ASHA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of impugned criteria issued by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 21.11.2007 for selection of Lecturers in the Government Aided Privately Managed Colleges. Prayer further is to quash the advertisement on the basis of which, respondent No. 4 has been selected on the post of Punjabi Lecturer with respondent No. 3 College.

(2.) The sole submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has qualified the State Level Eligibility Test (for short, "SLET") i.e. the State test, for which no weightage has been prescribed as per the criteria given in the advertisement. On the other hand, 8 marks weightage is provided to those candidates who have qualified in National Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as "NET"). The grievance of the petitioner is that prior to the year 2002, the qualifications were the same and accordingly now giving any weightage to those candidates who have qualified NET would be arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Annexure P-2, which is issued by the University Grants Commission for laying down the eligibility conditions.

(3.) No doubt, the candidates who have cleared the SLET, are to be held eligible for appointment to the posts of Lecturers anywhere in India if they have cleared SLET prior to 2002. This letter, however, will not govern the laying down of criteria for selection or for grant of weightage. The grant of weightage to a particular candidate would be on the basis of criteria required to be adopted and accepted by the respondents. There is no justification to interfere in the action of the respondents in giving some weightage to those candidates who have qualified in NET and not giving such consideration to those who have qualified in SLET. These are two different tests. It is for the respondents to attach weightage to a particular test and the counsel has not been able to point out any arbitrariness in this regard. The petitioner has been considered eligible as per the instructions of U.G.C. There is no cause made out for interfering in the criteria adopted for selection as I do not see anything arbitrary or discriminatory in the criteria so formed by the respondents.