Avtar Singh Vs. Chaudhary Charan S. Agrl. University & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1304/1998
Petitioner: Avtar Singh
Respondent: Chaudhary Charan S. Agrl. University & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1304/1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ
Date of Judgment: Sep 13, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Appointment – Vegetable botanist – Applicant found to have not possessed requisite qualification and experience in appropriate field. Held that High Court rightly declined the prayer and no ground to interfere, exist. (Paras 3,4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. An advertisement was made by the first-respondent, Chaudhary Charan Singh Agricultural University (hereafter referred to as ‘the university’) to fill up one post of vegetable botanist. The requisite qualifications for the same are as under :
” i) Bachelor’s degree with atleast 55% marks in percentage system or atleast 2.50/4.00 or its equivalent on point scale system.
ii) Master’s degree with atleast 60% on percentage system or atleast 3.20/4.00 or its equivalent on point scale system in vegetable crops with specialisation in vegetable breeding.
iii) Ph.D in the vegetable crops with specialisation in vegetable breeding.
iv) Five years experience of research/teaching/extention.”
2. The appellant was one of the persons who had applied for the said post. The selection committee constituted by the university selected two candidates, namely, Dr. K.S. Baswana and Avtar Singh, the appellant. The selection committee noticed as regards the appellant that he may not possess the necessary experience gained before obtaining the M.Sc. degree and the question of his fulfilling the prescribed academic qualification was left open. The university, however, constituted a three – member review committee to review the appointment as olericulturist. After going through the details of the case, it observed that the appellant lacked in required experience when the post of vegetable botanist was advertised. According to them his experience with M/s Kirloskar was not of teaching/ research/extension. Although several attempts were made to recommend the name of the appellant to the post in question, the board of management ultimately on 25.3.1996 rejected such recommendation in view of their resolution made on 4.10.1993 in which they stated that the appellant does not possess the required experience. He thereafter made a representation to the chancellor of the university who again asked the board of management to reconsider the matter and the matter was reconsidered by the board of management but unless the relaxation was given in respect of certain aspects of the qualification, it was stated that the appellant would not be eligible to be appointed. Thereafter, as nothing seems to have been done at that stage, the appellant approached the High Court with a writ petition.
3. The High Court after having examined the matter, noticed that the appellant has not done M.Sc. and Ph.D with specialisation in vegetable breeding and the he does not fulfil the requirement of five years’ experience. On that basis, it dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant very strenuously contended that the appellant possessed all the necessary qualifications including the experienced and submitted that when the selection committee had found that experience to be sufficient, the only doubt expressed by them was whether the experience gained by appellant prior to obtaining degree in M.Sc. is sufficient or not. However, the board of management went into the matter and found otherwise that he does not possess the requisite qualification at all inasmuch as the experience of five years gained by him with M/s Kirloskar would not be sufficient for the post held by him. It may not be accurate to state that the appellant has not done M.Sc. and Ph.D in vegetable breeding. So far as the fact that the appellant does not fulfil the requirement of five years’ experience as found by the board of management cannot be controverted and that finding is also recorded by the High Court which appears to be correct. In that view of the matter there is no justification for us to interfere with the order made by the High Court . The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, however, it is made clear that if the appellant had worked in the post for which he had been selected, it would be appropriate for the university not to recover back from him the money paid to him.
1. An advertisement was made by the first-respondent, Chaudhary Charan Singh Agricultural University (hereafter referred to as ‘the university’) to fill up one post of vegetable botanist. The requisite qualifications for the same are as under :
” i) Bachelor’s degree with atleast 55% marks in percentage system or atleast 2.50/4.00 or its equivalent on point scale system.
ii) Master’s degree with atleast 60% on percentage system or atleast 3.20/4.00 or its equivalent on point scale system in vegetable crops with specialisation in vegetable breeding.
iii) Ph.D in the vegetable crops with specialisation in vegetable breeding.
iv) Five years experience of research/teaching/extention.”
2. The appellant was one of the persons who had applied for the said post. The selection committee constituted by the university selected two candidates, namely, Dr. K.S. Baswana and Avtar Singh, the appellant. The selection committee noticed as regards the appellant that he may not possess the necessary experience gained before obtaining the M.Sc. degree and the question of his fulfilling the prescribed academic qualification was left open. The university, however, constituted a three – member review committee to review the appointment as olericulturist. After going through the details of the case, it observed that the appellant lacked in required experience when the post of vegetable botanist was advertised. According to them his experience with M/s Kirloskar was not of teaching/ research/extension. Although several attempts were made to recommend the name of the appellant to the post in question, the board of management ultimately on 25.3.1996 rejected such recommendation in view of their resolution made on 4.10.1993 in which they stated that the appellant does not possess the required experience. He thereafter made a representation to the chancellor of the university who again asked the board of management to reconsider the matter and the matter was reconsidered by the board of management but unless the relaxation was given in respect of certain aspects of the qualification, it was stated that the appellant would not be eligible to be appointed. Thereafter, as nothing seems to have been done at that stage, the appellant approached the High Court with a writ petition.
3. The High Court after having examined the matter, noticed that the appellant has not done M.Sc. and Ph.D with specialisation in vegetable breeding and the he does not fulfil the requirement of five years’ experience. On that basis, it dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant very strenuously contended that the appellant possessed all the necessary qualifications including the experienced and submitted that when the selection committee had found that experience to be sufficient, the only doubt expressed by them was whether the experience gained by appellant prior to obtaining degree in M.Sc. is sufficient or not. However, the board of management went into the matter and found otherwise that he does not possess the requisite qualification at all inasmuch as the experience of five years gained by him with M/s Kirloskar would not be sufficient for the post held by him. It may not be accurate to state that the appellant has not done M.Sc. and Ph.D in vegetable breeding. So far as the fact that the appellant does not fulfil the requirement of five years’ experience as found by the board of management cannot be controverted and that finding is also recorded by the High Court which appears to be correct. In that view of the matter there is no justification for us to interfere with the order made by the High Court . The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, however, it is made clear that if the appellant had worked in the post for which he had been selected, it would be appropriate for the university not to recover back from him the money paid to him.
