AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and hence, I am disposing of by this common order.
Writ PetitionNo.20115/1996 is filed for declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for the aided post of Lecturer in English in Vivek Vardhani College of Arts, Commerce and Science (Day and Evening), Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal, and for a further direction for appointing the petitioner in one of the posts, either in the Day College or in the Evening College. The petitioner is Dr. N. Anil Krishna. The other writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No.3078of l997 is filed by one G.Aruna for a declaration that the impugned proceedings DD''s No.3856/PC.III-1/96 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, in so far it relates to the appointment of 4th respondent as Lecturer in English, in the 3rd respondent college, as illegal and arbitrary. She also prayed for a further direction to the management to consider her case for appointment as Lecturer in English in the 3rd respondent-college as per GO. Ms. No.450, Edn., (CE) 0 Dept, dated 15-12-1995.
Counters are filed by the contesting respondents.
I take up W.P.No.20115/1996 first. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is working as a Temporary Lecturer in some other college and in pursuance of the notification issued by Respondent No.3 -College calling for the applications for the post of Lecturer, he applied for the post of Lecturer in English. He further stated that he is the only candidate who has got Ph.D. to his credit. He submitted that Respondent No.3 issued a call letter to appear for the interview on 10-9-1996 and accordingly he appeared for the interview and in the interview he fared well. But to his surprise he subsequently found that Respondent Nos.7 to 10 were selected, but he should have been selected for the post of Lecturer, either in the Day College or in the Evening College for the Respondent No.3, in view of the fact that he also got the additional qualification of Ph.D., which the other candidates do not possess it. Therefore, his non-selection and selection of Respondent Nos.7 is 10 is illegal. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Smt. Vinobha Devi strenuously contended that the. procedure followed for the selection is illegal and contrary to the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education(CEI-2) Department dated 10-1-1992, She submitted that though the petitioner has been awarded weightage marks for academic record at 50 marks and for his past teaching experience 10 marks, which he was entitled to, and accordingly he got 60 marks, but he has been awarded less marks in the interview conducted by the Selection Committee of the Respondent No.3. She further submitted that according to the said G.O., they should not have conducted interview, but they should have conducted teaching test, for which 40 marks is earmarked. Hence, the Selection Committee should have conducted teaching test instead of interview. Therefore, the entire selection process based on interview is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.12 and hence the entire selection proceedings have got to be set aside. Counters are filed both by the Management as well as by the candidates who have been selected. It is stated in the counter of Respondent No.3 that there is no illegality in the selection proceedings. It is stated that the petitioner was called for interview and he was interviewed by the Selection Committee and taking into account the performance of the petitioner in the interview (teaching test) as per G.O.Ms.No. 12 dated 10-1-1992, overall merit list is prepared. It is stated that though the petitioner has got sixty marks (60) marks allotted on the basis of the academic qualifications as per the G.O., but he has scored less marks in the interview than the other selected candidates, therefore, he was not selected. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 - College Sri Vilas Afzul Purkur strenuously contended, relying upon the counter affidavit, that the procedure followed by the Selection Committee is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.12 and there is no illegality as such. He further submitted that the interview that was conducted was nothing but the teaching test contemplated by G.O.Ms.No.12, and in the writ petition the petitioner has not clearly stated that there was no teaching test as such, therefore, it cannot be said that G.O.Ms-No. 12 is violated in any sense of the term. Accordingly, he submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the counter filed by the other selected candidates, they have stated that they have been selected on the basis of merit and there is no violation of G.O.Ms.No. 12 dated 10-1-1992 and the fact that the petitioner is the only candidate who has completed Ph.D., is not relevant and on the basis that he has got Ph.D., he cannot get any preferential treatment. Whatever the marks he was entitled to on the basis of academic qualifications of Ph.D., the petitioner has been awarded according to the G.O. It is further stated that the petitioner has not been selected for the post of Lecturer in English as he did not qualify himself in the interview.
