued in this writ petition on 6th April 1999 and in response thereto a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the HRD Ministry on 10th August 1999. Inter alia, it was stated that Respondent No. 2 is an autonomous body under the HRD Ministry established in October, 1970 for the development and promotion of Sanskrit and is fully funded by the Government of India. It is stated that the advertisement issued in the Employment News on 17-23 January 1998 was itself contrary to the Recruitment Rules (`RRs') which permit relaxation of age only by three years for employees of Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner was almost 45 years at the time of submitting her application. The Petitioner was working only on a part-time basis at the SSSKSV for the two short periods: first between 12th December 1997 and 31st March 1998 and thereafter from 17th September 1998 to 31st December 1998. The Petitioner was never an employee of Respondent No. 2 and therefore could not avail of the benefit of age relaxation. At the maximum she could be given age relaxation of three years and that too with the prior approval of the Chairman of the Governing Council of Respondent No. 2. Such prior approval had never been sought by her or granted by Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the interview was conducted by a Screening Committee, the constitution of which did not have approval of either the Selection Committee or the Chairman/Vice- Chairman of Respondent No. 2. It is stated that this unauthorised Screening Committee shortlisted the applications received and did not apply the essential qualification criteria provided under the RRs. It is pointed out that the Petitioner did not satisfy even the criteria fixed by the Screening Committee i.e. (a) BA/Shastri with 55% or more marks (b) MA (Sanskrit) with Darshan group/Acharya (Sarvadarshan) with 55% or more marks, and (c) Ph. D. or NET. It is pointed out that the Petitioner had only 49% marks in her BA and 49.9% marks in her MA and obtained the Acharya Degree in Darshan (and not in Sarvadarshan) with first class.