SEEMA BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a declaration that Clause (iv) of sub rule 1 of Rule 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 2006 (for brevity, 'the Rules') is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, inasmuch as, it clothes any one of the nominee of the Vice Chancellor or nominee of Commissioner of Higher Education to record a dissenting note in the proceedings of the Selection Committee which is considered to be binding and nullifying the majority opinion. A further prayer made is that letter dated 14.7.2009 (P.9), issued by the Commissioner, Higher Education, disapproving the appointment of the petitioner be also quashed being arbitrary and without jurisdiction; and still further it is prayed that all the consequential relief be granted to the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that on 11.11.2006 the Vaish College, Bhiwani, advertised one post of Lecturer in Math. The petitioner had applied for the same on 14.12.2006. She was interviewed alongwith other candidates and was selected at No. 2 in order of merit. One candidate, namely, Shri Ramesh Bansal, who was selected at No. 1 in order of merit, has been declared ineligible being overage and his appointment on that ground has not been approved. He had filed CWP No. 20845 of 2006 which was dismissed on 3.12.2008. On 9.1.2009, the Principal of the College requested the Government to approve the appointment of the petitioner, who was selected at No. 2 in order of merit. However, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved on the ground that there was a dissenting note of the nominee of the Vice Chancellor as well as Subject Expert. The 'dissenting note' further directed to re-advertise the post. Hence, the instant petition.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that there is no justification for vesting the nominee of the Commissioner of Higher Education or the nominee of the Vice Chancellor to record a dissenting note and set aside the views of other seven members. Mr. Malik has read out Rule 7(1)(iv) of the Rules to us and argued that totally unbridled power has been vested with the nominee of the Vice Chancellor or the nominee of the Commissioner of Higher Education. Learned counsel has argued that in the absence of any rationale and justifiable reason such a power is being misused which is wholly arbitrary. Another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel is that the autonomy of the institution can be interfered with only to advance excellence of education or to bring exalted or higher standard. The nominee has not recorded any thing with regard to the performance of the petitioner who fulfills all the essential qualifications as well as preferable qualifications. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Dr. Sushma Arya v. State of Haryana, 2003 1 SCT 1044, where the nominee of the Director, Higher Education had recorded a dissenting note ignoring the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. The observations made in para 6 of the judgement have been relied upon to argue that the selection process has to be completed by taking into consideration the majority opinion and not the opinion of one or two persons. He has also placed reliance on a judgement of the learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar v. M.D.U., 1994 3 SCT 447, as also the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal, 2004 3 SCT 1, and argued that the management of aided institutions are entitled to administer their institutions which include the right to appointment of teachers of their choice from amongst those who have cleared NET/UGC qualifications.