MINAKSHI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ms. Minakshi Sharma, has challenged the legality of the order dated 19.02.2020, whereby she was denied the chance to appear for interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). She had also prayed that the respondent no. 3, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short the Commission ), should be directed to consider her degree of M.A. in Public Administration as an eligible degree for being appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science).

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had done her graduation in the year 2005 with the subjects of English, Economics and Political Science. In the year 2008, she had completed her M.A. in Public Administration. She had also qualified the Uttarakhand State Eligibility Test (USET) in Political Science. Eventually, she had completed her Ph.D. in Political Science. After having completed her studies, she was appointed as a Guest Lecturer in Political Science in the Government Degree College, Jakholi, Rudraprayag.

(3.) On 04.08.2017, the respondent no. 3, the Commission, had advertised post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) in various degree colleges in the State. Since the petitioner was eligible for the said post, she had applied for the same. She had appeared in the written examination, and cleared the same. However, subsequently respondent no. 3, the Commission, refused the petitioner the right to appear in the interview ostensibly on the ground that her M.A. degree was in Public Administration. Therefore, she did not have the equivalent degree of M.A. in Political Science. The petitioner filed a representation on 11.02.2020, wherein she clearly pointed out that, according to the UGC guidelines issued on 04.07.2018, a degree in Public Administration is deemed to be equivalent to a degree in Political Science. Therefore, she should be deemed to be qualified for appearing in the interview. However, by order dated 19.02.2020, her representation was rejected by respondent no. 3. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court.