Prasad Panda Vs. The Chancellor, Sambalpur University & Ors  Insc 474 (12 September 2001)
Babu & Doraiswamy Raju. Raju, J.
appeal filed against the order of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack
dated 25.2.97, involves a challenge to the order sustaining in its turn the
order passed by the Chancellor, Sambalpur University, annulling the appointment
of the appellant to the post of Lecturer in Political Science, on the ground
that he did not possess the minimum required academic qualification prescribed
by the University Grants Commission.
appellant was initially appointed as a Research Assistant in the Post-Graduate
Department of the respondent-University and joined as such on 6.7.79. In the
course of his employment, he performed his duties for collection, compilation,
tabulation and interpretation of data in addition to assisting the M. Phil. Programme.
30.11.92, the University issued an advertisement inviting applications in the
prescribed form for certain posts enumerated therein, of which the Lecturer in
Political Science was also one. Note 4 indicated that the details with regard
to the nature specialization, qualification required etc. for the different
posts will be available along with the application form. The details so made
available contained certain stipulations and so far as the posts of Lecturer
are concerned, in the following terms:
Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical Education,
Foreign Languages and Law. Good academic record with at least 55 percent marks
or an equivalent grade of Masters degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university.
supplied] Candidates, besides fulfilling the above qualification should have
cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by University Grants Commission,
CSR at similar tests accredited by U.G.C. Exception from passing the Lecturers
eligibility test (GATE or Engineering graduates only) is only applicable to
these candidates who have done Ph.D. up to December, 1992 or M. Phil upto March
1991, provided such candidates have secured 55 percentage marks at the Masters
Assistants of Sambalpur University having 2nd class Masters degree but have
secured less than 55 per cent marks at the Masters degree level and have earned
M.Phil. Upto March 1991 or Ph.D. upto December, 1992 with certificates, mark
sheets, evidence of teaching/research experience, testimonials and other
publications. Applications incomplete in any manner are liable to be summarily
Candidates in service should route a copy of their applications through proper
applicant will be interviewed unless his/her application has been duly submitted
through his/her employer or he/she produces a No Objection certificate from
his/her employer at the time of interview.
All applications and correspondence are to be addressed to the undersigned by
designation and not by name.
The candidates are required to appear at an interview before the Selection
Committee at their own expenses.
Issue of this advertisement does not make it binding on the University to make
Retired persons who have not attained the age of 65 years may also apply for
the appointment on tenure basis.
SC/ST candidates are required to obtain Caste Certificate from the District
Magistrate/Collector to be eligible to apply.
the consideration of their application is subject to the approval of U.G.C.
the nature of posts, specialization etc. it has been stated as follows:
Name of the Name of No. of Specialisation Dept.College Post Post
xx xx xx xx xx
Science Lecturer One Open & Pub. Admm.
appellant was one of the applicants to the Post of Lecturer in Political
Science and the Selection Committee found him suitable and recommended his only
name for appointment, as such. On 30.8.93, he was appointed and joined in the
post. One of the unsuccessful candidates Sri B.S. Chandel made representation
to the Chancellor that the appointment of the appellant was irregular and in
violation of the provisions of the Act and statutes. The Chancellor issued a show-cause
notice as to why the appointment should not be cancelled. Sri B.S. Chandel also
appears to have filed a Writ Petition in the High Court but the same was
disposed of to await the decision of the Chancellor and to approach the High
Court, if aggrieved, against the decision to be taken by the Chancellor. The
Chancellor ultimately found that the appellant was not eligible for the
appointment in question as he lacked the minimum academic qualifications
prescribed by the University Grants Commission, that he was awarded excess
marks towards academic career and teaching experience and that the selection of
the appellant was made by ignoring the claims of the qualified candidates. By
his order dated 5.4.95, the Chancellor, in exercise of powers under Section
5(10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989, annulled the appointment with a
direction to terminate the services of the appellant and re-advertise the post
for being filled up afresh. Aggrieved, the appellant filed OJC No.2521 of 1995
before the High Court. The High Court also affirmed the decision of the
Chancellor and did not agree with the claims of the appellant, by dismissing
the Writ Petition.
Shri Rakesh Diwedi, Senior Advocate, for the appellant, Shri P. N. Misra,
Senior Advocate, for the Chancellor and Sri A. Subba Rao for the University
and Sri G.K. Banerjee for the University Grants Commission. The learned senior
counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was fully
qualified and satisfied the norms prescribed, that the minimum prescribed marks
was secured by him in the subject of Public Administration and this constitutes
sufficient compliance and satisfaction of the academic qualification
stipulated. It was also contended that the competent authority, well-versed in
academic matters, have found the appellant to be fully eligible and such a
decision ought not to have been interfered with by the Chancellor and that the
High Court was in error in not setting aside the order of termination of the
services of the appellant. All the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, with equal vehemence, attempted to demonstrate that the Chancellor
was right in his decision and when the University Grants Commission also
declined to grant relaxation, the services of the appellant had to be
necessarily terminated for want of prescribed academic qualification on his
have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on
either side. The stipulation regarding the minimum academic qualification reads,
good academic record with at least 55 per cent marks or an equivalent grade of
Masters degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university. Though
the Department concerned for which the appointment is to be made is that of
Political Science & Public Administration, the appointment, with which we
are concerned, is of the Lecturer in Political Science and not Public
Administration and subject matter-wise they are different and not one and the
same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in Public
Administration and in Political Science are distinct and separate and on
selection the appellant could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public
Administration be it in the Department of Political Science and Public
Administration since the advertisement was specifically to fill up the vacancy
in the post of Lecturer in Political Science. Merely because the Department is
of Political Science and Public Administration the essential requirement of
academic qualification of a particular standard and grade, viz., 55%, in the
relevant subject for which the post is advertised, cannot be rendered redundant
or violated by ignoring the relevant subject and carried away by the name of
the Department only which, in substance, encompass two different disciplines.
That merely depending upon the context he was being referred to or the post is
referred to as being available in the Department of political science and
Public Administration, is no justification to do away or dispense with the
essential academic qualification in the relevant subject for which the post has
been advertised. Consequently, the Resolution No. 6.2 dated 18.2.92 or extracts
provided from the proceedings of the Board of Studies dated 2.3.96 cannot be of
any assistance to support the claim of the appellant. The rejection by the
U.G.C. of the request of the Department in this case to relax the condition
relating to 55% marks at Post-Graduation level for Research Assistant having M.
Phil up to March 1991 or Ph.D. up to December 1992, is to be the last word on
the claim of the appellant and there could be no further controversy raised in
this regard. In view of the above, no exception could be taken to the decision
of the Chancellor and no challenge could be countenanced in this appeal against
the well-merited decision of the High Court.
the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. Our attention has been invited by
the learned counsel for the University Grants Commission to certain latest
amendments made effective from March 2000 issued by the University Grants
Commission, and the fact that if the post is re-advertised, the appellant may
be eligible in respect of academic qualification also, as per the revised
standards and norms for any future appointment. These are matters for the
consideration of the concerned and competent authorities, as and when occasion
arise therefor and it is not for this Court to advert to those aspects in this
appeal, which deserves to be considered only in the light of the stipulations
in force and governing the appointment made during the relevant point of time.
The parties shall bear their respective costs.
[ S. Rajendra
Babu ] J.
Raju ] September 12,