Anupam Shukla v. Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission And Others

B.N. Misra, J.

1. Affidavits have been exchanged and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard on merits.

2. The Petitioner holds a Master of Laws degree of Allahabad University and is working as a permanent lecturer in the Law Department at V.S.S.D. College, Kanpur, which is affiliated to the Kanpur University. As there are no research facilities at the aforesaid College, the Petitioner apprehends that his chances of promotion are bleak if he continues in that College. He feels that he has a very good chance of undertaking his research work at the Allahabad Degree College, Respondent No. 2. On 2.8.86 advertisement No. 10 was issued by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), Respondent No. i and along with the said advertisement the first supplement to advertisement No. 9 of the Commission was also notified wherein it was indicated that a few additional vacancies had arisen since publication of advertisement No. 9 in March, 1986 and one of the several posts advertised in the supplement was that of a lecturer in the faculty of law at K.N.I. College, Sultanpur. It was also indicated that the post of lecturer at the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur was temporary vacancy likely to continue indefinitely. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the Petitioner applied on plain paper for the law lecturers post at the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur, indicating in his application that he would like the Commission to consider his case also for the post of permanent lecturer in law at the Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad which had been advertised by the Commission on 22.3.1986 (advertisement No. 9). The Petitioners application was rejected by the Commission as it had not been submitted within time. The Petitioner then filed writ petition No. 13964 of 1986 which was disposed of on 25.8.1986 whereby the Petitioner was directed to explain to the Commission the reasons for the delay in submission of his application and the Commission was directed to entertain the said explanation and proceed further on the basis thereof. As per the direction of this Court, the Petitioner was permitted by the Commission to appear at the interview which was held by the Commission on 22nd and 23rd December, 1986. Before the interview the candidates including the Petitioner were asked by the Commission to indicate their option in regard to the Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad and the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur. The Petitioner noted in the form supplied to him by the Commission that he wanted to be considered for the Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad. He had not included the name of K.N.I. College, Sultanpur in the forn. During the interview to a query by one of the Members of the Commission, the Petitioner reiterated that he wanted to be considered only in respect of the post at Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad and not for the post at K.N.I. College, Sultanpur. On 18.3.1987 the Commission issued a publication (Annexure 3) that Respondent No. 3 was assigned the post at Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad and the Petitioner was assigned to the K.N.I. College at Sultanpur. The Petitioner had earlier ascertained on enquiry that at the interview he had stood first and therefore it was beyond his comprehension as to how he was offered the temporary job at the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur, while Respondent No. 3 who was placed below him in the merit list, was offered the permanent post at Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad. This action of the Commission is challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition as unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has accordingly prayed that the Commission should be directed to consider his case according to the option given by him and that the provisions contained in the regulations giving unfettered discretion to the Commission in the matter of actual posting of a candidate to a particular College should be struck down.

3. In its counter the Commission has stated that the vacancy for the permanent post of lecturership in law at the Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad was notified as advertisement No. 9 on 22.3.1986. The last date for submissions of application for the said post was 30.5.1986. The Petitioner had not applied for the permanent post at Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad. Subsequently, as a few additional vacancies were notified to the Commission, it issued the first supplement to advertisement No. 9 on 2.8.1986 wherein one post of lecturership in law at the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur was notified. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the aforesaid post of lecturer in law was a temporary vacancy but likely to continue indefinitely. The Petitioner had mentioned in his plain paper application that he was applying for the lecturership at K.N.I. College, Sultanpur and had also expressed the wish to be considered for the post of lecturership at the Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad. It is pointed out that Respondent No. 3 had applied for the permanent post of lecturer in law at the Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad, pursuant to advertisement No. 9 and had given his option only for the Allahabad Degree College. According to the Commission, in these circumstances, the Petitioner was entitled for consideration in respect of the post at the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur, but he had no right to be considered for the post at Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad, along with the candidates who had applied within time in response to advertisement No. 9. It is stated that the Petitioners application in response to the first supplement to advertisement No. 9 had not been submitted by him within time, but he was allowed to appear at the interview along with other candidates by virtue of directions issued by this Court in writ petition No. 13964 of 1986. It is asserted by the Commission that the assignment of the Petitioner to the K.N.I. College at Sultanpur is in accordance with the guidelines of the Commission and no grounds have been established by the Petitioner justifying interference.

4. In this counter the Respondent No. 3 has supported the stand of the Commission. It is stated that as the Petitioner had not applied for the permanent post at Allahabad Degree College in response to advertisement No. 9 issued by the Commission, he was not entitled to be considered for the post at the Allahabad Degree College. In para 16 of the counter Respondent No. 3 has outlined his qualifications and experience and those of the Petitioner.

