AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O.P. Jain, J.—Petitioner, Budhi Prakash Badoni, his filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a direction in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned notice Annexure ''4'' dated 12th January, 1987. He further prays for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to appoint Deokinandan Tiwari, respondent No. 4, in pursuance of the impugned recommendation dated 12th January, 1987 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission). He has further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner on the post of Exploration Assistant in Uttar Pradesh State Archaeological Organisation.
The brief facts of the case are that the Commission issued an advertisement Annexure ''3'' for the post of two Exploration Assistantsone for Archaeological unit at Almora and one for Archaeological unit at Gart 1. The minimum qualification requiiv, for the post was Post Graduate Degree in Ancient Indian History and Culture with Archaeology. Another essential qualification for eligibility was a Diploma from National School of Archaeology OR two years experience of exploration in Archaeology or Survey. In pursuance of this advertisement the petitioner, respondent No. 4and several other persons sent applications and same of them were called for interview which was held on 23rd December, 1986. The result of the interview was declared on 12th January, 1987, which is Annexure ''4'' to the petition. Respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari was declared first and one Krishna Kumar Singh was at serial No. 2 Petitioner, Budhi Prakash Badoni was placed in the waiting list.
The petitioner made a representation to the Secretary of the Commission on 29th January, 1987 and a copy of the same is Annexure ''5'' to the petition. In this representation the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari who has been selected by the Commission does not possess even the minimum qualification for the post of Exploration Assistant.
Having failed to get any relief from the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the prayers mentioned above.
Notices were issued to the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission, another counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari and a counteraffidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 2 Director, Cultural Affairs, Lucknow.
We have heard Sri A.K. Yog, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri G.C. Pant learned Counsel representing respondent No. 4 and Sri V.M. Sahai learned Counsel representing the Commission.
As stated earlier, the minier qualification for the above post was a Pur Graduation Degree in Ancient Indiai History, Culture and Archaeology. The petitioner holds a Post Graduation Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology from the University of Garhwal and a copy of the same has hfiled as R.A.1 alongwith the rejoinder fidavit. So far as respondent No <� Deokinandan Tiwari is concerned, c holds a Post Graduate Degree in Histoiy from Kumaun Unviersity and a copy that degree is Annexure R. A.3 annexed �:) rejoinder affidavit sworn on 841987. Alongwith his counteraffidavit respondent No. 4 has filed the marksheets Annexures C.A.2 and C.A.3 which show the subjects taught to him in M.A. Previous and M.A. Final. In appears from Annexure ''2'' that in M.A. Previous respondent No. 4 had a paper dealing with Early Archaeological Culture of India and another paper dealing with Archaeology of Uttara Khand. The papers in which he appeared in M.A. Final are mentioned in Annexure C.A.3. The question which arises for the consideration of this Court is whether a candidate who has obtained a Post Graduate Degree in Indian History having one or two papers relating to Archaeology can be treated, for the purpose of eligibility, at par with a candidate who has a Post Graduate Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology. For this purpose the syllabus of M.A. Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology in Garhwal University will have to be compared with the syllabus of M.A. History degree awarded by Kumaun Unviersity.
The syllabus of M.A. Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology is as under:
GARHWAL UNIVERSITY Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology M.A. (Previous) Examination.
PaperI Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology.
Pleistocene climate and its effect, stone Tool Industries, their techniques and typology; Broad outlines of lower, middle and upper palaeolithic; Mesolithic and Neolithic, Cultures of India; Broad survey of preHarappan and other protohis toric cultures upto 600 B.C., the Aryna Problem; the Megaliths.
PaperII Field Archaeology and Earfy Historical Archaeology.
Syllabus: Archaeology Its aims and scope: determination of ancient sites; excavation preliminaries; laying out of trenches; excavation techniques; utility of horizontal and vertical excavation; principles of stratification: recording of finds; Jating methods: elements of preservation ( antiquities in the field, the study of ving historical sites; Arikamedu, Br'' ''. "eiri. Sisupal Garh, Hastinapur, Kaus, and laxila.
Paper III Political Ideas and Institution sin A..*. entlndia.
Ancient Indian Polity Sources and its importance, state, horizon Types. Element" Aims and functions; Kingship and Mcrohy, its functions and importance, Re public, Legislature, Council of Minister Judiciary, Public Administration any cal Government, Interstate Relation and Diplomacy.
Paper IV Political History of Ancient Ir � aFrom 600 B.C. toA.D.319.
Eroad survey of the sixteen Mahaj napadas, Nandas, persion and Macadomian Invasious, Mauryas, Suogas, Satavahans, Indo Bactrians, Kushanas and Western Kshatrapas.
