LexMOHD. SOHRAB KHAN versus ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 907 • 1 MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN A v. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS. C.ivil Appeal No. 1130 of 2009 FEBRUARY 20, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service Law - Appointment - On the post of Lecturer - 1 Candidate having qualification at variance with the main subject, appointed - Held: Such person not qualified to be c appointed for the post - The qualification held by candidate was not specified in the advertisement - The Selection Committee could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement in the mid-way - In the matter . of selection, though opinion of Selection Committee is final, "( but it cannot act arbitrarily and change the criteria/qualification D in the midstream - Both the degrees (required in advertisement and that held by the appointed candidate) are different - Selection List having lapsed, University given the liberty to lay down necessary qualification. Respondent-University advertised the post of E Lecturer in Chemistry in University Polytechnic. Essential qualification for the same was a First Class Master's /, Degree in the appropriate branch. Appellant as well as 'M' applied for it. Appellant, had a First Class Master's degree F in Chemistry (Pure) whereas 'M' had the First Class Master's degree in Industrial Chemistry. Both were called for interview. 'M' was selected by the Selection Committee on the ground that he could be more suitable for the post as the degree in Industrial Chemistry would be best suited to teach the particular subject. 'M' was appointed . G • Appellant filed writ petition challenging the appointment of 'M' and also sought direction for his own appointment to the post. High Court set aside the 907 H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. ,A appointment of 'M' holding that it was not legal as he did ' .. not possess the minimum qualification. Direction was issued to the respondent-University to initiate fresh selection process for the post giving liberty to the University to consider the essen.tial qualification. Hence, B the cross-appeals. Disposin·g of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 High Court was justified in rejecting the candidature of 'M' as against the said post which was advertised for pure Chemistry stream. According to the C advertisement issued by the University, post in Chemistry had fallen vacant and in order to fill up the said post, applications were invited. In the advertisement it is clearly stated that what is advertised is a post of lecturer in Chemistry. Therefore, it would be necessarily assumed · D that candidates possessing a Masters Degree in pure Chemistry should submit their application as against the aforesaid post. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of E Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Masters Degree holder in the said subject would also be suitable for being considered. [Paras 10, 21 and 231 [914- F-G; 917-D; 919-G] F 1.2 Whenever and wherever the University desired · to fill up a post at variance with the main subject, it is speci- fically notified and indicated in the said advertisement. If it was necessary for the University to fill up the post from the stream of Industrial Chemistry, it would have so G indicated in the advertisement itself for in subsequent H years. Advertisement has been issued by the same. University for filling up the post of Lecturer in Industrial Chemistry by issuing an advertisement specifically in that regard. [Paras 11 and 12] [914-H; 915-C-D] 1.3 After a repeated multi-tier exercise, the ~ssential ~ I 1- f ~ /- •...- = . ' ~· ' 1.-I -'t MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN V. 909 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS. qualification is earmarked for a particular post and then it A is advertised. It is also established from the records and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different and separate. , subjects. The course contents would indicate that what., is dealt therein is not Industrial Chemistry but Engineering B Chemistry. It has not been informed as to whether Engineering Chemistry is considered to be at par with Industrial Chemistry. [Paras 14 and 15] [915-G-H; 916-8] 1.4 The post which was advertised to be filled up is at pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.