Parveen Kumari vs Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—The short point that arises for adjudication is whether the dceision of the respondents not to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Physics (Female) (School Cadre) is legally sustainable.

The respondent-Board advertised 14 posts of Lecturers (Female) (School Cadre) for the department of Secondary Education, Haryana in. the subject of Physics. As per advertisement (Annexure P-1), 2 posts were for general category, 4 each for Scheduled Castes A and B Blocks and 2 each for Backward Classes, A and B Blocks. Petitioner, being Kamboj by caste is a Backward Class A Block. She has passed in Physics (Electronics and Radio) in 1994 from "The Maharaja Sayaji Rao University of Baroda" by securing 70% marks therein. She applied for the said post in the prescribed form enclosing the necessary documents. She also deposited Rs. 4/-as the fee prescribed under a treasury challan and annexed its photocopy alongwith the application. On 14.8.1997 she received the letter (Annexure P-5) sent by respondent No. 2 rejecting the letter (Annexure P-5) sent by respondent No. 2 rejecting her application on the ground that she has not submitted any proof of having sent the prescribed fee and she has also not passed the M.Sc examination in Physics with 50% marks.

The petitioner has challenged this order (Annexure P-5) as arbitrary, unwarranted, and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. She averred that as she belongs to Backward Class, she was not liable to pay the prescribed fee of Rs. 250/- only but she deposited Rs. 4/- under the treasury challan and sent its photocopy (Annexure P-1) alongwith her application. She also annexed the Detailed Marks Certificate (Annexure P-3), copy of the degree in M.Sc. Physics (Annexure P-4) as well as certificate (Annexure P-2) showing that she belongs to Backward Class Block-A but her candidature has been wrongly declined by the respondents on the above grounds.

The respondents in their reply raised preliminary objections that she has not impleaded the Education Department of Haryana Government, which is a necessary party. The respondent-Board is only a selecting and recommending authority, but the appointing authority is the Education Department. It is also averred that on scrutiny it was found that the petitioner does not possess the advertised/prescribed qualifications. The Board has also averred that from the certificate (Annexure P-3), it is evident that she has done M.Sc Physics only in Electronics and Radio and she has not studied all the subjects of Physics. It is said that Electronics and Radio are only a part of the subjects of the Physics and not the general study of Physics whereas the qualifications prescribed are M.Sc. Physics i.e. general study of Physics. The incumbent has to teach 10 + 2 students the subject of Physics in general and not the specified part thereof; therefore, the petitioner having studied physics partly cannot deliver the goods, cannot teach the students; hence, she was found ineligible and consequently, she was not called for interview.

During arguments, it was not disputed that the petitioner had deposited the requisite fee. However, learned counsel for the respondents justified the Board''s decision by arguing that a Lecturer in Physics is to teach the subject of Physics to the students of 10 + 2. He/she is required to teach the subject of Physics in general and as the petitioner has studied only a limited study of Physics and not the general study of Physics, she was found ineligible and, therefore, her candidature was rejected. On the other hand, Shri S.P. Singh submitted that as per the advertisement (Annexure R-1/1), the eligibility requirement is only M.Sc in Physics with at least 50% marks from a recognised University and a the petitioner has secured 70% marks in M.Sc Physics, the respondents have wrongly rejected her candidature.

Having considered the respective contentions and after perusing the record, we are of the considered view that the petition is liable to be allowed.

A bare perusal of the advertisement shows that the qualification prescribed for recruitment of Lecturer in physics is M.Sc. Physics with 50% of marks. It does not lay down that the candidate must have passed M.Sc. in General Physics or any specified field. The petitioner has done her M.Sc in Physics with her specialisation in Electronics and Radio. In Physics, the science of energy, nuclear energy, fuel, metals, gases, carbon, water, air and environment are taught. A student who qualifies in M.Sc. Physics is required to study the subject generally and as he passes specialisation in particular branches of the subject, he or she is awarded his/her degree of M.Sc. From the statement marks (Annexure P-3), it is evident that the Electronics and Radio are her special subjects. She has appeared in four papers and has secured 70% marks. Thus there is no ground to hold that she has not done the subject of the science of Physics; thus is incapable to teach a lesson to a student of 10 + 2. We, therefore, hold that the respondents have wrongly rejected her application.

Vide order dated 20.8.1997, the respondents were directed to interview the petitioner provisionally for selection as a Lecturer (School Cadre), but it was ordered that the result shall not be declared without the permission of the Court. Therefore, while allowing the writ petition, we direct that if the respondent-Board has selected her in the said interview, she should be offered a post of Lecturer Physics (Female) (School Cadre).