JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner, Prakash Chandra, a physically handicapped person with 58% locomotary disability and belonging to Other Backward Classes, seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Lecturer in the management subject, reserved for the physically handicapped persons. A restraint is also sought against the respondents from converting the reserved post into a general or other category post.
2. Petitioner holds a first class MBA from the University of Patna. Besides, he has completed Junior Research Fellowship from University Grants Commission. Petitioner claims to have 7 years teaching experience in the Department of Training and Technical Education and 12 years teaching experience in Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment.
3. Respondent No. 1 had advertised, inter alia, for the post of a Lecturer in Management as Subject, in March-April, 2002. One post had been reserved for physically handicapped person. Petitioner, being fully eligible, had been given a call letter. As per the advertisement, 2 posts of Scheduled Castes, 1 post of Scheduled Tribes and 1 post for Physically Handicapped person had been reserved. Petitioner claims that he was the only candidate in the physically handicapped category, who appeared for the interview but was not selected.
4. Petitioner assails his non-selection as a deliberate and mala fide act to keep out the physically handicapped persons from getting selected. It is urged that the ulterior motive of the respondent appears to be to continue with the non-selection of such candidates and thereafter seek de-reservation of the post into the general category.
5. The advertisement prescribed the under-mentioned qualification and experience:-
“First Class Master’s Degree in relevant discipline. For the candidates not having qualification of M.Tech/MBA/LLM, A Doctoral Degree is a must for the post of Lecturer. For candidates in the non-engineering discipline, eligibility of qualifying NET for Lecturer conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC is madatory. However, relaxation in this regard shall be applicable as per UGC guidelines.”
6. It is stated that petitioner, though possessed of the requisite qualification, could not qualify on merits in the assessment of the Staff Selection Committee. With a view to satisfy judicial conscience, records of the Staff Selection Committee had been called for and have been perused, to which I shall advert later.
7. The second limb of submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. Learned counsel relies on a letter dated 12.4.1998, issued by the Secretary, University Grants Commission to the Vice-Chancellor of all the Universities, Education Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories. The said letter enclosed a copy of the UGC Notification, 1998, which was to be notified as Regulations. The said letter, carried as an attachment, UGC Notification on revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers in Universities & Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards, 1998. The said Notification provided with regard to the Selection Committees as under:-
5.0.0 Selection Committees
University Grants Commission has separate guidelines on constitution of Selection Committees, which may be referred to by Universities/Colleges (copy enclosed as Appendix-V). A representative of the SC/ST, women and physically handicapped persons, should be in the Selection Committee whenever a candidate from any of these category appears for the interview.
It is optional for the University or College to untilise the Seminar or colloquium as a method for the selection of Lecturer, Reader or Professor.”
8. Mr. Narula submits that there was no member from the SC, ST or Physically Handicapped Category in the Selection Committee, which had interviewed the petitioner. Accordingly, he urges that since there was no member from the SC, ST or Physically Handicapped category in the Selection Committee, its constitution was improper and the entire selection process stand vitiated. Learned counsel further submits that the UGC Guidelines are binding on the University and its breach is not liable to be condoned. Therefore, the recommendation of Selection Committee are liable to be set aside. Counsel further submits that the Selection Committee has acted contrary to the communication from the Director of Personnel and Training, appearing at pages 14 and 15 of the paper book, providing for preference to physically handicapped persons.
9. Mr. G.D. Goel on behalf of the respondent/University, has submitted that the petitioner failed to qualify in the selection process on merits and there is no binding compulsion to select a candidate merely because he belongs to Physically Handicapped category. He submits that the UGC Guidelines are directory in nature and the respondent is bound by its own Statute and the Selection Committee had duly been constituted as per the Statute. The Guidelines cannot prevail over the University’s own Statute.
10. The record, which had been called for, reveals that for the interview on 25.8.2004, 7 candidates, 5 belonging to Scheduled Castes and 2 to the Physically Handicapped category, were called for interview and had appeared. None of the candidate was found suitable in the SC Category or in the Physically Handicapped category. The Selection Committee comprised Prof. K.K. Aggarwal-Chairman, Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University, Dr. Ajay Pandit, Dean of the School of Studies, Prof. B.S. Sharma, former Dean, Faculty of Management Science, University of Delhi, Prof. R.K Grover, former Director, School of Management, IGNOU and Prof. K.M. Upadhaya, former Professor of Management, Jamia Millia University. It would be seen that the Selection Committee comprised professionals of repute and eminent persons as well as subject experts. The record shows that petitioner though fulfillling the minimum qualifications had applied for and appeared 4 times for interview during 1999-2004, when advertisements were taken out. Mere possession of prescribed qualification and experience or eligibility for a post, does not confer upon any candidate from any category/class a right of appointment to the post. It is the Staff Selection Committee, which is to assess the suitability of the candidate and make recommendation for the appointment on merit. In this case the Staff Selection Committee did not find the petitioner and others suitable. The very basis of the petitioner’s allegations of mala fide and deliberate attempt not to appoint SC, ST or Physically Handicapped persons stands negated by the fact that till date there has been no proposal made for de-reservation of these posts. Coming to the second submission, there is merit in submission of the respondent’s counsel that Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University having been created under the Indraprastha Vishwa Vidhalaya Act, 1998 is bound by the Statute creating it and its provisions. Mr. Goel submits that Appendix-V, which contains the composition of Selection Committee, recommended by the UGC, does not contain the provision with regard to one member of the Selection Committee belonging to the SC,ST or Physically Handicapped category. The provision in Clause 5 of Appendix-V, is as under:-
“Two subject experts not connected with the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of the governing body out of a panel of names approved by the Vice Chancellor.”
Even though there was no specific provision in the Guidelines circulated, as per Appendix-V but going by the recital in annexure to the letter of 24.12.1998 containing the provisions for presence of a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes/Physically Handicapped in the selection committee when candidates from the said categories are involved, was directory in nature and cannot prevail over Statute 16, which has been notified under Section 26 of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998. The Statute 16 is as under:-
“Each of the selection committees for appointment to the posts of professors, readers, lecturers and other academic staff shall consist of the following members, namely:-
(i) The Vice Chancellor.
(ii) A Pro Vice Chancellor (nominated by the Vice-Chancellor).
(iii) The Dean of the School of Studies concerned.
(iv) Three experts not connected with the University to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor from a panel of not less than seven names approved by the Academic Council for each post.
(v) Four members of the selection committee (who shall include at least two experts) shall form a quorum for a meeting of the selection committee constituted under clause (2).”
11. The Selection Committee had been constituted in accordance with Statute 16. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the non-inclusion of a Member of the SC, ST or Physically Handicapped category in the Selection Committee, has vitiated the selection process. No case is made out for the reliefs sought by the petitioner and interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction is not warranted. The judgments cited by the petitioner in Meenakshi Singla v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported at 1993(1) SLR 609 and State of J&K v. Basant Kumari and Ors., reported at 1993(2) SLR 25 regarding the competency of Court to issue direction for appointment, do not advance the petitioner’s case.
Writ petition has no merit and is-dismissed.