Paper V
(a) Political History of Ancient India from 319 A.D. to 620 A.D.
(b) Political History of Northern India from 650 AD. to 1000 A.D.
Paper VI Indian Art and Architecture
Section A Art and Iconography
Art Salient features of Harappan, Maurya, Sunga, Satavahana, Kushana (Gandhara and Mathura), Gupta and Pallava styles of Art (Stone sculptureterracottas and bronzes).
Paintings Ajanta and Bagh Paintings.
Section B (Architecture).
Origin and Development of Stnpa Architecture with special reference to Sanchi and Amrawati, Origin and development of Rockcut Architecture with special reference to Bhaja, Karle and Ajanta. Origin and development of Temple Architecture with special reference to Deogarh, Bhubneswar, Konark, Khapaho, Mahabalipuram, Tanjore and Uttarakhand Temples.
Paper VII Social and Economic History of Ancient India:
Section A Social History
Sources and its importance, Verna system, Cast system, Asramas, Purusharthas, education, marriage and position of women.
Section B Economic History:
Sources and their importance, Harappan economy The first Urbanization, Vaidic Age: The Agricultural Economy at the time of Buddha, Economy in the Mauryan and SatavananaKushawa periods, Expanision of trade and the rise of Guilds: Economy in the Gupta period.
Paper VIII History of Indian Epigraphy and Numismatics:
There will be two sections one each on Epigraphy and Numismatics. In the former question on the decipherment of an inscription on the identification of coins will be compulsory. In addition student will be required to answer three more questions which shall be included at least one question from each section.
Section A Epigraphy:
Antiquity of writing in India. Material used. Origin and development of Brahmi, origin of Kharpshti, Indian Eras. The Cultural and historical contents of the following inscription are to be studied.
SectionB Numismatics:
Antiquity of coinage, Technique of Manufacture, Punch marked coins, uninscribed east and Tribal coins (With special reference to Yaudhayas, Malvas, Audumbars, Kumindas, Kushambi and Texila) silent features of the coinage of Satavahanas, IndoGreeks (special reference to Demetrious and Mehender) Kushanas, Western Kshatrapas and Guptas.
The syllabus of M.A. History Examination of Kumaun University consists nine papers. Paper I deals with British History from 1815 to 1939 A.D. Paper II deals with History of Europe from 1789 to 1870 AD. Paper III deals with History of Indian Culture and the candidate has a choice either to study History of Indian Culture from Earliest Times to 1200 AD. or to study Early Archaeological Cultures of India or History of Indian Culture from 1200 A.D. to 1700 A.D. or History of Indian Culture from 1700AD. to the present day. Paper IV deals with History of India from 320 B.C. to 319 AD. and again there is some choice which is not relevant for our purposes. Paper V deals with History of Europe from 1871 to 1939 AD. Paper VI deals with Indian History and the candidate has a choice to study either Political History of Northern India from 320 AD. to 650 AD. or to study History of India from 1525 AD. to 1605 AD. or to study History of India from 1805 AD. to 1858 AD. paper VII deals with Indian History and the candidate has a choice to study either Political History of Northern India from 650 AD. to 1200 AD. or to read Ancient Indian Geography and Study of Select Increptions or to read political History of India from 1605 AD. to 1707 or to study political History of India from 1858 AD. to 1947 AD. The last paper which is paper VIII is A Special paper and deals with Constitutional History of India from 1858 to 1950 AD. The candidate has a choice to study National Movement from 1885 to 1947 with special reference to Mahatma Gandhi or to study Archaeology of Uttarakhand. Respondent No. 4 has availed of this option and has studied Archaeology of Uttarakhand as mentioned in the marksheet C.A.2.
A comparison of the syllabus of M.A. Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology awarded by Garhwal University and the syllabus of M.A History awarded by Kumaun University shows that there is a vast difference between the syllabi of the two Post Graduate Degrees. Therefore in the opinion of this court the Post Graduate Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology awarded by Garhwal University cannot be equated with the post Graduate Degree in Indian History awarded by Kumaun University. It should be kept in view that these posts are under the Directorate of Cultural Affairs and State Archaeological Organisation. Therefore a through knowledge of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology was indispensable job requirement.
Respondent No. 4 has made a false averment in paragraph 10 of his counteraffidavit which is as under;
"That in reply to paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that as regards the qualification mentioned therein (i) M.A. in Ancient History with Archaeology, no Unviersity grants or confers such degree as M.A. in Ancient History with Archaeology and even the petitioner did not possess the required degree M.A. in Ancient History with Archaeology'' and thus he was not qualified for the post".
