HARMINDRA PAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the selection and appointment of Shri M.S. Grewal (respondent No. 4) on the post of lecturer in Hindi Department of S.G.N. Khalsa College, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 2) and prayed that the same be quashed and that she be appointed as lecturer in place of respondent No. 1.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the admitted facts of this case are that S.G.N. Khalsa College, Sri Ganganagar is a public institution getting 90% aid from the State Government under the Grant in Aid Rules, 1963. It is affiliated to the Ajmer University and governed by the provisions made for the affiliated colleges in the Ajmer University Act, Statute and Ordinance. The Managing Committee, S.G.N. Khalsa College, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) through its advertisements published in the Daily Tribune, Chandigarh Edition dated 9.9.1988 and in Rajasthan Patrika, Bikaner Edition dated 23.2.1988 invited applications for one post of lecturer in the Hindi Department of respondent No. 2, wherein it was mentioned that qualification and grade will be an per U.G.C. norms and that preference will be given to M. Phil. or Ph. D. candidates. As per norms of the University Grant Commission the requirements and qualifications prescribed are as under:

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 did not possess the required qualifications because he had secured only 58.4% marks in the M.A. examination while according to the qualifications prescribed by the U.G.C, the candidates should have at least 55% marks and as per explanation appended to the qualifications prescribed by the U.G.C, the minimum qualification could not be relaxed even in respect of candidates having Research Degree like M. Phil/Ph. D. According to the petitioner though the respondent No. 4 possessed the Doctorate Degree still then since he had not secured 55% marks in M.A. Examination, he could not have been selected. On the other hand she had secured 58% marks in M.A. (Hindi) Examination. The respondent had also passed his B.A. Examination in III Div. Securing 45% marks only. Thus, he also did not have a good academic record. Therefore, his selection as lecturer in Hindi was wholly illegal and bad in the eye of law. Another contention of the petitioner is that Shri R.S. Jaggi, Reader, Punjabi Department could not have been appointed as an Expert in the Selection Committee for selecting the candidates for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. No recover, as per law, there should have been at least two Experts in the subject for holding the selection of the lecturer. Hence the constitution of the selection committee was illegal and on this count also the selection of respondent No. 4 was arbitrary and illegal, which deserves to the quashed. According to the petitioner since respondent No. 4 was not qualified to be appointed as Lecturer and her name appears at S. No. 2 in the panel of selection, she should be appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) in place of respondent No. 4.