Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar vs Punjab Engineering College And … on 20 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17257 of 2018(O&M)
Date of Decision: April 20 , 2021.
Krishan Kumar …… PETITIONER
Versus
Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University) and others
…… RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
*****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
*****
LISA GILL, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved of decision dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure P6)
of respondent No.2-Board of Governors of Punjab Engineering College to treat
the process of recruitment of Registrar initiated vide advertisement dated
13.02.2018 (Annexure P1) to be null and void. He further seeks a writ of
mandamus for direction to the respondent-authorities to declare the result for the
post of Registrar as per recommendations of the Selection Committee pursuant to
said advertisement dated 13.02.2018.
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-2-
Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that,
respondent No.1 issued an advertisement dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P1)
seeking applications for filling up the post of Registrar, Punjab Engineering
College, on tenure basis. Petitioner being eligible for said post, applied on
23.02.2018 (Annexure P2). Fifty two (52) applications were received. Scrutiny
Committee constituted by respondent No.1 found nine (9) candidates to be
ineligible. Thereafter, the Board of Governors in its 55th meeting held on
09.03.2018, after rejecting the view that candidates who intend to come on
deputation may be permitted even if they had three years tenure instead of five
years, decided that the recruitment process be continued as per the advertisement.
Vice-Chancellor, Panjab University was appointed as its nominee of the Selection
Committee. It is stated that however, respondent No.1, on its own applied the
criteria of UGC guidelines and list of eligible candidates came down from 43 to
30. Petitioner was called for interview vide communication dated 20.03.2018
(Annexure P4) wherein it is stated that in view of large number of applicants,
UGC prescribed educational criteria for the post of Registrar alongwith 20 years
of minimum experience has been applied for short-listing. Petitioner, being fully
eligible appeared before the Selection Committee on 31.03.2018. The Board of
Governors is the competent authority for appointment of Registrar. Instead of
appointing the selected candidate, agenda item No.56.5 (T) was placed before the
Board of Governors on 09.05.2018, with regard to eligibility criteria for the post
of Registrar. As per minutes of 56th meeting, it was resolved that the post of
Registrar be advertised afresh in national dailies, employment news etc., as per
the new UGC norms as approved on table agenda No.56.5. Accordingly, a fresh
advertisement was issued on 08.07.2018 (Annexure P8).
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-3-
Aggrieved of the action of the respondent-authorities in not
announcing the name of the sole selected candidate and treating the process of
recruitment for the post of Registrar, initiated pursuant to advertisement dated
13.02.2018 as null and void, besides, issuing a fresh advertisement, present writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per written
statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is the petitioner alone who was
found eligible for the post of Registrar in the process of recruitment initiated as
per advertisement dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P1). Petitioner duly fulfilled all
the eligibility conditions even as per the applicable UGC norms at that time,
though said conditions were not mentioned in advertisement dated 13.02.2018
(Annexure P1). It is submitted that the petitioner has a legitimate expectation to
be appointed to the post of Registrar pursuant to his selection.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was
no requirement of issuance of a fresh advertisement because it is apparent from a
perusal of communication dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure P4) sent to the petitioner
for participation in the interview, that the UGC norms were duly adhered to while
carrying out the selection, even though the Board of Governors in its 56th meeting
had stipulated that recruitment be made as per conditions advertised. The
petitioner, thus, is entitled to appointment to the post of Registrar as he was the
sole candidate found suitable for the post.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that it was
a bonafide mistake which was discovered by the respondents and it was
incumbent upon the respondents to set the same right and that there is no malafide
on the part of the respondents. It is stated that at the time of issuance of
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-4-
advertisement dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P1), the prevalent UGC guidelines at
that point of time were not taken into account due to an inadvertent oversight. The
said advertisement was not according to the applicable UGC regulations which
the respondents were bound to follow. It is submitted that though the Selection
Committee has recommended the petitioner for appointment, it was decided by
the Board of Governors, that keeping in view the fact that the UGC regulations
were not taken into account at the time of issuance of advertisement dated
13.02.2018 (Annexure P1) nor reflected in the said advertisement, it would be
proper to issue a fresh advertisement in tune with the UGC regulations.
Moreover, pursuant to the second advertisement dated 08.07.2018 (Annexure P8),
71 candidates had applied in comparison with 52 candidates pursuant to
advertisement dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P1). It is submitted that the
respondent-institution is bound to follow the UGC guidelines. Accordingly, fresh
advertisement with eligibility criteria on the basis of UGC guidelines circulated
on the basis of criteria laid down by Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of Higher Education (Annexure R5), was decided to be issued. It is
submitted that no candidate even though selected, has a right to appointment on a
particular post. It is further submitted that there was a clear cut possibility of
certain candidates not applying pursuant to advertisement dated 13.02.2018
(Annexure P1) keeping in view the criteria mentioned therein and that this is
borne out by the fact of more candidates applying pursuant to the latter
advertisement issued on 08.07.2018. It is submitted that Scrutiny Committee on
its own could not have adopted the criteria though approved by the UGC as
reflected in communication dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure P4) which was sent to
the petitioner and other candidates called for the interview. The said action in
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-5-
itself was sufficient to cast a shadow on the entire selection, if sustained. It is in
the interest of maintaining proper norms and transparency that it was decided by
the respondents to issue the advertisement afresh. It is, thus, prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the file with their assistance.
