Dr. Komal Singh Suman v. Guru Ghasidas Central University

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS. No. 8269 OF 2019 Dr. Komal Singh Suman S/o Baburam Suman Aged About 33 Years Working On The Post Of Adhoc Assistant Professor Department Of Zoology Guru Ghasidas Central University Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Guru Ghasidas Central University Through Its The Vice Chancellor, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

2. The Registrar Gurughasidas Central University Koni, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3. The Dean School Of Life Science, Gurughasidas Central University, Koni Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. The University Of Grant Commission Through Its Secretary Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110002 India,

5. The Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research Through Its Deputy Secretary, CSIR Complex, Library Avenue Pusa New Delhi Pin 110012, ---Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Adv.

For Respondents :

Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Adv Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01.10.2019

1. Counsel for the petitioner prays for carrying out the default during the course of the day.

2. Not opposed.

3. The oral request stands allowed.

4. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the respondents for interview dated 23.09.2019, whereby the petitioner has been found ineligible for interview.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been wrongly disqualified by the respondents, for the reason, that firstly the petitioner has worked as an Assistant Professor in Zoology Subject in the same University as a Guest Faculty and therefore it has to be presumed that the petitioner has all qualification required for the said post. The second ground of the petitioner is that the

course in which the petitioner has done his Post Graduation is equivalent to the course of Zoology and for this reason also, the respondents could not have declared the petitioner to be disqualified.

6. Perusal of records would show that as per the requirement for the department, the petitioner was supposed to have master degree with 53 % marks in the concerned subject or qualification in allied equivalent subject. The petitioner, admittedly, is a candidate who has not done master's course in Zoology. The petitioner has done his master course in Neuroscience. There is no documents available with the writ petition published by either UGC or by any other Institution who has held that master degree in Neuroscience is equivalent to the master degree in Zoology or it is an allied subject, by which the candidate who has a master degree in Neuroscience would be eligible to appear and participate for selection process where the qualification of masters in zoology is required.

7. In the absence of any such circular, document issued either by the State Government or by the University or even by the UGC which regulates the courses, this Court does not find that the petitioner has an equivalent qualification of master degree in Zoology subject.

8. Given the said facts, this Court does not find a strong case made out by the petitioner, accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha