Justice Dinesh Maheshwari). The advertisement published by Rajasthan Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in various subjects under the College Education Department required the candidates to have minimum 55% marks at the Post Graduate level, passed NET/SLET examination with a good academic record which was defined as minimum second class in Under Graduation. The Respondents did not secure second division marks in Graduation and were consequently rejected. It was similarly urged that they possessed all other essential qualifications for appointment like Post Graduation with minimum 55%, had cleared NET/SLET and rejection merely on the ground of not having second class in Under Graduation was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Learned Single Judge held that when a person steps further or acquires a higher qualification, the lower qualification loses its importance and rejection of the candidature with reference to Graduation marks was palpably arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more so when they had also passed NET/SLET observing as follows :- In my considered opinion, when the petitioner has secured 55% marks in post graduation examination in the subject concerned and furthermore when, she has qualified the National Educational Test Eligibility for Lecturership conducted by the University Grants Commission and State Level Eligibility Test for Lecturership, 1999 conducted by the RPSC, therefore, rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in Hindi on the ground that she did not possess graduation (BA degree) with second division, is absolutely per se illegal and arbitrary.
32. Disagreeing with the Learned Single Judge, the Division Bench held that the Learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that the expression good academic record had its foundation in the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1980 under which the advertisement had been published and the recruitment was to be made. Alike the present case, there was no challenge to the Rules. It was further held that laying down of the requirement for good academic record was only a part of the essential qualification prescribed by the UGC observing as follows: Once good academic record became a part of essential qualifications for the post of lecturer; and when this term had otherwise not been defined in the rules, a suitable definition was called for in order to fill in the gap and to make the rules workable. Hence, the action on the part of the State Government to define the term good academic record remains unexceptionable.
33. Reiterating the principle that laying down of requisite qualification was the competence of the employer and that there was no arbitrariness or illegality in defining the term good academic record, it was observed that marks obtained in Graduation do not become redundant after obtaining Post Graduation and clearing NET/SLET. If the latter were held sufficient, the requirement for good academic record would become redundant, an interpretation which was to be avoided.
34. The contention of the Petitioners that alternatively marks at the Higher Secondary or Under Graduation level may be relaxed or rounded off under Rule 24 of the Recruitment Rules also merits no consideration by the Court. The power of relaxation cannot be applied to essential conditions of eligibility. Alternately, the Court cannot usurp the power of the State with regard to invocation of relaxation clause. It is for the State to consider the same if the aggrieved approaches for that relief. The issue has been raised in Court directly without approaching the authorities first and which is the first principle for mandamus. Likewise, the issue for relaxation of age by the employer also pertains to the executive domain of the employer and it shall be wholly inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to usurp that power of the employer and substitute it by the views of the Court with regard to who may be suitable or unsuitable for the post of Assistant Professor. In (2001) 9 SCC 356 (Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai) it was observed :- 4Prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given if an age limit is prescribed, are essentially matters of policy..
35. The State Government cannot be said to have violated any UGC Regulations in laying down the criteria for good academic record and which on the contrary draws sustenance for its incorporation from the UGC Regulations itself. But the same conclusion cannot be arrived at with regard to denial of 5% of relaxation to reserved category candidates at the Higher Secondary level while granting it to them at the Under Graduate level. No justification has been placed before us for this classification and purpose to be achieved by the same with regard to the same candidate. This sub- classification is therefore held to be unsustainable. The State Government is required to reconsider the same appropriately in accordance with law.
36. Mamata Mohanty (supra) relied upon by the Learned Advocate General refers to Meera Massey (supra). S.Satyapal Reddy (supra) and P.Dilip Kumar lay down the justifiability of prescribing higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed and giving of preference to the former. Presently, in our opinion the State Government by defining good academic record has only acted in furtherance of the UGC Regulations and cannot be said to have even prescribed higher qualifications. Venus Education Society (supra) again highlights the importance of good quality teachers and their responsibilities. Neha Anil Bobde (supra) holds that the UGC has the authority to lay down any qualifying criteria which has a rational nexus with the object to be achieved for maintaining standards in teaching, by regulating conditipns for appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities as standards of the teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to students.
37. Resultantly the writ petitions are dismissed and all interim orders are vacated, except to the limited extent for reconsidering grant of 5% relaxation to reserved category candidates at the Higher secondary level. If the other Petitioners invoke Rule 24, it is for the State to consider matters in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (Pritinker Diwaker) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Subbu
Comments