From the pleading of both the sides, it is clear that the marks were allotted as per G.O.Ms.No.12 correctly, so far as academic qualifications and past experience was concerned. But the short dispute is regarding the interview test held in the case. According to the petitioner, the interview test cannot be taken as teaching test as prescribed by the said G.O. But according to the contesting respondents, the difference between ''interview'' and ''teaching test'' is only in the nomenclature, in substance the interview by itself was a teaching test as contemplated by the G.O., therefore, there is no illegality.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I have to extract the relevant procedure prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10-1-1992 as under :-
"Selection Procedure :--Ranking of candidates shall be done on the basis of marks secured in the following, from out of 100 marks.
(i) Weightage of marks for academic record of the candidate. -- 50 marks Academic Record Means:
(a) for marks secured in the P.G. Degree --40 marks.
(b) for M.Phil. Ph.D. --5/10 marks.
(ii)Teaching Experience --10 marks (1 mark for each completed six months of service)
(iii)Teaching Text -40 marks ------------- Total: 100 marks -------------
(The Candidates who secure less than 16 marks in the Teaching Test shall be disqualified).
Procedure of Calling the Candidates for Teaching Test :--The Management shall prepare the merit list discipline-wise, by taking into account the marks obtained out of 60 marks allotted for weightage of marks secured in P.O. examination. M.Phil./Ph.D. and Teaching Experience. From among the meritorious candidates (merit arrived as stated) the Management shall invite candidates in the ratio of 1:5 i.e., if one vacancy is there, five candidates in order of merit for teaching test.
Procedure for Conducting the Teaching Test :-The Correspondent/Secretary of the Educational Institution shall be the Chairman of the Selection Committee.
Topics will be given to the candidates who are called for teaching test from out of the subject of the specialization five minutes before the teaching test. Each candidate will be given 15 minutes time to deliver a lecture, the Members of the Selection Committee will ask questions on his subject of specialization. The Members of the Selection committee shall be provided with a statement of names of the candidates. Based on the performance in the teaching test, the candidates shall be awarded marks by the Members of the Selection Committee independently out of 40 marks allotted for teaching test Taking into account the marks awarded by each Member, the average marks for the Teaching Test will be arrived at The marks thus obtained by a candidate in the Teaching Test shall be added to the marks secured by the candidate out of 60 marks for determining the merit of the candidate. At the end, the Chairman of the Selection Committee will prepare the list of selected candidates in order of merit and obtain the signatures thereon of the Members of the Selection Committee as a Mark of their approval and issue appointment orders to the selected candidates after taking formal approval of the Management Committee."
From reading of the above extract from G.O., it is clear that how the teaching test has to be conducted has been specifically prescribed. The said G.O. provides that a topic will be given to the candidates who are called for teaching test, from out of the subject of the specialization five minutes before the teaching test and thereafter, each candidate will be given fifteen minutes time to deliver a lecture and the Members of the Selection Committee would ask questions on his subject of specialization and the Members of the Selection Committee would be provided with statement of names of the candidates, and based on the performance in the teaching test, the Members of the Selection Committee would award marks independently out of that forty marks earmarked for teaching test and taking the average marks awarded by each member, the marks awarded for the teaching test would be arrived at and on that basis and on the basis of the academic qualification the Selection Committee would finalise the list. None of the contesting respondents, including Respondent No.3 - Management say in their counters that this procedure was followed. They simply say in unequivocal terms that interview was conducted. But the contention of the petitioner''s Counsel is that conducting the interview by itself is not teaching test, as prescribed by the said G.O. In the counter of Respondent No.3 - Management, at paragraph No. 8, it is stated as under:
"The allegation in para 8 that the petitioner ought to have been selected on the basis of `Ph.D.'' degree and lesser qualified candidates are selected is totally without any substance. Petitioner appears to be thinking that only academic qualifications matter whereas in fact out of 100 marks only 60 marks are allotted towards academic qualifications and the balance 40 marks are allotted for the performance at the interview (teaching test) and as perG.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10-1-1992, the overall merit list is to be prepared. Therefore, there is absolutely no arbitrariness or violation of any guidelines in the selection."
