MOHAMMED BAKHAR M. Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER herein is challenging two orders, i.e., Exhibits P5 and P8. It is not in dispute that the first respondent notified for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) as well as several other subjects, including Hindi. The present petitioner was an applicant for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) as well as Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi), as he had required degrees. Annexure A1 is the notification so far as the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) and all other subjects, including Hindi. So far as Annexure A1 is concerned, it was for regular vacancy. Annexure A6 is dated 1.5.2012. The Department of Education in the respondent Union Territory invited applications for post graduation in the respective subjects as teachers on contract basis. It is not in dispute that so far as regular vacancy as per Annexure A1, neither in the subject of Economics, nor in the subject of Hindi, the petitioner came to be selected. However, he was selected on contract basis as per Annexures A7 and A8. 2. According to the petitioner, though the respondent authorities allotted two marks for his M.Phil in Hindi, in the column for higher qualification, they did not award any mark, when it came to consider his case so far as Economics. Therefore, having regard to the qualification required and the details of notification at Annexure A1, the approach of the department was erroneous and he ought to have got marks for M.Phil in Hindi even while considering his application for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Economics). He relies upon Annexure A7 to contend that his M.Phil marks in Hindi was considered for the post of Economics on contract basis.

(3.) WHEN we look at Annexure A7, there is specific clause indicating 5% weightage of marks for higher qualification of Net/Set, M.Ed. and M.Phil for 1 mark each and 2 marks for Ph.d would be awarded. Accordingly, 1 mark is awarded for his M.Phil degree. Therefore, the stand of the petitioner that he ought to have got 2 marks for M.Phil even as per Annexure R1(a) calculation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that each selection process was carried on in accordance with the notification inviting application for particular post. Details are clearly made to the effect that what would be considered while verifying the applications of different candidates. In the absence of particular mentioning that M.Phil also would carry additional marks or weightage at Annexure A1, we fail to understand how the reply given under RTI application can be relied upon and say that this was the criterion to be imported even at Annexure A1. In the absence of any offer made in the notification by the department to consider the degree of M.Phil even while considering the applicant for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) against a regular vacancy, we fail to understand what was erroneous exercise done by the Tribunal in this regard. Having regard to the details of Annexures A1 and A7, we are of the opinion, the department has followed the instructions declared by them at respective annexures and we do not find any good ground to interfere with the opinion of the Tribunal either in the main order or in the review order. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.