AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is twofold. Firstly, Petitioner No. 1, though was eligible to hold a post of Professor in Architecture he was not called for the interview, and secondly, selection of Respondent No. 7 to the said post is illegal, since he was not holding required qualifications.
We heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant rules and other material on record.
Under the relevant Rules, the qualifications prescribed for the post of Professor in Architecture is as under:
Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits (for the post of Professor in Architecture)
"Essential:
(i) Bachelor''s degree in Architecture, followed by Master''s degree in Architecture/Planning; with at least 60% marks at either Bachelor''s or Master''s degree level and Ph.D. in Architecture/Planning or published research works is referred journals/singnificant professional work, which can be considered equivalent to Ph.D.
Or
(i) Bachelor''s degree in Architecture with at least 60% marks and Ph.D. in Architecture/Planning.
(ii) 10 years experience in teaching/practice/research, out of which 5 years must be at the level of Assistant Professor or equivalent in case the candidate possesses Ph.D.
Or
(ii) 13 years experience in teaching/practice/research, out of which 5 years should be at a Senior Level that is at the level of Assistant Professor or equivalent in case the candidate does not possess Ph.D.
(iii) Knowledge of Konkani.
Note: In case of non-availability of a suitable candidate with the knowledge of Konkani, this requirement can be relaxed.
Desirable:
(i) Knowledge of Marathi.
Note: (1) Candidate from practice with Bachelor''s degree in Architecture and Master''s degree in Architecture/Planning with at least 60% marks at either of the level and having done professional work, which is significant and can be recognised equivalent to Ph.D. degree in Architecture/Planning as certified by the concerned University and with 13 years of Professional experience out of which 5 years should be at a Senior Level, shall also be eligible.
Note: (2)(i) The term ''teaching'' shall mean teaching in Architectural courses;
(ii) The term ''practice'' shall mean practice as Architect or working as Architect in offices;
(iii) The term ''research'' shall mean research in fields related to Architecture, amounting to publication or documentation.
According to Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner holds first class Bachelor''s Degree in Architecture and first class Master''s Degree in Planning and he has more than twenty years of teaching experience. Admittedly, he does not possess Degree of Ph.D. When we perused a degree certificate placed on record, we found that the Master''s Degree is not either in Architecture or in Planning, but it is the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil, Town and Country Planning. Moreover, he does not hold a degree of Ph.D. in Architecture/Planning nor he has published any research work in general or any significant work which could have been considered equivalent to Ph.D. Degree. It appears that in view thereof, Petitioner No. 1 was held to be ineligible for the said post by the Respondent-Commission and was, therefore, not called for the interview. We do not find any error of law or procedure committed by the Respondent-Commission, holding the Petitioner ineligible for the said post.
The contention of Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent No. 7 was not holding the prescribed qualification also deserves to be rejected outright. It appears that Respondent No. 7 has passed Master''s Degree in Planning with specialization in Housing in the year 1987 and had obtained 69.33% marks in Master''s Degree and scored 2080 marks out of 3000 marks. The School of Planning and Architecture, which confirmed the said Degree on Respondent No. 7, by issuing a certificate dated 12/03/2007, has made it clear that as per the Rules, Respondent No. 7 who obtained 69.33% marks can be equated to a first class at Master''s level. Merely because the certificate, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, shows that Respondent No. 7 passed Master''s Degree in pass class, in our opinion, that by itself could not be a ground to hold that Respondent No. 7 is ineligible. The certificate issued by School of Planning and Architecture dated 12/03/2007 in our opinion, is sufficient to hold that Respondent secured first class at Master''s degree. That apart, after having participated in the process of selection and having failed therein, the Petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the advertisement, as done in the present petition, on any ground whatsoever. In the circumstance, this Petition is dismissed.