Dr. Smt. Shanti Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 2075 OF 2016 Dr. Smt. Shanti Sharma W/o Shri Harendra Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o LIG-576, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Post and PS Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh Solanki S/o Shri Chaganlal Singh Solanki, Aged About 58 Years R/o LIG-292, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :
Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate.
For Respondent-State :
Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 :
Shri BL Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate.
For Intervenor :
Shri Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10.07.2018 1.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner also as an eligible candidate for the post of HOD in Modern Office Management Subject in the advertisement that was published on 23.12.2015 by the respondent No.2-Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. 2.
This court while entertaining the writ petition on 02.06.2016 has passed an order as to any appointment, if made, on the post of HOD
in the Modern Office Management shall be subject to final outcome of this petition.
3.
Pursuant to the said interim protection, till date the respondents have not issued an order of appointment to the respondent No.3 though he has been found selected for the said post. 4.
The facts of the case is that, an advertisement was issued on 23.12.2015 for filling up various posts in different Engineering/ Polytechnic Colleges under the State Government. One such post was that of HOD in Modern Office Management subject in the polytechnic institutes in the State of Chhattisgarh. The number of vacancy available was one which was to be filled up by unreserved category. As per the advertisement itself, the qualification prescribed for the said post was (i) Ph.D in commerce subject from any recognized university/institution (ii) five years teaching experience in modern office management/modern/Modern office practice/ Secretarial Practice and stenography/Commercial Practice at degree/diploma level or out of total experience of five years, at least three years experience of teaching in Modern Office Management/Modern Office Practice/Secretarial Practice And Stenography/Commercial Practice subject at degree/diploma level and for the remaining period, experience in the related subject at an appropriate level in Industry/Field/Training/Research Programme. 5.
The petitioner also happened to apply for the said post, however her candidature was rejected only on the ground that she did not have requisite experience of teaching Modern Office Management/Modern Office Practice at a recognized institution. The
respondent No.3 also had applied for the said post and had all the requisite qualifications so prescribed in the advertisement for the said post. In due course of time, the respondent No.3 was found suitable for the said post and he was declared selected for appointment as HOD in Modern Office Management, but because of the order passed by this court on 02.06.2016 and subsequent reluctance on the part of the respondent No.1, the order of appointment to the respondent No.3 could not be issued. 6.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that substantively the petitioner was holding the post of Technical Assistant, but by virtue of her qualification, the respondents had way back in the year 1995 itself had attached the services of the petitioner from Govt. Women Polytechnic, Raipur to the Govt. Polytechnic, Durg and since 1995 onwards till date she is teaching the subject Steno (English), Marketing Management, Office Equipment Practice and Maintenance in Modern Office Management department at Govt. Polytechnic Durg.
The department has also in the past periodically issued experience certificate in favour of the petitioner right from 1988 onwards wherein all these experience certificates show that the petitioner was substantively holding the post of Technical Assistant, but the respondents have been taking the work of teaching from the petitioner in different subjects under Modern Office Management department. Therefore, the petitioner submits that as per the advertisement, the requirement is that in addition of having the Ph.D.
that it should be substantively holding the post of Lecturer or else the department would have made it clear. Even the rules governing the recruitment also does not specify five years teaching experience as Lecturer, but the requirement under the rules is that of only five years teaching experience at degree/diploma level. 7.
According to petitioner, since the petitioner has teaching experience with the respondents themselves since 1988 onwards, the petitioner has the requisite experience of more than five years making her eligible to participate in the said recruitment process. 8.
The counsel for the respondents however opposing the petition submits that the petitioner, as per advertisement itself, was ineligible to participate as admittedly the petitioner is not substantively holding the post of Lecturer. Neither does the petitioner substantively holds the post in a teaching cadre. The petitioner was substantively holding the post of Technical Assistant, but during the intervening period she might have taking classes in the Govt. Polytechnic Durg, but not in the capacity of Lecturer, but in the capacity of having knowledge. Therefore, the petitioner would not be eligible for the said post and as such her candidature has rightly been rejected by the respondents.
