Meet Basic Merit Requirements

Prakash Chandra vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Ors

Filed under: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Appellant: Prakash Chandra
Respondent:Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Ors.
Citation: 2005 I AD (Delhi) 661
Court: In the High Court of Delhi
Judge: Manmohan Sarin

This is a Writ Petition filed by Prakash Chandra, a person with locomotor disability, against the denial of the post a lecturer by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.

Facts

Prakash Chandra was a physically handicapped person with 58% locomotor disability and belonged to the Other Backward Classes category. He held a first class MBA degree from the University of Patna and had also completed a Junior Research Fellowship from the University Grants Commission. Besides this, Prakash claimed that he had 7 years teaching experience in the Department of Training and Technical Education and 12 years of teaching experience in Indian institute of Ecology and Environment.

The Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University advertised for a post of a lecturer for Management as a subject. One post had been reserved for a physically handicapped person. Since Prakash was eligible he applied and was called. He was the only candidate in the physically handicapped category who had appeared for the interview but he was not selected.

Prakash then filed this Petition seeking a direction to be given to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University to appoint him to the post of Lecturer in the management subject, which was reserved for the physically handicapped persons. A restraint was also sought against the University from converting the reserved post into a general or other category post.

Arguments made on behalf of Prakash

Prakash’s main contention was that his non-selection had been a deliberate attempt to keep out physically handicapped persons from selection. It was also argued that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. According to a letter issued by the Secretary, University Grants Commission to the Vice-Chancellors of all the universities, the University Grants Commission had separate guidelines on the constitution of Selection Committees. According to these guidelines, a representative of the SC/ST, women and physically handicapped persons should have been in the Selection Committee whenever a candidate from any of these categories appears for the interview.

Prakash’s lawyer submitted that there was no representative from the SC, ST or physically handicapped category in the committee that had interviewed him. According to him that the constitution of the committee was improper and therefore the entire process should be made invalid. The lawyer further submitted that the UGC guidelines were binding on the University and therefore the recommendation of the Committee should be set aside since there had been a breach.

Arguments made on behalf of the University

The University on the other hand contended that even though Prakash possessed the requisite qualification, he was not able to qualify on the basis of merit in the assessment of the Staff Selection Committee. The lawyer on behalf of the University also argued that there was no binding compulsion to select a candidate merely because he belonged to the physically handicapped category. It was further argued that the UGC guidelines were directory in nature and the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University was bound by its own Statute and the Selection Committee was constituted as per the Statute. The guidelines could not prevail over the University’s own Statute.

Observations made by Court

The Court examined the constitution of the Selection Committee along with the records of Prakash’s interviews. According to the Court the record showed that even though he fulfilled the minimum qualifications and had applied for the post and appeared four times for the interview, the mere possession of the prescribed qualification and experience did not confer upon any candidate from any category the right of appointment to the post. The Staff Selection Committee had not found Prakash suitable for the post and the allegations made by him that this was a deliberate attempt to not include handicapped candidates stood negated.

With respect to the second argument, the Court held that the argument given by the University’s lawyer had merit. According to the Court, the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University had been created under the Indraprastha Vishwa Vidhalaya Act and was bound by its own Statutes. The Selection Committee had been constituted in accordance with Statute 16 and in these circumstances, it could not be held that the non-inclusion of a member of the SC, ST or physically handicapped category would invalidate the selection process. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226, of the Constitution of India, 1950

Cases Referred:

  • Meenakshi Singla vs. State of Punjab and others, 1993(1) SLR 609
  • State of J & K vs. Basant Kumari and Ors., 1993(2) SLR 25

Top

S.D. Sridhar vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors

Filed under: Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: S.D. Sridhar
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors
Citation: 2004 (5) Kar LJ509
Court: In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
Judge: R. Gururajan

Sridhar filed this petition against the decision of the Union of India to not consider his application for the job of an Engineering Assistant, alleging that a fraud had been played in the process of selection.

Facts

S.D. Sridhar was an orthopaedically handicapped person. His disability had been assessed at 65% and he belonged to OBC category. He suffered from post polio paralysis with pelvic obliquity. An advertisement was issued by the Government calling for applications for the post of an Engineering Assistant Grade II for which Sridhar applied. According to him 48 candidates applied for the said post and six candidates were found eligible.

Out of these short listed candidates, only two were finally enrolled. One was appointed in the Bangalore office and the other in the Hyderabad office. Sridhar stated that the third respondent (name not mentioned) had, to help his candidate who had secured just 50 per cent marks, had relaxed the percentage from 60 to 50.

In the process, he had also ignored those candidates who were outstanding and had secured more than 60 per cent marks. There was no clear reason for this relaxation. Sridhar thus alleged that he had been discriminated against. Aggrieved, Sridhar filed this petition in High Court of Karnataka.

Arguments made on behalf of the Union of India

It was argued on behalf of the Union of India that there was no arbitrariness in the relaxation or any intent to favor any particular candidate. It was stated that the relaxation itself was implemented with a view to make the selection process objective and therefore to have a wider choice since the post to which Sridhar had applied belonged to level 2 of scientific/engineering officers (Group (II) that required a minimum education combined with work experience.

The implication of such relaxation brought in four more candidates within the zone of consideration from different disciplines and therefore in no way was it in favor of any particular candidate. It was further stated that Sridhar has not approached them with clean hands.

He had been adopting most undesirable methods and indulging in maligning the integrity of the functionaries of the institute and foisting false cases with CBI, Commissioner of Disabilities etc. A complaint has also been registered against him at the Sanjaynagar Police Station in February 2001 for disturbing peace and for threatening to carry out an assault in the residential promises of the Administrative Officer.

