DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [2022] 1 S.C.R. 813
Date of decision : 24-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1913/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court
Judge Name: HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Punjab University v. Narinder Kumar and Others (1999) 9 SCC 8 – held inapplicable.
- Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University (2014) 3 SCC 767 : [2013] 17 SCR 1025 – referred to.
The University conceded that the statutes do
not contain any prescription regarding the post of Lecturer in
‘Karm Kand’. It also conceded that the advertisement did not
indicate any specific qualification except that the aspirant should
hold a post graduate degree in the relevant subject. In the
absence of any specific prescription, the University ought to have
referred the question of what constitutes relevant subjects, before
the process of selection began. Neither the University nor the
Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that the appellant
was not qualified in the “relevant subject”. Their initial objection
was that the Selection Committee did not include the subject
experts nominated by the Chancellor. After it was pointed out
that there were no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as no
University was offering a specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the
High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to the
Chancellor, to ascertain whether subject experts were actually
available and whether the failure of the Vice Chancellor to seek
nomination of such experts from the Chancellor vitiated the whole
process. Finding that the answer to the said question was too
difficult to be provided, the Chancellor went on a detour to find
out what are the differences between the subject of Sanskrit
and the subject of ‘Karm Kand’. This was clearly erroneous
and the High Court unfortunately omitted to notice this mistake.
[Paras 10, 11]
14. The expression “equivalent qualifications” has a different
connotation than the expression “relevant subject”. In Punjab
University vs. Narinder Kumar and Others, this Court was concerned
with the interpretation of the expression “relevant subject”. But in that
case the advertisement itself prescribed “the essential qualifications”
under one head and “desirable specialisation” under another head.
Therefore, this Court found that though the words “relevant subject”
did not throw any light on the question as to what are the relevant subjects
for the post of a Lecturer in any specified subject, the column dealing
with “desirable qualifications” threw light upon what was relevant.
Therefore, cases in which a clue is available in the advertisement itself
may stand on a different footing than cases where there is no such clue.
15. In Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga
University, this Court was concerned with a case where applications
were invited for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA, from
candidates holding a post graduate degree in the “relevant subject”. As
a matter of fact, this Court found that candidates with Masters’ degree
in Computer Applications were available, but a candidate with Masters’
degree in Mathematics was selected. This Court found fault with the
decision of the Board of Appointment in selecting the candidate with a
Master’s degree in Mathematics with a flawed reasoning that
Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.