“Judicial Verdict Upholding Rigorous Standards: Act for Recognizing Universities Challenged, Court Stresses Need for Established Institutions and Rejects Petitioners’ Claims.”
Title: Mahendran Kumar Sober and ORS. Vs State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: WPS No. 2724 of 2013
Coram: HON’BLE Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Decided on: 10-11-2023.
Introduction:
The case involves two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to annul the order dated July 27, 2013, issued by the Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur. The order pertains to appointments on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Engineering Services. The petitioners are urging the court to set aside this order and instruct the respondent authorities to revise the merit list by including experience marks. Subsequently, they seek the fulfillment of vacancies in accordance with the recruitment rules.
Facts:
The case involves applicants responding to an advertisement by the Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur, for positions including Sub Engineer (Civil). The petitioners, possessing the required qualifications and experience, applied for the positions. The merit list, initially including their names, did not assign experience marks against the advertised conditions. Subsequently, an order on July 27, 2013, by the Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur, omitted the petitioners’ names. The petitioners argue that the recruitment process violated constitutional articles, as eligibility criteria were allegedly changed, and transparency was lacking.
On the respondents’ side, it’s contended that the petitioners were deemed ineligible due to obtaining their degrees from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University through distance education. The authorities argued that this mode of education was not recognized for technical posts, and an order dated November 7, 2013, supported this decision. The respondents also raised concerns about the university’s validity, citing restrictions on distance education outside the state of Rajasthan.
Judgement analysis:
The judgment concludes that the impugned Act, which allows the notification of a university based on a proposal without actual establishment and legislative backing, does not align with regulations. It argues that such universities, lacking infrastructural facilities and qualified teachers, are unlikely to attract private capital or provide quality education. The court emphasizes the need for established institutions offering high-quality education rather than universities without teaching facilities.
The court further notes that the respondent-state did not recognize respondent No.4/University as a deemed university, leading to the disqualification of the petitioners for the Sub Engineer (Civil) post. It supports this decision based on legal principles and previous judgments. The court dismisses the writ petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners and upholding the decision of the respondent authorities.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By: Gauri Joshi