Observation of the court

After hearing the arguments, the Court held that Sridhar was unable to show with reference to the facts of this case that the Government had played a fraud or had acted contrary to any provision of law. On the other hand, material on record would show that with a view to provide better opportunity, the committee has exercised its relaxation power in the larger interest of providing wider choice to the handicapped persons.

It is seen from the material on record that he could not comply with the relaxation in terms of the selection committee. Unless a candidate was found to be eligible, he could not seek employment as a matter of right. The Court further held that public employment was to be obtained not by recommendations or threats but by competition. Any back door entry would affect the purity and fair selection in public employment.

The court held that Sridhar could apply for any further vacancies and in the event of his application; the Government was to consider it on its merits without being influenced by this order. The Court also requested the rehabilitating agency of the Government of India to consider the case of the Sridhar seriously and to assist him in obtaining a suitable job in accordance with law.

Held:The Petition was thus dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

  • Suresh Chandra Verma vs. The Chancellor, C.A. No 1451 of 1988;
  • Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilibag Sing and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 796, 1992 Lab.I.C. 2548 (SC), (1993) 2 SCC 154;
  • Krishna Yadav and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2166, 1994-4 SCC 165, 1994 SCC (L and S) 937;
  • Keshayya Channyya Hiremath vs. University of Agricultural Sciences and Ors., 1971 (2) Mys. L.J 330

Top

Smt. G. Mallicka vs. the Municipal Council and Ors.

Filed under:Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Person with Disabilities Act, 1995
A & N Island (Administration) Regulation, 1979
Appellant:Smt. G. Mallicka
Respondent:The Municipal Council and Ors
Citation:(2002)1 CALLT289 (HC), [2002(94) FLR 711]
Court:In the High Court of Calcutta
Judge:Pratap Kumar Ray

Facts

Smt.G. Mallicka was initially appointed as an unskilled mazdoor under the handicapped quota by the Municipal Council, Port Blair, for a period of three months. However, later her tenure of service was extended. In 1995, Mallicka filed a Writ Petition with a prayer for permanent absorption as well as for regularization of her service in the post of a Clerk. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court also directed that she would not be given strenuous work, since she was physically handicapped.

In keeping with this order of the Court, Mallika was regularized in the post of a ‘work charged mazdoor’. However, her grievance remained that she was not considered for absorption in the post of a Lower Grade Clerk. Another of her complaint was relating to the non-reservation of 1% for the post of clerks by the Municipal Council. In the current application Mallicka has challenged the order issued by the Secretary, Municipal Council, Port Blair where under she was appointed as a ‘work charged mazdoor’.

Arguments made on behalf of Mallicka

It was argued on behalf of Mallicka that according to the earlier judgment her case had to be considered for absorption in the post of a Lower Grade Clerk. However, her service had only been regularized in the post of a workcharged mazdoor.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipal Council, it had been contended that Mallicka’s case had been considered for promotion to the post of the Clerk. However, she was found to be ineligible for the post in view of the Recruitment Rules, which required her to have qualified the 12th standard or equivalent examinations and the written exam held by the Municipal Council, to be able to type 30 words per minute in English/Hindi and have the desirable computer knowledge.

In opposition to this point, Mallick’s lawyer argued that the Recruitment Rules that had been relied upon by the Municipal Council were the draft rules, which had not yet been notified/ gazetted and thus could not be effected. It was further argued that Mallicka’s case had to be considered in light of the old recruitment rules under which the qualification prescribed for the said post of Clerk was 10th standard, which she had already cleared.

Arguments made on behalf of Municipal Council

It was argued on behalf of the Municipal Council that no discrimination had been made while deciding Mallicka’s case for promotion. It was also contended that the draft rules had been approved by the Lt. Governor as per the communication dated 24.6.1998, after which they had been placed for notification in the Andaman and Nicobar Extrodinary Gazette in the year 1998.

Hence, it was concluded that under the present state of affairs Mallicka was not qualified to be absorbed in the post of the Clerk, not only because she lacked educational qualifications but also due to some other aspects of the rules namely, the recruitment in the post was not automatic but depended upon qualifying in the written test. She was also not eligible, as she did not complete 5years of regular service in the grade D in addition to not possessing the 12th standard pass certificate, as was prescribed under the Recruitment Rules.

It was further contended that she could not even be absorbed to the post of the Clerk directly as under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act because under the said Act posts were only reserved for the disabled candidates on clearing the merit test, and on satisfaction of the desirable qualification of having knowledge in computers.

Observation of the court

After hearing the arguments of both the parties and considering some of the pervious judgments, the court held that on a bare reading of the earlier order it was clear that absorption of Mallicka in the post of a Clerk was never directed to be automatic. It was subject to finding her suitable for the post in question by the Municipal Council and also subject to fulfillment of the qualification by her as prescribed for the said post.

Even if any post was reserved in that category, she could not claim a direct absorption to it under the reservation mode for “handicapped quota” unless and until she satisfied the qualifications for the post. The Court concluded that as Mallicka was found unsuitable and did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for the post, the Municipal Board’s decision could not be held arbitrary or illegal.

On these grounds, the Writ Application was dismissed.

Sections Referred:

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Cases Referred:

  • V. Ramarao vs. Municipal Council and Ors, (2001) 1 ILR A & N 1;
  • Regional Manager vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766
  • Krishna Manager vs. Union of India and Ors, (1990) SCC 207
  • Kuawin Lethan’s case, 1990-1903 ALL ER 1;
  • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd, AIR 1993 SC 43
  • Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, (1998) 1 SCC 203
  • Mithal Engineering Works (P) Ltd.vs.Collector, Central Excise, (1997) 1 SCC 203
  • Euerst Ran Lawson De Limited vs. Jindal Export Limited, (2001) 6 SCC 356

Top