9.
Counsel for the respondents also submitted that unless the petitioner substantively holds the post of Lecturer, he could not have participated in the selection process. The experience that was required is that of teaching at degree/diploma level. They also referred to notification dated 04.01.2016 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (in short, AICTE) which has
prescribed the qualification for the post of HOD in modern office management and secretarial practice. The qualification is same as that of Lecturer alongwith Ph.D and that eight years experience in Teaching/Research/Industry Training at the level of Lecturer or equivalent. Under this qualification also, the petitioner becomes ineligible for appointment on the post of HOD.
10. The respondents have also submitted that since the petitioner did not possess the minimum eligibility criteria under the advertisement so also under the recruitment rules, the respondents have rightly not considered her appointment on the post of HOD and it is the respondent No.3 who was more competent, more qualified and more experienced fulfilling all the eligibility criterias for the said post who was found suitable and thus the respondents pray for respondent No.3 to be issued with an order of appointment as a consequence completion of the recruitment process.
11. Having heard the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, from the documents attached with the petition particularly the bunch of certificates issued by the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic Durg so also the Principal Govt. Women Polytechnic, Raipur from time to time, collectively marked as Annexure P/3 & P/5A would show that the petitioner right from 1988 onwards has been uninterruptedly teaching the students of Govt. Women Polytechnic, Raipur and Govt. Polytechnic Durg in the different subjects under Modern Office Management. The certificate issued by the Principals and the experience claimed by the petitioner has not been denied/refuted/controverted by any of the respondents. The very fact
that it has not been denied by itself goes to show that the petitioner infact has discharged the duties that of a Teacher in Women Polytechnic Raipur and Govt. Polytechnic Durg in the subject Modern Office Management.
12. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the recruitment rules governing the field i.e. Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014, also while laying down the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of HOD, Modern Office Management has prescribed the qualification as Ph.D in commerce from a recognized University/institute. Further requirement was that of five years teaching experience in different subjects in modern office management and modern office practice and the requirement was that teaching experience should be that of at degree/diploma level. In the alternate, it was also specified under the rules that out of five years experience, the candidate may have minimum three years of teaching experience in the modern office management or modern office practice subject and for the rest of the duration, the experience should be in the related subject at appropriate level in Industry/Field/Training/Research Work.
13. The petitioner, in the opinion of this court fulfills the requirement that has been prescribed in the first part of the recruitment rules itself i.e. five years experience of teaching modern office management and modern office practice subject in Women Polytechnic Raipur and Govt. Polytechnic Durg at degree/diploma level. Moreover, the experience of the petitioner is with the respondents themselves who
have issued certificate of having teaching experience in the subject for the different periods starting from 1988 onwards till date.
14. Teaching experience of the petitioner is not denied by any of the respondents. Thus, the petitioner, in the opinion of this court has all the requisite qualification that is required under the advertisement prescribed or under the qualification prescribed under the recruitment rules. That, only on account of fact that she substantively holds the post of Technical Assistant in the department by itself cannot be a ground for refusing the candidature of the petitioner, when the respondents themselves admit the fact that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of teaching in the modern office management department in Govt. Polytechnic Durg as also in the Women Polytechnic, Raipur on an earlier occasion.
15. Since teaching experience of the petitioner is not in dispute, the respondents have committed an error in not treating the petitioner as an eligible candidate. The respondents ought to have considered the petitioner also for the said post and on due comparison of the merits of all the eligible candidates select list for issuance of appointment should have been issued.
16. It is informed that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process and was also found suitable and called for interview, but her candidature was refused at interview level without being interviewed.
17. Accordingly, let the respondents conduct an interview of the petitioner and thereafter prepare a fresh select list in accordance
with merits and proceed further by issuing appointment order to the most meritorious candidate as per the revised select list.
18. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. Sd/- (P. Sam Kosh) Judge inder