Issuance of advertisement dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P1) on the
basis of norms, eligibility conditions which were admittedly not as per the
applicable UGC norms is a matter of record. The difference in the eligibility
conditions in both the advertisements as tabulated by the respondents in
Annexure R13 attached with their written statement and not denied by the
petitioner is reproduced as hereunder:-
“Comparison chart of Advertisements for the post of Registrar
Advt. No. PEC/ Indian Express/ The
Recruitment/07/2018 for wide Tribune/Dainik Bhaskar and
publicity Indian Express (All AIU Newsletter (23rd to 29th
Advt. No.
editions) and Amar Ujala dated July 2018 edition) for wide
10.02.2018 publicity/ website
Dated 13.02.2018 08.07.2018
Master’s Degree in Master’s Degree with at
Arts/Science/Management with least 55% of the marks or an
Qualifications
at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade in a point
equivalent in the UGC seven scale wherever grading
point scale. system is followed.
At least 15 years of
experience as Assistant
Professor in the Academic
At least 10 years experience at
level 11* and above or with
the appropriate levels in
8 years of service in the
teaching/research/consultancy/pr
Academic Level 12** and
Experience oject management/educational
above including as Associate
administration and
Professor alongwith the
demonstration interest in
experience in educational
academics
administration, or
Comparable experience in
research establishment
and/or other institutions of
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-6-
higher education, or
15 years of administrative
experience, of which 8 years
shall be as Deputy Registrar
or an equivalent post.
*Academic level 11 as per
7th CPC pay matrix/Grade
Pay of Rs.7600/- in PB III as
per 6th CPC.
Pay Scale: Rs.37400-
Pay Scale: Rs.37400-67000+GP
67000+GP Rs.10,000/- plus
Emoluments Rs.10,000/- plus allowances as
allowances as per institute
per institute rules.
rules/Academic Level 14 as
per 7th CPC pay matrix.
Contractual appointment for 5 Appointment on contractual
years. Those intending to join on basis for a period of 5 years.
Appointment deputation/lien must be relieved Those intending to come on
by current employer for full five deputation will be allowed if
years upon being selected. they have available tenure of
03 years services.
Age of superannuation, as at
Age
Below 55 years present, shall continue to be
62 years.
A comparative chart of the candidates who had applied and were
found eligible for interview pursuant to the two advertisements, as attached with
the written statement and not denied by the petitioner, is reproduced as
hereunder:-
“Details of Advertisement for Recruitment of Registrar – 2018
Advt. No. Advt. No. PEC/ Indian Express/ The
Recruitment/07/2018 Tribune/Dainik
for wide publicity Bhaskar and AIU
Indian Express (All Newsletter (23rd to
editions) and Amar 29th July 2018 edition)
Ujala dated for wide publicity/
10.02.2018 website
13.02.2018 08.07.2018
Date
52 71
Applications received
43 49
Eligible after first Screening
Not eligible after first 09 22
Screening
Eligible after second 16 –
Screening
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-7-
Ineligible after second 27 – Screening
Email to ineligible Notice uploaded on
27
candidates for Hearing Inistitute Website on
Committee meeting 06.12.2018
Ineligible candidates 13 04
submitted their appeals
Present in person for
Hearing Committee meeting 02 02
(Committee gone through all the
emails and documents received)
Eligible after Hearing 01 01
Committee
Eligible total candidates for 17 50
interview
12
Appear in Interview
Stay by the Hon’ble
05 Punjab & Haryana
Absent in Interview
High Court,
– Chandigarh
Result
It is mentioned in communication dated 20.03.2018 (Annexure P4),
calling the petitioner for interview, that the following criteria was being
followed:-
“It is for your kind information that in view of large number of
applicants to shortlist the UGC prescribed educational criteria for
post of Registrar alongwith 20 years of minimum experience has
been applied. Same is reproduced for your ready reference:
(i) At least 15 years’ of experience as Assistant Professor in the
AGP of Rs.7000 and above or with 8 years’ of service in the
AGP of Rs.8000 and above including as Associate Professor
along with experience in educational administration or
(ii) Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other
institutions of higher education or
(iii) 15 years of administrative experience of which 08 years shall
be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post.”