From the above paragraph it is clear that on the basis of the performance at the interview, the marks were allotted out of 40 marks earmarked for the teaching test. The Management further intends to say that the ''interview'' that was conducted was by itself ''teaching test'' in terms of G.O.Ms.No.12. Almost to the same effect is the counter of the selected respondents. In paragraph No. 12, Banala Srinivasa Rao, (Respondent No.8) in paragraph No. 12, Sandhya Saurikar, Respondent No.9, stated that what was conducted was interview. To the same effect also is the counter of other selected respondents that an ''interview'' was conducted by issuing call letters to all the candidates. In view of the fact that interview was conducted as per the contention of both the sides, now I have to find out whether conducting ''interview'' by itself can be considered to be as ''teaching test'' in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 12, prima facie according to me there is difference between two methods - one by ''interview'' and the other by ''teaching test'' The Chambers Dictionary defines ''interview'' as under :-
"A formal meeting; a meeting between an employer, Board of Directors, etc and a candidate to ascertain by questioning and discussion the latter''s suitability for a post, etc;"
From this definition given in the dictionary, it is clear that in case of interview certain questions are asked by the Selection Committee and on the basis of the answers given by such candidate, his suitability to the post is judged. The same dictionary has defined ''to teach'' as under:
"to impart knowledge or art to; to impart the knowledge or art of; to guide the studies of; to exhibit so as to impress upon the mind; to show; to direct; to accustom; to counsel; to be an object lesson to (someone) to do or not to do something in future; to force home the desirability or undesirability of (particular conduct, etc.) to. - vi to impart knowledge or give instruction as one''s profession;"
From this definition of teaching it is clear that one has to impart certain knowledge to the recipient and for this purpose, a systematic presentation of the entire subject would be necessary, so that the students or the persons who wants to learn from him may understand certain concepts, theories and the subject etc. One may be a very good conversation''s at the table, but such person may not be a good teacher, in the sense that, he may not be in a position to impart to the students a particular concept or a theory comprehensively. A teacher also should have moral courage and a bent of mind to control the students and to see that they understand the subject. From this it follows that this ability whether a particular person is able to impart a particular subject effectively to the students has to be ascertained, in terms of the said G.O. by conducting the teaching test. In other words, a viva voce test or an interview cannot be equated to that of a teaching test in any sense of the term. In fact, according to the G.O., certain questions the Members of the Selection Committee could ask the concerned candidate after delivering a lecture for fifteen minutes. So to test a particular candidate, in addition to fifteen minutes, some more time also would be spent by putting the questions in order to ascertain his ability to teach. From this it follows that the test of interview adopted by the Selection Committee, in the place of teaching test, which is prescribed by G.O., is ineffective test in order to ascertain the ability of a person to be a Lecturer or a Teacher. Moreover, the G.O., would not have prescribed 40 marks if interview test was in contemplation Prescribing40 marks indicates that the test aims at finding out knowledge, language, delivery and courage to face audience etc., expecting awarding of split marks for these faculties out of 40 marks, in order to select a good Lecturer. As it is, it is commonly felt that there is downward trend in the academic activities of the students. Therefore, it is necessary that good Lecturer is selected for the training of students, in different disciplines and that is precisely the object of G.O.Ms.No.12. In these circumstances, I have to hold that the Selection Committee has erred in conducting only interview instead of teaching test, that is prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.12 and consequently I have to hold that the method of selection ''''by interview" adopted was violative of the procedure prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 10-1-1992. If the prescribed tests were to be conducted according to G.O.Ms.No.12, the academic and other suitability of a candidate would have definitely remained within the discretion of the Selection Committee. If the Selection Committee adopts a procedure one quite different from the procedure prescribed by the law (in the instant case G.O.Ms.No. 12), the selection would be liable to be set aside. At the cost of repetition, I have to hold that conducting interview test is not the same thing as conducting the teaching test, which is contemplated by G.O.Ms.No.12.
