Seniority Is Reckoned With Ph.D. Acquisition Date, Not Initial Appointment Date For Principal-In-Charge Position: Patna High Court Clarifies UGC Regulations
Patna High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. Krishna Murari Sah as Principal-in-Charge of Sitaram Sahu College, Nawada. The Court held that despite his later appointment, Dr. Sah acquired his Ph.D. earlier, making him senior to the petitioner under UGC Regulations....
Patna High Court: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. Krishna Murari Sah as Principal-in-Charge of Sitaram Sahu College, Nawada. The Court held that despite his later appointment, Dr. Sah acquired his Ph.D. earlier, making him senior to the petitioner under UGC Regulations. Thus, the court found his appointment as Principal-in-Charge to be valid.
Background
The case arose from a dispute over the appointment of Principal-in-Charge at Sitaram Sahu College, Nawada. The petitioner, Kiran Kumari Sah, was appointed as a Lecturer in English on July 5, 1985, with her appointment being confirmed on February 15, 1986. Following the retirement of the previous Principal-in-Charge, Dr. Anil Kumar, the petitioner claimed entitlement to the position based on her earlier date of appointment. However, the Managing Committee of the college, in its meeting held on August 20, 2023, appointed Dr. Krishna Murari Sah (Respondent No. 7) as the new Principal-in-Charge. This appointment was subsequently confirmed by the University through an order dated October 10, 2023, after an enquiry committee had submitted its recommendation.
Arguments
The petitioner, Kiran Kumari Sah, contended that being appointed as a Lecturer in 1985, she was senior to Dr. Sah, who joined in 1986, and therefore should have been appointed as the Principal-in-Charge. She argued that the outgoing Principal-in-Charge, Dr. Anil Kumar, had already given her charge of the position through a letter dated July 5, 2023, effectively recognizing her seniority. The petitioner sought to quash Dr. Sah's appointment, arguing it violated university laws regarding seniority-based appointments.
In response, the University defended its decision by highlighting that the appointment of Dr. Sah as Principal-in-Charge was made following proper procedure, including consideration by the Managing Committee and validation by an independent enquiry committee. Dr. Sah, the appointed Principal-in-Charge, argued that the Managing Committee, being the appointing authority for teachers including the Principal-in-Charge, had followed due process by publishing notices, inviting applications, and making the appointment after proper consideration of candidates' qualifications.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the Court noted that while the petitioner's service commencement (July 6, 1985) predated Dr. Sah's (August 4, 1986), this temporal advantage was superseded by the timing of Ph.D. acquisition. The Court emphasized that Dr. Sah's 2003 Ph.D. completion, compared to the petitioner's 2011 qualification, was a determining factor in establishing seniority. Secondly, the Court held that UGC Regulations 2018, established two alternative pathways for eligibility: National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification or Ph.D. degree. The Court stressed that these weren't mere additional qualifications but essential eligibility criteria for the position. Thus, seniority calculations had to consider when candidates met these fundamental requirements, not just their initial appointment dates.
Thirdly, the Court gave significant weight to the University's enquiry committee's findings submitted on September 30, 2023. The committee's report, after examining both candidates' qualifications and service records, conclusively determined Dr. Sah's seniority. The Court also distinguished judgements cited by the petitioner, explaining that while the general principle of counting seniority from appointment date holds true, it's inapplicable when essential qualifying criteria are involved. The Court reasoned that Ph.D. qualification fundamentally altered the eligibility timeline, making it the starting point for seniority consideration in academic positions. Similarly, in analyzing the Government of A.P. v. A.V. Venugopala Rao, the Court emphasized its inapplicability due to the unique context of academic appointments under UGC Regulations. The Court clarified that provisional seniority principles cannot override essential qualification requirements, particularly in educational institutions where academic credentials play a crucial role.
The Court also examined the Managing Committee's decision-making process, finding it had properly considered both candidates' complete academic profiles, not just their length of service. Thus, the court dismissed the writ application.
Date: 28-10-2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 97
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate; Md. Kamaluddin, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Counsel for Respondent No. 7: Mr. Hansraj, Advocate; Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate
Counsel for Magadh University: Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate