[Recruitment Of 1,50,000 Asst. Professor Candidates] Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea Alleging RPSC Procedure Being In Conflict With The UGC Norms

The bench of Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal noted, "We may recall, more than 1,50,000 candidates have applied for 918 posts. As noted, UGC regulations have not provided any cut-off for shortlisting the candidates on the basis of scores to be allotted in terms of the table. Even if we permit the degree of latitude to the recruiting agency and expect calling for oral interview candidates 5 times the number of notified vacancies, this would require conducting the oral interview close to 5,000 candidates".

In the present case, the grievance of petitioners revolves around two parameters of recruitment. Firstly, with respect to the eligibility criteria, a candidate has to show good academic record as defined and secondly, in relation to the selection process envisaged by RPSC which consists of a written test followed by oral interview.

According to the petitioners, both these elements are missing from the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, during the course of hearing, the first grievance was side-stepped and the main focus of the challenge by the learned counsel for the petitioners was on the second grievance of RPSC selection procedure.

The court observed that though the procedure that is adopted by the State Government may be somewhat different from what the prescribed UGC Regulations, which is not a case of irreconcilable conflict between the Central and the State legislation. The court added that the State legislation and RPSC, as the recruiting agency, have followed the pattern of written test followed by oral interview, pointing out that it would be impossible to hold oral interviews for a large number of candidates who have applied in response to the public advertisement.

The court further relied on Forum for People's Collective Efforts (FPCE) And Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, where the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the question of repugnancy of the State law with a Central legislation on a subject matter which falls in Concurrent List. Referring to Article 254, Apex Court observed that such repugnancy would arise under three situations, namely (i) absolute or irreconcilable conflict, (ii) on the principle of occupied field, and (iii) overlap over the same subject matter. It was also observed that repugnancy is not an option of first choice but something which can be drawn where a clear case based on the application of one of the three tests arises for determination.

Additionally, while relying on Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120, the court observed that in a legislation falling in the concurrent list, the State legislation must yield to the Central legislation. In case of a conflict, the provisions made in the Central legislation must prevail. Under the circumstances, wherever the statutory body such as UGC has prescribed the qualification and eligibility criteria for appointment of teaching staff of universities and colleges, it would not be open for the State authority to dilute such requirements by prescribing and following criteria lower than that prescribed by the UGC. However, it is equally well settled that the standards higher than those prescribed by the Central agency can still be applied by the State rule making authority.

The petitioner contended that for the post of Assistant Professor in colleges, the Regulations provide for shortlisting of the candidates on the basis of allotment of marks as prescribed and thereafter, the selection has to be based only on oral interview. In the present case, the RPSC has not followed this pattern. Instead, a written examination is conducted for all eligible candidates which would be followed by an oral interview, which as per the petitioner, is directly in conflict with the UGC Regulations, 2018. He submitted that in case of conflict between the Central legislation and the State legislation in a subject contained in the concurrent list, the Central legislation must prevail.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that more than 1,50,000 candidates have applied in response to the advertisement, and it was therefore impossible to hold oral interviews for a large number of candidates even after applying a method for short-listing as suggested by the UGC and advocated by the petitioners. He added that the method of holding a written test followed by oral interview is therefore just and proper and in any case not impermissible as per the existing statutory framework.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 6