For the above reasons, I set aside the selection of Respondent .Nos.7 to 10 as Lecturers in English in Respondent No.3 -College and direct that fresh selection proceedings shall be conducted from the stage of ''teaching test'' and on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates, a fresh selection list shall be published. This exercise, the Respondent No.3 and Selection Committee shall make within a period of forty five days from today. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Coming to writ petition No.3078 of 1997, I find that the petitioner has challenged the selection of one Mr. M. Supremekar, who is the Respondent No.4, in the writ petition, contending that the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Lecturer in English in terms of G.O.Ms.No.450, Edn., (CE) n Department, dated 15-12-1995. The case of the petitioner is that she was a Laboratory Assistant in one of the Colleges in Telangana area of Andhra Pradesh, and the post of Laboratory Assistant was equated to the post of Demonstrator, vide G.O.Ms.No.450 dated 15-12-1995 and accordingly, she was entitled to be promoted as Lecturer in view of ''note'' added to the said G.O. The Management, by filing counter contended that under G.O.Ms.No.450 dated 15-12-1995, the post of Laboratory Assistant was equated to the post of Demonstrator and in terms of G.O.Rt. No.350, Edn., dated 26-2-1982, the petitioner should possess the required qualification for being promoted as Lecturer and the petitioner did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed by this G.O., therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. It appears that earlier petitioner was called for interview, but when it was found that her case was to be considered only by Departmental Promotion, Committee, she was not interviewed, since the interview that was called for was for selection as Lecturers by direct recruitment. It appears that though the petitioner made a representation to the Respondent No.3 for considering her case for promotion, as Lecturer, Respondent No.3 has not considered it so far. In the letter dated 10-2-1997, addressed by the Respondent No.3 to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, it is stated, that one post on which the Department has approved the appointment of Mr. Supremekar, was earmarked for the promotion of Demonstrators working in the college, as Lecturers, and it is further stated that the Management was pursuing the matter for holding Departmental Committee, vide its office communication No. 78/96-97/39 dated 9-10-1996, requesting the RJ. Director of Higher Education for giving a convenient date for conducting the D.P.C. From this letter it is clear that the Respondent No.3 - College has been taking steps for promoting the Demonstrators as Lecturers in terms of G.O.RtNo.350, dated 26-2-1982. Though this G.O. states that the same has been issued regarding the Government Colleges, but no other material has been brought to my notice that there is any other separate G.O. for private or aided colleges, prescribing the qualifications and method of promotion, from the post of Demonstrator to the post of Lecturer. However, the learned Counsel for the Management Sri Vilas Afzal Purkar contended that the petitioner does not fulfil the qualification of five years teaching experience after securing the post-graduate qualification, as per the G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 26-2-1982, and in those circumstances, the Management was not processing her case for promotion. From the case and the counter case on behalf of the petitioner and Management, it is clear that the fact that is required to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner has got the qualifications for promotion from the post of Demonstrator to the post of Lecturer. This aspect requires to be considered by Respondent No.3 - College and it has to take a decision in that behalf immediately. Since it is not quite clear whether the petitioner was really qualified for being promoted as Lecturer from the post of demonstrator, since I, have already set aside the selection of respondent No.4 and other respondents in WP No.20115 of 1996,1 think it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the case of eligible and qualified Demonstrators for being promoted as Lecturers simultaneously. It is submitted by Respondent No.3 - College that there are other Demonstrators, who are seniors to the petitioner. From this also it follows that petitioner would not be entitled to be selected straight-away without considering the cases of seniors to the petitioner. For the above reasons, I pass the order as under:
This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to constitute D.P.C. to consider the case of the petitioner and other Demonstrators for the purpose of promotion to the post of Lecturer in English within a period of forty five days from today.
For the above reasons, I allow writ petition No.20115 of 1996 and dispose of Writ Petition No.3078 of 1997 in terms of the above directions. No costs.