R.D. ANAND Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was an ex member of the Senate of the Panjab University is before the Court in person seeking for issue of writ of quo warranto against the 3rd respondent, who holds the office of Registrar of the Panjab University. The petitioner's case is rested on a plea that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for admission to the post in the manner advertised. The manner of selection itself was not transparent and the procedure adopted for choice of candidates from among several other candidates who applied to the post was legally suspect. The application for appointment made by the selected candidate is also stated to be defective and the ultimate result, according to the petitioner, is that the selection is flawed and he being a usurper of the public office, must vacate.

(2.) THE qualifications prescribed under the advertisement notification issued on 12.02.2014 for the post of Registrar was that he shall have a Master's degree with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade of 'B' in the UGC 7 point scale and the experience shall be (i) at least 15 years' experience as Assistant Professor with specific scales or (ii) comparable experience in research establishment and/or other educational institutions or (iii) 15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post.

(3.) JOINING issues on the aspect of the educational qualification, it is contended by the respondent that the Post Graduate course cannot be attached to the 15 years' experience, for, it is independent. The Supreme Court was dealing with the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department. It was expected that the candidate must have three years' service as degree holder for promotion. The Supreme Court held that the period of three years was to be reckoned from the date when he obtained degree and not earlier. Service in the grade as a diploma holder prior to obtaining a degree, the Supreme Court held could not be counted as service in the grade of a degree. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University would explain that the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be applied since the requirement of experience along with the acquisition of the qualification in the manner referred to under the recruitment rules was not the manner in which the advertisement had stipulated the requirement of a post graduate qualification. I would accept this contention and find that it is not possible to infer from the specification that the experience must have been after the acquisition of post - graduate qualification. Indeed, the 3rd respondent had attempted to say that even the post graduate qualification itself is available to the 3rd respondent by virtue of the fact that he had a post graduate diploma in Marketing from Indian Institute of Business Management Patna which the certificate declared as recognized by the Government as equivalent to the Masters in Business Administration. The petitioner would however counter this argument and state that the Government cannot be a competent body to accord such a recognition. If such a recognition by the Government was competent, it must be referred to as merely a recognition by the Bihar Government and could not be applied as recognized by any professional body. I would not go into this hairsplitting argument since I have already held that the post graduate qualification obtained by the 3rd respondent in M.Tech was sufficient. Although it had been done within a period of 15 years, I would say the experience required for 15 years was not necessary to have been acquired after the completion of the post graduate course. The issue of equivalence of the PG Diploma as post graduate course or not is not therefore, undertaken as being unnecessary.