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced before us Vol. (2) Law of Universities in U.P. by Sri S.D. Agarwala, a former Judge of this Court. This book gives the syllabus of M.A. History of various Universities in the State. A perusal of this book shows that in the University of Allahabad there is a separate Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology and there is a separate Department of Medieval and Modern History. In Avadh University also there is a separate Department of Ancient History and a separate Department of Medieval and Modern History. In Bundelkhand University there is only one Department of History. In Garhwal University there is a Department of History and a separate Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology. In Gorakhpur University there are Separate Departments for Ancient History, Archaeology and Culture and another Department for Medieval and Modern History. In Kanpur University also there are two different Departments of History and Ancient Indian History and Culture. In Kumaun University there is a single Department of History. In Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi also there is a single Department of History. In Lucknow University there are two separate Departments of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology and Medieval and Modern History. In Meerut University also there are two separate Departments of History and another Department of Ancient History and Culture. In Rohilkhand University there is a single Department of History.
Therefore it is found that out of 11 Universities in the State there are separate Departments of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology in as many as 7. Therefore the averment in paragraph 10 of the counteraffidavit filed by respondent No. 4 that no Unviersity grants or confers a degree of M.A. in Ancient History with Archaeology is false. A similar averment has been made by respondent No. 4 in paragraph 7 of C.A.8 which is a copy of the representation made by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 2: In paragraph 7 he has claimed that a degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology is not awarded by any University in India or any University situated outside India.
Another significant fact which has come on record is that before these posts of Exploration Assistants were advertised through Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, the Department invited applications in January 1985 for making appointment on ad hoc basis. For ad hoc appointment the minimum qualification for eligibility was exactly the same. In all thirteen candidates applied which included petitioner Budhi Prakash Badoni and respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari. After scrutiny, only the petitioner and three other candidates were found eligible and respondent No. 4 was not found eligible as he did not possess a Post Graduation Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology. At that notesheet was prepared in the office of the Directorate which is Annexure1 to the petition. It is surprising that a candidate who was not found eligible by the Department at the time of ad hoc appointments has been found eligible by the Commission at the time of regular appointment. It appears that at the time of ad hoc appointment respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari submitted an application to the Directorate through the Government Museum, Almora and the Directorate took the stand that respondent No. 4 does not possess the required minimum qualification for eligibility and therefore he could not be called for interview at the time of ad hoc appointments. A copy of the letter from the Directorate to the Museum is Annexure2.
In paragraph 5 of the petition it has been mentioned that at the time of ad hoc appointment thirteen candidates applied and only four, including the petitioner, were found eligible and that the remaining nine, including respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari, were found not eligible. This averment in the petition is not controverted in the counteraffidavit filed by respondent No. 4. In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the Director Cultural Affairs, Lucknow the contents of paragraphs 1 to 11 of the petition are admitted. In the same affidavit sworn by Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, Senior Assistant Law in the office of Director Culture Affairs. Paragraphs 12 to 25 are also not controverted and it is mentioned that these paragraph do not relate to the answering respondents and relate to respondent No. 1 i.e. Public Service Commission. The Directorate has not explained in the counteraffidavit as to how or why two contradictory stands have been taken by the Directorate one at the time of ad hoc appointments and one at the time of regular appointments. The Directorate has admitted all the allegations levelled in the petition and yet it is mentioned in the counteraffidavit that "the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is this inconsistent behaviour of the Department which is responsible for the present litigation.
The question which has arisen in the case in hand can arise in other fields also. Suppose for a Research Project the post of Microbiologist is advertised and the eligible candidate is required to be M.Sc. (Microbiology). Can a candidate holding the degree of M.Sc. (Biology) claim to be eligible on the ground that while doing his M.Sc. (Biology) he had a paper of Microbiology. Similarly if the Department of Fisheries wants a candidate holding the degree of M.Sc. (Marine Biology) a person with a M.Sc. degree in Biology will not be eligible notwithstanding the fact that he may have studied Marine Biology as one of the papers in M.Sc. (Biology).
In view of the above discussion, this Court is firmly of the view that respondent No. 4 did not possess the minimum qualification for eligibility for the post of Exploration Assistant and that, the Post Graduation degree in History awarded by Kumaun University cannot be treated as equivalent to a Post Graduation Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology awarded by University of Garhwal for eligibility to the post of Exploration Assistant.
