AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasenjit Mandal, J.—This application is at the instance of the candidates having Ph.D. degree in different subjects and is filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to rescind, cancel and withdraw the cut off date as mentioned in the UGC Regulations 2009 wherein the cut off date has been mentioned to the effect that the person awarded Ph.D. degree after July 11, 2009 are not eligible for appearing examination and other consequential reliefs including raising the upper age limit from 37 to 40 years. The West Bengal College Service Commission published an employment notification dated December 27, 2012 for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors, Principals and Librarians. The eligibility criteria and other conditions have also been mentioned therein.
Pursuant to the advertisement no. 1 of 2012 for filling up the posts of Assistant Professors, Principals and Librarians, the petitioners filed applications for the posts of Assistant Professor in different subjects for general degree colleges other than B.Ed. colleges and B.Ed. departments in general degree colleges and for that purpose they are the holders of master degree in the respective subjects. They were also awarded Ph.D. degrees by different universities in the relevant subjects. The respondent UGC published Regulations of 2009 which were effective from July 11, 2009. The petitioners had enrolled registration for the Ph.D. degree before the promulgation of the Regulations of 2009 and in some cases they were awarded the Ph.D. degrees after the promulgation of the Regulations of 2009. But, as per the advertisement the candidates who have been awarded Ph.D. degrees in terms of Regulations of 2009 will be exempted from NET qualification mandates. So this application has been preferred for the reliefs already stated.
The petitioners have contended that the action of the respondents is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and so the Regulations must be set aside and the upper age bar should be enhanced.
Now, the question is whether the respondent authorities acted contrary to the statutory provisions by not allowing the petitioner to participate in the selection process for appointment to the aforesaid posts and whether the Regulations of 2009 should be rescinded, cancelled and withdrawn.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the advertisement no. 1 of 2012 published by the West Bengal College Service Commission describes the minimum eligibility conditions for appointment to the different posts as indicated earlier. The said advertisement also lays down the qualification for recruitment in different subjects for general degree colleges. The matter in dispute is with regard to the Ph.D. degree and the upper age limit as mentioned in the said advertisement.
Reiterating the contention as raised in the application, Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the application should be allowed.
On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the College Service Commission has contended that this application is not maintainable at all in view of the judgment delivered by this Bench in W.P. No. 3075 (W) of 2013 passed on February 26, 2013. He has also contended that this Bench has passed an elaborate judgment and order over the selfsame issue in the said writ matter and accordingly the said application has been dismissed. In consequence, the present application is also liable to be dismissed.
So far as the prayer for raising upper age limit from 37 to 40 years is concerned, I am of the view that it is simply a policy decision of the Government and in deciding such policy a decision, I do not find any discrimination or arbitrariness. So, this Writ Court should not interfere with the policy decision of the Government relating to age of a candidate and so the prayer for raising the upper age limit from 37 to 40 years cannot be entertained by this Writ Court.
Upon perusal of the judgment and order of W.P. No. 3075 (W) of 2013, I find that the application has been dismissed on the ground, inter alia, mentioned below:-
Having regard to the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that there is no dispute that the UGC is an expert body to decide the national policy of higher education of the country and this commission is assisted by a body of experts in different fields to save the system of higher education in the country. The national policy has been adopted by the Government on the education system and since the Ph.D. Degree-holders under the Regulations of 2009 or the candidates registered under Regulations of 2009 for the Ph.D. Degree having gone through a different procedure, a reasonable classification, in my view, is quite permissible. Such a reasonable classification has been adopted on the basis of the Regulations dated July 11, 2009 and September 18, 2010 giving exemption from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition whose Ph.D. degree has been awarded in accordance with the UGC (minimum standards and procedure for awarding Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or the persons who have been registered under the Regulations of 2009.
No doubt, that such Regulations are prospective and not retrospective, yet the state is at liberty to make a reasonable classification. Therefore, such a reasonable classification, in my view, cannot be termed as illegal. The petitioners were exempted from appearing in the Eligibility Test under the Regulations of 2006. But, when for betterment of the education system, as a national policy, the Regulations of 2009 were adopted, I am of the view that the petitioners are bound to go through that Regulations, if they opt to be selected for recruitment by the Regulations in vogue. ....
Since a reasonable classification is permissible, for the reasons discussed above, I am of the view that the terms and conditions of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2012 published by the College Service Commission cannot be described as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to exemption from appearing in the Eligibility Test in terms of Regulations of 2006.
In consequence, the petitioners cannot get any relief.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
Thus, I find that this Bench has, in identical situation, has observed in unambiguous language that there is no discrimination or arbitrariness in the matter of the advertisement. The only discrepancy that has been stated is, with regard to reasonable classification which is permissible in accordance with the present situation of the country. The Government in its wisdom can take a policy decision and in exercising writ jurisdiction, this court is not in a position to judge the policy decision except the same is opposed to public policy and violative of natural justice.
In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer for rescinding, canceling or withdrawing the Regulations of 2009 and raising the upper age limit from 37 to 40 years cannot be granted at all. No reliefs can be granted to the petitioners in exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners having stood on the similar footing to those of the petitioners of W.P. No. 3075 (W) of 2013, are not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for.
Accordingly, I am of the view that this application is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Since, I have disposed of the application at the motion stage, the allegations contained in the application stand not admitted by the respective respondents. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.