It is a matter of record that the above are in tune with the UGC
regulations which were applicable at the time of issuance of advertisement dated
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-8-
13.02.2018 (Annexure P1) duly circulated by UGC on 18.01.2018 (Annexure R4)
Therefore, it was indeed incumbent upon the respondents to have clearly
stipulated the requisite applicable conditions in its advertisement issued on
13.02.2018. Admittedly, this was not done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
vehemently argued that in the minutes of the 56th meeting of the Board of
Governors, it is observed that Selection Committee could identify only one
suitable candidate and that in order to attract quality candidates and most number
of applications, the post should be advertised afresh. Such an observation, it is
submitted, is clearly contrary to the record as it is not as if only one application
was received. As many as 52 applications were received and the process of
selection was carried out by the Selection Committee and thereafter the petitioner
whose candidature conformed with the applicable UGC norms, was
recommended for selection to the post of Registrar. This argument though on first
flush is attractive but does not hold good for the reason that it is clearly
mentioned that the UGC has laid down recruitment rules for appointment to the
post of Registrar and after deliberations it was decided that the current process be
treated as null and void and fresh advertisement be issued on the basis of new
UGC norms. There is equally no merit in the argument that as no new
recruitment rules were laid down by UGC as mentioned in the Minutes, therefore,
the prior selection process be upheld. Notwithstanding the language of the
Minutes of the 56th meeting, it is an admitted position that advertisement dated
13.02.2018 was not in conformity with the applicable UGC norms at that time.
Merely because the petitioner is compliant with the UGC norms cannot be a
ground to uphold the said selection process as the possibility of candidates
eligible as per said UGC norms, not applying for the post cannot be ruled out.
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-9-
Decision taken on item No.55.6 in the 56th meeting of the Board of Governors is
reproduced has hereunder:-
“Prof. Arun Grover, the board nominee on the selection
committee informed that the committee could identify only
one candidate suitable for Registrar’s position at PEC based
on the qualifications and experience advertised. The
advertisement had envisaged applicant to be below 55 years of
age and that those who intending to join on deputation/lien
must be relieved by current employer for full five years upon
being selected and not three years. On hindsight, it is felt that
in order to attract quality candidates and also more number of
applications, the post be advertised afresh in national dailies,
employment news, AIU newsletters etc. It was also informed
that recently UGC has laid down new recruitment rules for the
appointment of Registrar. After deliberation, it was decided
that the current process be treated as null and void, and a fresh
advertisement for the post of Registrar be initiated based on
the new UGC norms, as approved under Table agenda, 56.5
(T). The process be completed before the start of the next
academic session.”
Thereafter, the process for appointment of Registrar was reinitiated
and approval of the Chandigarh Administration was duly secured and fresh
advertisement issued on 08.07.2018 in consonance with the applicable UGC
norms at that time. It is not in dispute that respondent-University being a deemed
university is bound by the directions of the Government of India/UGC guidelines.
Reference has been made to communication dated 18.01.2018 (Annexure R4) by
the Secretary, UGC, New Delhi and communications dated 02.11.2017
(Annexure R5) and 31.12.2018 (Annexure R6) by the Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education to
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-10-
the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
Doubtlessly, Scrutiny Committee/Selection Committee found the
petitioner eligible for appointment to the post of Registrar. Proceedings of the
Scrutiny Committee for shortlisting the candidates were placed before this Court.
A perusal thereof shows that shortlisting has been done as per the criteria which
stood notified by the UGC at that time, but admittedly not reflected in the
advertisement (Annexure P1). In the given circumstances, respondents cannot be
faulted for re-advertising the post of Registrar. It is a settled position that it was
not open to the respondent-authorities to carry out the selection process in this
manner i.e., according to the applicable UGC norms and regulations which were
in place on 13.02.2018 but not reflected in any manner in the said advertisement.
In fact, conditions mentioned in advertisement dated 13.02.2018 are different. It
is relevant to note at this stage that no malafide has been alleged much less
proved. Petitioner has not raised any such ground even at the time of arguments.
In such a situation, the respondents have correctly readvertised the post of
Registrar.
Respondent-authorities are, thus, well within their right to have
re-advertised the post of Registrar in consonance with the applicable UGC
regulations. It is a settled position that no vested right accrues even to a selected
candidate for appointment and at the same time, it is also not open to the
respondent-authorities to act in an arbitrary or illegal fashion to deny appointment
in a given situation. However, in the present case, respondent-authorities indeed
have a valid reason to re-advertise the post of Registrar and carry out the selection
process afresh.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere in this
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
CWP No.17257 of 2018(O&M)
-11-
writ petition. However, it is to be noted at this stage that though the petitioner
had not applied pursuant to advertisement dated 08.07.2018, it was fairly stated
by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 at the time of arguments that the
petitioner’s candidature shall be duly considered. Therefore, it is directed that the
petitioner, who has been accepted and admitted to be eligible as per the applicable
UGC norms and fulfilling the applicable criteria, shall be considered for
appointment alongwith the other candidates who are stated have applied pursuant
to advertisement dated 08.07.2018, in accordance with law.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
( LISA GILL )
April 20 , 2021. JUDGE
‘om’
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:04:05 :::
Comments