For the post of Exploration Assistant the second requirement for eligibility was experience of two years in Exploration or Survey or a Diploma from National School of Archaeology. In paragraph 22 of the petition it has been averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari does not possess the minimum requisite qualification of two years experience in the filed of Archaeology. In paragraph 15 of the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the Commission (Respondent No. 1) this has been controverted and it is said that respondent No. 4 has about 5 years experience. This is based on Annexure C.A2 which is a certificate issued by the Head of the Department of History of Kumaun University on 2261985. Respondent No. 4 himself has claimed in paragraph 24 of his affidavit that he possesses the required experience and for that purpose he has filed Annexure C.A.15 which is a certificate issued by the same Authority, which has issued Annexure C.A. 2 Annexed to the counteraffidavit filed by the Commission. Annexure C.A15 filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 has explained that the degree of M.A in History is given after studying two papers of Archaeology. It also says that before the degree is awarded knowledge of Local Archaeology Sites is imparted by Survey and Educational Tours. In the opinion of this Court this is very vague statement and it cannot be said that respondent No. 4 had two years experience in Survey or Exploration in Archaeology. Therefore it is found that respondent No. 4 lacked the necessary experience.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Public Service Commission, it is mentioned that at the time of Selection the Commission were assisted by Dr. B.N.S. Yadav, Profand Head of Department, Ancient Indian History, Allahabad University, Allahabad as an Expert. On the basis of this averment, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that he has been found a suitable candidate by an expert in the field. In our opinion this contention is not correct. The applications received from various candidates are scrutinised by the Ministerial staff of the Commission and this mistake appears to have crept in at the time of the scrutiny of the applications. Respondent No. 4 Deokinandan Tiwari, who has acquired a Doctorate in the field of Archaeology, may have impressed the interview Board and the Expert. But if he lacks the basic qualification of eligibility his selection cannot be upheld.
It has been argued on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that he has a Doctorate in Archaeology from the Kumaun University and the thesis written by respondent No. 4 was placed before the Court at the time of arguments. The Provisional Certificate of Research Work is Annexure13 to the counteraffidavit filed by respondent No. 4. It does appear that respondent No. 4 has done some research work in Local Archaeology but that is besides the point. Even a person who has not received any formal education can acquire expertise in his own field. By sheer hard work one can also obtain a Doctorate in a subject. The question before this Court, however, is whether respondent No. 4 on the date of scrutiny of applications possessed the Post Graduation Degree in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology. The answer to this question is emphatically in the negative.
During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 4 has brought to our notice a judgment given by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1296 of 1987, Kunwar Singh Negi v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 1621987. This petition was filed by one of the candidates for the post of Exploration Assistant and the appointment of Deokinandan Tiwari (respondent No. 4) who was respondent No. 5 in that petition was challenged on the same ground i.e. that he does not fulfil the essential qualification. It appears that Kunwar Singh Negi Placed reliance on a letter which is Annexure2 in the present writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition the Court observed that "it has not been indicated in the letter as to what was the essential qualification which was not fulfilled by Sri D.N. Tiwari nor it is clear that where the essential qualifications then under consideration in respect of which that observation was made in the letter. "The Court further observed that bare averment has been made that the opposite party No. 5 has not passed M.A. in Ancient History with Archaeology. But nothing has been indicated as to what was the subject with which he had passed in M.A
It therefore appears that the writ petition filed by Kunwar Singh Negi challenging the appointment of Deokinandan Tiwari was not properly drafted and he failed to convince the Court that Deokinandan Tiwari does not fulfil the minimum qualification. In the instant petition this fact has clearly been established that Deokinandan Tiwari lacks the minimum qualification. Therefore, the fact that a writ petition filed by another candidate challenging the selection of Deokinandan Tiwari was dismissed, is no bar to the present petition. Admittedly the print petitioner B?"ihi Prakash Badoni was not a party in the Writ Petition No. 1296/87 and therefore the judgment dated 16287 delivered by Lucknow Bench of this Court does not operate as resjudicata.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that respondent Deokinandan Tiwari does not fulfil the minimum qualification for the post of Exploration Assistant as advertised in Annexure3 and therefore, his selection for the post is liable to be quashed.
Petitioner is entitled to get the selection of respondent No. 4 quashed and he is also entitled to a mandamus prohibiting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from appointing respondent No. 4 to the post of Exploration Assistant. The petition is, however, not entitled to the Relief (C) claimed in the petition because the recommendation is not binding on the Government. It is nothing more than a recommendation. Moreover, the Commission recommended one Krishna Kumar Singh who was placed at No. 2 in Annexure4. The name of the petitioner was in Waiting List only.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the selection of respondent No. 4 by the Commission vide Annexure4 dated 1211987 is quashed. A mandamus is issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to appoint respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the recommendation Annexure4 dated 12th January, 1987 made by to Commission. Petition allowed.