The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition filed against the selection and appointment for the post of Lecturers recruitment of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Prayagraj.
A Single Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Virendra Kumar Shukla.
The case of the petitioner is that he after pursuing B.Sc Graduate from Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur in the year 2007 obtained the qualification of M.Sc (Post-Graduate) in Pharmaceutical Chemistry from Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in the year 2009.
The Court noted that an advertisement was published by the U.P Public Service Commission, Prayagraj on 18.06.2021 inviting application from eligible candidates for selection and appointment for the post of Lecturers in Government Ashram Paddhati Inter College, in various subjects including Physics-30, Chemistry- 26, Biology – 33 and Maths 35.
In the petition, the petitioner has asserted that he had filed his application form for being considered for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The petitioner appeared as a General Candidate and he appeared in the pre-examination as per the pre-schedule.
According to the petitioner, though, he was eligible and qualified in all respects, but his result of the main examination was not declared, hence the writ petitioner corresponded with the respondent.
Since the result of the petitioner was not declared so the petitioner had no option but to prefer Writ, which came to be disposed off with a direction to the Commission to issue a fresh communication to each of of the 12 candidates, whose candidature has been rejected for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry), including the petitioner citing exact ineligibility in that regard.
Now, the order has been passed on 21.10.2022, whereby the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on the pretext that he is ineligible and not qualified for the post in question.
Questioning the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the fourth respondent, Section Officer/ Information Officer, U.P Public Service Commission, Prayagraj, the petitioner has filed the petition.
Arvind Srivastava-III along with Vishal Tandon, counsels for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition dated 21.10.2022 passed by the fourth respondent is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed on complete misreading of the terms and conditions of the eligibility contained in the advertisement.
Elaborating the said submission, it is being sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per the advertisement in question, Clause 10 provided for the name and the post of the educational qualifications (essential). The submission is that here in the case, the recruitment was with regard to the post of Lecturer in Bhautik Shastra (Physics), Rasayan Shastra (Chemistry) and Ganit (Maths) and so far as the educational qualification, which was essential required was to the effect that a candidate must possess post-graduate degree in the relevant subjects or a degree, which is equivalent thereto, and recognized therein.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that might be the petitioner was possessing Masters in Science in Pharmaceuticals Chemistry, but it becomes the part and parcel of the main subject that is Chemistry thus it cannot be dissected in such a manner so as to exclude the Pharmaceutical Chemistry from the subject Chemistry, which was advertised.
Counsels for the petitioner have also relied upon the syllabus which is in vogue with regard to stream of Chemistry, wherein according to the petitioner, the Pharmaceutical Chemistry becomes the part and parcel of the main subject being Chemistry. Additionally, it is being sought to be argued that the respondent cannot go beyond the advertisement, as once a particular qualification has been prescribed in the advertisement, then it cannot be given a gobye and the Rules of the game cannot be changed, once the game has itself commenced.
B.K Singh Raghuvanshi, who appears for the Commission on the other hand submitted that the stand taken by the respondents which has been recorded in the impugned order cannot be faulted in any manner, whatsoever, particularly for the reason being that a conscious decision has been arrived at that too after deliberation at the end of the experts, who had been nominated by the Commission itself wherein it has been decided that the Pharmaceutical Chemistry is different from the subject Chemistry in that regard.
In nutshell, the submission of the counsels for the petitioner is that once a decision has been taken by the experts and the academicians, then it cannot be put to judicial scrutiny, i.e the writ proceedings, particularly when the said qualification has already been deliberated and has been accepted in the normal course of business of the Commission with regard to the post of Lecturer in DIET. He further relies upon the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Regulation and Procedure), Act 1985, which empowers the Commission to issue appropriate directions or regulations or inter-departmental letters providing for the modalities with regard to the determination of the fact as to whether a qualification would come within the realm of the particular discipline or not.
“Undisputedly, an advertisement has been issued by the respondent-Commission for various posts of Lecturer including the post of Lecturer (Chemistry), Clause -10 of the Advertisement in question provides for the posts on one hand and the educational qualification (essential) on the other hand. Though with regard to the Lecturer (Chemistry), an incumbent must obtain the relevant degree in the said subject, however, the question as to whether the stream belongs to the main subject or not is to be determined by the Commission itself.
Though the counsels for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner possesses Pharmaceutical Chemistry, which is the part and parcel of the subject Chemistry, but in view of the various sub-streams of the subject Chemistry, the Court cannot in a writ jurisdiction trench upon the province, which is available with the experts. The Courts of law must show its reluctance in interfering in academic matters, particularly, when there is no allegation of the malafides in this regard. Apart from the same, the Court cannot adorn the chair of the super experts, while sitting over the decision of the expert as this matter has to be left for the experts in that regard.
Considering the arguments advanced in totality, the Court finds its inability to subscribe to the contentions raised by the petitioner”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.