Applicant Should Have The Qualification On Date, Proof Can Be Produced Later: Punjab & Haryana HC Reiterates

A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal (“LPA”) in the case of Narender Kumar vs Dr. Kuldeep Singh and others has held that it is necessary to have the essential qualification by the date of the application and the proof of publication can be produced later which is an added essential qualification. Background Facts The University (“Respondent 2”) had issued an advertisement on 15.09.2011 to fill the posts of Assistant Professor of History. The deadline of the submission of the applications was 03.10.2011. Narender Kumar (“Appellant”) as well as Dr. Kuldeep Singh (“Respondent 1”) applied for the position before the deadline. Respondent 2 constituted a screening committee in order to scrutinize the applications and the research publications, which were also supposed to be submitted. The weightage was given to each candidate’s research publications as well as the list of publications attached by them. The screening committee awarded 25 marks each to the Appellant and Respondent 1. Thereafter, each candidate appeared before the selection committee and marked on the basis of performance assessed by Screening Committee. The screening committee after considering teaching experience/skills and interview performance awarded 68 marks to the appellant and 66 marks to Respondent 1. Since the appellant obtained higher marks, he was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in History in the Directorate of Distance education. Accordingly, the appellant was appointed to the position as per the order dated 30.03.2012. A writ petition was filed by Dr. Kuldeep Singh before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Single Judge bench wherein he contended that the Screening Committee had wrongly awarded 25 marks for 5 research papers to Narender Kumar, which was not proper. Further, he contended that he was also granted the benefit of 3 research papers which were published after the deadline of the application. 25 marks awarded to him were illegal and mala fide. Thus, Mr. Narender should not have been selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor. Rather, Mr. Kuldeep was entitled to be appointed as the Professor. The Respondents 2 to 4, however, denied the allegations of mala fide or ulterior motive. They contended that they had submitted 5 research papers along with the application form. They also contended that they were more meritorious as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The appellant also filed a written statement supporting the stand taken by respondents No.2 to 4. The Single Judge held that the selecting authority cannot entertain educational qualifications record subsequent to the last date of the submission of the application. He held that entertaining papers published by the appellant subsequent to 03.10.2011 was not proper. The appointment of the appellant from the post of Assistant Professor was thus set aside after the judgement dated 23.05.2017 and instead Respondent 1was appointed. Aggrieved by the order, Narender Kumar filed the writ appeal, called as Letters Patent Appeal to challenge the order of the Single Judge. Findings of the Court The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana HC held that the proof of publication can be produced later which is an added essential qualification. The court relied on Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE wherein the Supreme court held that while applying for any course of a study or a post a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form. Here, in this case, the Supreme court relied on the decision of Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others where the court held that not attaching the certificate of diploma along with the application could not lead to the cancellation of the admission to a Post Graduate course provided, they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed, but had submitted the diploma with delay. It also relied on multiple case such as Archana Chouhan Pundhir case, Ram Kumar Gijroya vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another¸ Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission¸ etc. The court observed that the Selection Committee rightly considered the appellant’s publications since he did possess the essential qualification by the date of the application and only proof of publication was produced later which is an added essential qualification. In the present case, the notice stated that the appellant could bring certificate/testimonials in support of educational qualification if not supplied earlier. With the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and directed the reinstatement of the appellant in the Directorate of Distance Education ...

Applicant Should Have The Qualification On Date, Proof Can Be Produced Later: Punjab & Haryana HC Reiterates

Aditi Gupta

Tags