M P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. SANDEEPA MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 7.2.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6485/11. M.P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 19.1.2009 inviting applications for selection to the post of Professor of various subjects, one of the subject was Economics. The respondent No. 1 applied for appointment to the post of Professor (Economies). That was rejected vide order dated 21st September 2011 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Professor (Economies) neither she had 10 years' experience of teaching. She challenged the aforesaid order of rejection of her candidature in the writ petition on the ground that in accordance with the advertisement, the qualification to the post of Professor (Economics) was Ph.D. in concerned subject. The appellant had Ph.D. degree in Master in Business Economics and she had 10 years teaching experience, hence her application had wrongly been rejected by the Public Service Commission. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the respondent No. 1 after holding that the respondent had essential qualification of Ph.D. in economics and she had 10 years experience of teaching also. Hence, rejection of her candidature was illegal.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant M.P. Public Service Commission has contended that the respondent No. 1 did not have requisite qualification to the post of Professor (Economics). She also did not have the qualification of 10 years experience, hence, her application was rightly rejected by the Public Service Commission. Learned senior counsel further contended that the case of the appellant was examined by an expert committee in regard to qualification of the appellant and the expert committee in its opinion observed that the appellant did not have the requisite qualification for the post. Hence, the Court had no power and authority to negativate the findings of the expert committee without any cogent reasons. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant did not have the requisite experience which was required for the post. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments :

(3.) Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the respondent No. 1 had qualification of Ph.D. in Economics. It was awarded to her by Jiwaji University. Hence, she had requisite qualification for the post of Professor (Economics). The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant submitted certificates in regard to her teaching experience and that is in accordance with the conditions of the recruitment rules and the UGC regulations. The expert committee did not consider the case of the appellant objectively, hence, order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law.