5. In his rejoinder affidavits the Petitioner has reiterated the facts stated by him in the writ petition. According to him, under the existing rules and regulations, he was entitled to be considered for the post at the Allahabad Degree College and that as he stood first in the order of merit at the interview he was entitled to the permanent lecturership at the Allahabad Degree College.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Commission placed before us the relevant records of the Commission. Admittedly the Petitioner had not applied for the permanent post of lecturership at the Allahabad Degree College. He had made a plain paper application in response to the first supplement to advertisement No. 9 issued by the Commission on 2.8.1986. Though his application had not been received by the Commission in time, he was permitted to appear at the interview by virtue of the directions of this Court in writ petition No. 13964 of 1986. In his plain paper application the Petitioner had applied for the lecturership at the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur and he had further stated that bis candidature should also be considered for the post at Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad. In the form issued by the Commission before the interview the Petitioner had indicated on 23.12.1986 under item ka the name of only Allahabad Degree College, but he had not crossed out item (kha) in the form which reads as under:

Mera apua koyee vikalp nahi hai. Chayan hone ki dasha me meri niyukti kisi bhi Mahavidyalaya me kija sakati hai. Uprokt vikalp mera drirn evam antim adhimanta vikalp hai.

Respondent No. 3 had applied for the post at Allahabad Degree College in response to advertisement no 9 issued on 22.3.1986. In the form issued before the interview, under item ka he had indicated the name of Allahabad Degree College and had clearly crossed out item kha. The records of the Commission indicate that the candidates for the posts of lecturership in law appeared in two batches. Respondent No. 3 appeared before the. interview Board along with the first batch on 22.12.1986. The Petitioner appeared before the Board along with the second batch on 23.12.1986. The number of vacancies indicated in the tabulation sheet is 02 . It is thus clear from the records that all the candidates who appeared before the Board on 22.12.1986 and 23.12.1986 were being considered for both the vacancies, the two posts of lecturers, one at Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad and the other at K.N.I. College, Sultanpur. There is nothing on record to indicate that consideration of the Petitioners case was confined only to the K.N.I. College, Sultanpur. It is further seen that the total marks secured by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 at the interview were the same. In the tabulation sheet the Petitioners date of birth is marked in red as 18.11.1954 and that the Petitioner No. 3 as 9.7.1955 and in the column for merit ranking the Petitioner has been shown in red as I and Respondent No. 3 II .

7. In this context we have examined the guide-lines adopted by the Commission under resolution No. 41.9 dated 6.10.1983 read with resolution No. 44.2 dated 20.12.1983 resolution No. 71.1 dated 20/21.2.1984 and resolution No. 105.8 dated 15.8.1984. These guide-lines have been challenged on the ground that they give unfettered discretion to the Commission in the matter of actual posting of a candidate to a particular College. The Commission, it appears, has adopted these guide-lines help it in the procedure for selection of teachers which is one of its main functions. They are useful guides for maintenance of minimum standards and consistent practice in the process of selection. In fact Resolution 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for selection of teachers) Regulations, 1983, inter alia requires the Commission to interview the candidates in accordance with the criteria, minimum standards and guidelines set out by it. None of the matters enumerated in the guidelines are in any way inconsistent with the provisions contained in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 or the Rules and Regulations made under the Act. We see no justification to quash the guidelines adopted by the Commission.

8. These guidelines, inter-alia, provide that in the event of a tie the Commission shall decide the cases on the basis of seniority in age except when placements alone are involved, in which case the Commission shall use its own discretion. In the present case the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 having secured the same marks at the interview, ordinarily the decision would have gone in favour of the Petitioner as he is senior in age, but as in this case placements alone were involved, the rule as to seniority on the basis of age became inapplicable and the matter had to be decided by the Commission on the basis of its own discretion.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner extrenuously urged that the exercise of discretion by the Commission in this case is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is pointed out that offering a temporary job to the Petitioner who was already a permanent lecturer for a number of years is so unreasonable that the decision of the Commission in this regard must be held to be arbitrary. We have carefully considered the matter and we are unable to agree with counsels contention as we find that the Petitioners application was in fact for the post of lecturer in law at K.N.I. College, Sultanpur, with a request to be considered also for the post of Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad. When the Commission decided to offer him the post for which he had applied, how can he turn round and say that the decision of the Commission is unreasonable and arbitrary Further, as per the guidelines the Commission had exercised its discretion in assigning the post at Sultanpur to the Petitioner and the post at Allahabad to Respondent No. 3. This decision of the Commission does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. Allegations of unreasonableness and arbitrariness have no doubt been made by the Petitioner, but he has signally failed to establish any of these charges.

10. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.