ARUN KUMAR RAI Vs. CHANCELLOR GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and the respondent no. 4 are at issues as to who ought to hold the post of Lecturer in the department of Military Science at a College in Azamgarh known as Shivli National College. THE issue then is if teachers are not qualified would not faith in higher education itself be eroded.

(2.) THERE was a leave vacancy at the aforesaid College on the post of a lecturer in Military Science. The person who held the post of lecturer, substantively was Ansar Khan. He would not be available for a period of three years. For this period the Committee of Management of this College set about to make an interim arrangement though the Committee of Management was totally conscious of the fact that the interim arrangement even could only be made provided the candidate holds the requisite qualifications in reference to the Statutes which were applicable. The College is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The Statutes in reference to the context are under the head ' Qualifications and appointment of teachers in Affiliated Colleges '. These are framed under section 49 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The Statute in reference to the context is 11.13 and is reproduced below :- 11.13 (1) In the case of any college affiliated with the University, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts (except the Department of Fine Arts and Music) and the Faculties of Commerce and Science ; namely : (a) An M. Phil degree or a recognised degree or a recognised degree beyond Masters level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work ; and (b) Consistently good academic record with atleast first or high second class Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University, in a relevant subject.

(3.) WHILE this Court does not desire to recommend on who ought to be selected but it cannot help appreciating what the petitioner contends and his plea is not such that it could be rejected outright. There is much in what the petitioner has to contend in regard to the qualifications which he possesses as opposed to the qualifications which the contesting respondent has. The qualifications of the two, the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 alongwith the other candidates who were considered at that time are as below :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_291_AWC1_1988Image1.jpg</IMG>