CWP No. 13527 of 2013 (O&M), CWP No. 21838 of 2013, CWP No. 22627 of 2013 and CWP No. 26527 of 2013 (O&M). Case: Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 13527 of 2013 (O&M), CWP No. 21838 of 2013, CWP No. 22627 of 2013 and CWP No. 26527 of 2013 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate and Sajjan Singh Malik, Advocate and For Respondents: Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG |
| Judges | Rajiv Narain Raina, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 162, 309 |
| Judgement Date | January 30, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
-
This order will dispose of CWP No. 13527 of 2013 titled Dr. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 21838 of 2013 titled Dr. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 22627 of 2013 titled Dr. Satish Kumar Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana and others & CWP No. 26527 of 2013 titled Dr. Ajit Singh v. State of Haryana and others as common questions of law and fact are involved therein which can conveniently be decided by a common order.
-
Question No. (vii) posed in my interim order dated August 02, 2016 calling upon the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department to explain why the requisition of the State Government was sent in 2011 clubbed for the post of Principals and Deputy Directors and in case the State is unable to justify this clubbing then why should not the selection and appointments be confined to the post of Deputy Directors and accordingly seven posts declared vacant retrospectively for filling afresh from open market after following the new criteria with API Record System added to the selection process as its inherent part as it prevailed on the date of the recommendations by the Commission has been adequately answered in the additional affidavit the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, Chandigarh to satisfy the insistence of Mr. Sajjan Singh Malik, learned counsel that this query remains at large and not answered. More will follow on this issue in the course of the opinion.
-
The answer to this controversy lies in the Appendix to the Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group-A Service (Amendment) Rules, 2005 [for short "the Rules, 2005"] itself where both the posts are clubbed and made inseparable. The State has explained that Principals work in colleges and when posted to the Directorate they discharge duties and responsibilities of administrative office and not in the classroom. Principals become Deputy Directors and Deputy Directors resume their work as Principals on posting and transfers. They are, therefore, one and the same thing under twin designation depending on the exigencies of administration of who is placed where by posting. Those Principals who are found complacent with rules, regulations and principles of governance are brought to headquarters of the Higher Education Department, Haryana to perform purely administrative functions. Both the designations are twins which cannot be separated for different treatment from the point of view of selection and appointment. There is thus no occasion to declare seven posts of Principals vacant for fresh selection. The Court is satisfied with the explanation given in the additional affidavit of the Principal Secretary as unexceptionable and the stand is in accordance with the rules and to the contrary holding otherwise would amount to re-writing the rules.
-
The keen contest in this petition and the grounds for battle is regarding the selection to seven posts of Principals in Government Colleges/Deputy Director against vacancies advertised on October 19, 2012 from general and reserve category by way of direct recruitment. The post of Principal/Deputy Director is governed by the provisions of the Rules, 2005 which provide that the post will be filled by promotion from amongst college Lecturers or by direct recruitment in the ratio of 75:25. The present case involves direct recruitment. Since we are not concerned with promotion the conditions of eligibility prescribed for direct recruitment in the Appendix to the Rules, 2005 is to the following effect:-
4.2.0. PRINCIPAL
i. A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) by a recognized University.
ii. A Ph.D. Degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline(s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance.
iii. Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of fifteen years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other institutions of higher education.
iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in this Regulation in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges.
-
It is the common ground that the essential qualifications prescribed in the rules of service are faithfully reproduced in the advertisement. However, the case of the petitioners is in sharp departure to the rules of service with the argument built on the edifice of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi notification dated June 30, 2010 in Clause 4.2.0 prescribing for the post of Principal, the following conditions:-
"4.2.0. PRINCIPAL
i. A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed by a recognized University.
ii. A Ph.D. Degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline (s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance.
iii. Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of fifteen years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other institutions of higher education.
iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in this Regulation in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges."
-
It is urged that the UGC is the competent authority to prescribe qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor/Principal of the College. It is contended that State Governments and Universities are bound to follow the qualifications laid down by the UGC which is the competent authority to lay down minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges.
-
The Haryana Government vide letter dated July 21, 2011 decided to revise the minimum qualifications for the posts in issue. The dispute in this case is that the Academic Performance Indicator (API) dependent on Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) is set out in the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 ("UGC Regulations, 2010") in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges has not been advertised as an essential part of the criteria by the Haryana Government and, therefore, the advertisement deserves to be invalidated and a fresh selection ordered by taking into account API/PBAS scores on computation on the parameters indicated in the regulations. It is also well settled that recommendations of the UGC apply by adoption by State Governments and Universities and have no force of their own unless accepted by amendment of rules, wherever necessary.
-
Much of the debate has sprung from Memo dated July 21, 2011 issued by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department to the Registrars of the four Universities established in Haryana and to the Principals of Government and Government Aided Private Colleges situated in the Haryana on the subject of adoption of various recommendations of the UGC with regard to minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of the standards of Higher Education. It will be worthwhile to quote verbatim the memo, which reads:-
"In Supersession of this office memo No. KW-7/18-2009 C-IV (3) dated 28.8.2009, 09.09.2009 and 29.04.2011, the State Government after reconsidering the recommendations of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India and University Grants Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated 31.12.2008 and letter No. F3-1/2009, dated 30.06.2010, has decided to issue a revised order on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of the standards of Higher Education. The decisions taken by the State Government are incorporated in the enclosed Appendices.
Anomalies, if any, in the implementation of the scheme may be brought to the notice of Higher Education Department for clarification.
This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department conveyed vide their U.O. No. 1/46/2009.4PR (FD), dated 19.07.2011."
[emphasis added]
-
Vide this memo the State Government decided to issue a revised order on minimum qualifications for the post concerned and if there are anomalies, if any, in the implementation of the scheme they may be brought to the notice of the Higher Education Department for clarification. The State Government took into account the suggestions of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India and the UGC in formulating the decision. However, the State of Haryana did not amend the relevant rules of service. Consequently, API scoring system was not introduced in promotions.
-
It is urged by the respondent-State that API record/scoring system is not a qualification under the UGC Act, 1956 ("1956 Act") but it is a standard of evaluation whenever it transcribes itself into the law or in the statutory rules. Responding to the letter dated July 21, 2011 issued by the State Government, the Department received a communication dated August 30, 2011 from the Haryana Federation of University & College Teachers Organization (HFUCTO) demanding that the API scoring system should be implemented w.e.f. academic session 2012-13 as during the previous session i.e. 2011-12, the API scoring system was in the blue print process and was yet to be prepared and communicated to the teachers. The matter was reconsidered by Government regarding implementation of API scoring system in the academic...
To continue reading
Request your trial