Central University Act | Academic Council Can't Delegate Power To Decide Equivalence/ Relevance Of Subjects: Uttarakhand High Court

While disapproving such delegation, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal held,

“In the opinion of this Court, academic policies of the University include determination of the eligibility and qualifications, and equivalence of a particular subject with another. As we have observed above, the Academic Council has no power to delegate their core and essential function to another Committee.”

An advertisement was notified by the Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (English) in the Department of English. Two numbers of posts were earmarked for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.

The petitioner as well as the respondent no. 2 both applied for the said post under the OBC category. The name of respondent no. 2 was recommended for appointment along with another person and the petitioner was kept in the waiting list.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the eligibility of respondent no. 2. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he, having the post graduate and doctorate degree in English, possesses the required qualification as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 to be appointed to the advertised post.

However, he pointed out that the respondent no. 2 does not have the required degrees as she had M.A. and M.Phil in the subject ‘Linguistics’ and not in ‘English’. It was further contended that ‘English’ and ‘Linguistics’ both are different subjects which also have separate syllabus in the UGC NET examination.

Therefore, his entire challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 2 premised on the ground that equivalence of both the aforementioned subjects have not been determined by the authorities before selecting her. Therefore, her appointment was assailed for being irrational and arbitrary.

Court’s Observations

After perusing the stipulations under the Central Universities Act, 2009, the Court was of the opinion that the authority for determination of eligibility and qualifications are vested upon the Academic Council, as it is vested with the powers to decide the ‘academic policies’ of the University.

Therefore, the Court held, the power to decide - whether a particular subject is allied, relevant or concerned to the qualification prescribed, or having equivalence, is vested with the Academic Council alone.

Thus, the Court rejected the stand taken by the University that since the Academic Council has empowered the Screening Committee to examine the suitability of the candidates in relation to their eligibility and qualifications, the Screening Committee is also empowered to determine the issue of equivalence. It further observed,

“In any event of matter, the powers which solely vest in the Academic Council cannot be delegated to another body or Committee, since that is an essential and primary function of the Academic Council which it performs on account of the Academic background, experience and expertise of the members of the said Council. Such a function could not have been delegated, as it is not a ministerial function. It is like saying that a judge – who has the authority to exercise judicial functions, can delegate his judicial functions on some other person or body.”

The Court further noted that the University failed to produce any material to show that an agenda was placed before the Academic Council to determine the equivalence of the subjects ‘English’ and ‘Linguistics’.

“On the issue whether “Linguistics” subject is equivalent to subject “English”, the Academic Council has been completely bypassed and overlooked by the University. This conduct of the University is very shocking and we deprecate the same. Appointing a candidate, who was not having the primary qualifications, as prescribed for the post, and by bypassing the Competent Statutory Body is highly improper, and we deprecate this conduct of the respondent University,” the Court added.

The Court opined that the case of respondent No. 2, who possesses qualification in Linguistics, should have been placed before the Academic Council to determine as to whether her qualification could be considered as concerned/relevant/allied to the subject of “English”, before proceeding to shortlist her, and place her case before the selection committee.

As the aforesaid procedure was not followed by the University, the Court went on to quash the appointment of respondent no. 2 to the said post and directed the Academic Council to examine whether both the subjects, i.e. ‘English’ and ‘Linguistics’ can said to be equivalent or whether the latter can considered to be an allied subject of the former.

The Council was ordered to give its reasoned decision within a month. The Court clarified that if both the subjects are found to be equivalent or allied of one another then the appointment of respondent no. 2 shall be restored without break in service. However, if the decision goes otherwise, the petitioner was ordered to be appointed to the disputed post.

Case Title: Ghan Shyam Pal v. Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna University & Anr.

Case No.: Writ Petition (S/B) No. 204 of 2021

Date of Judgment: August 04, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Dr. K.H. Gupta, Mr. Shobhit Saharia & Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocates