JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. The petitioners seek to quash the order dated 26.8.1999 passed by the Chancellor, University of Allahabad setting aside the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Reader in the department of the Physics, Allahabad University and directing the Registrar to re-advertise the post for holding fresh selection to the post in question,
2. Briefly, stated the facts are that three posts of Reader in the department of the Physics of Allahabad' University (in short the 'University') were advertised on 30.1.1995 Inviting the applications for selection/appointment to the post of Reader in the Physics department.
The date for submission of the application was till 28.2.1995. In the advertisement, however, a clause was added that in exceptional cases the application form may be entertained after the last date under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, One post was reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category, one post was reserved for a candidate belonging to O.B.C. category and the remaining third post was meant for a candidate belonging to the general category.
3. Dr. Raja Ram Yadav, petitioner No. 2 submitted his application on 13.2.1995 within time. Dr. B.K. Ghosh, petitioner No. 1 submitted his application on 20.11.1996 after the expiry of the time under orders of the Vice-Chancellor. Respondent No. 4 and other candidates had also applied for the post in question. The selection committee interviewed the petitioners, respondent No. 4 and other candidates and recommended the names of the petitioners for the appointment to the post in question to the executive council of the university. The executive council in its meeting dated 13.12.1996 approved the recommendation of the selection committee and in pursuance thereof the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 joined the department of Physics as a Reader on 14.12.1996 and petitioner No. 1 Joined on 28.12.1996.
4. Respondent No. 4, who was one of the candidates for the post in question made a representation to the Chancellor on 28.1.1997 under Section 68 of the State Universities Act. The petitioners submitted a reply to the representation of respondent No. 4. The Chancellor allowed the representation vide order dated 26.8.1999 setting aside the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Reader in the department of Physics of the University, on two grounds, firstly that the petitioners did not possess minimum requisite experience of teaching on the last date for submitting the application, i.e., 28.2.1995 and secondly that the Vice-Chancellor could not have granted permission to petitioner No. 1 to submit application on 20.11.1996 after the date fixed for submission of the application as advertised in the news-papers.
5. One of the basic issues is whether the petitioners were eligible for selection on the last date fixed for submission of application, i.e., 28.2.1995. The qualification for appointment to the post of Reader is provided under Statutes 11.02 (1) which is quoted herein under :
"11,02 (1) In the case of the Faculty of Arts (except the Department of Fine Arts), and the Faculties of Commerce, Science, Education and Law, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of :
(a) a Reader in the university, namely ;
(i) Good academic record with Doctorate degree or equivalent published work, engagement in research or innovation in teaching methods or production of teaching materials ; and
(ii) Five years' experience of teaching or research including at least three years as Lecturer or in an equivalent position :
Provided that the requirement contained in Sub-clause (ii) may be relaxed in the case of a candidate who, in the opinion of the selection committee, has outstanding research work to his credit....."
In view of the above provision, at least 3 years' experience is required as a Lecturer unless the candidate is covered by the proviso, which provides that the requirement contained in Sub-clause (ii) may be relaxed in the case of a candidate, who, in the opinion of the selection committee, has outstanding research work to his credit.
6. The version of the petitioner No. 1 is that he functioned as a Junior Research Fellow for a period of 2 years during the year 1973-75 in the Allahabad University. He, thereafter, worked as a Senior Research Fellow from 1978 to 1985 in the same university and then as a Research Associate between 1985 to 1988. In the year 1988 the University Grant Commission floated a scheme with an intention to build a cadre of Research Scientists in Indian Universities so as to promote high quality research in Science, Humanities, Engineering and technologies including Social Science by providing opportunities to persons with outstanding merit and zeal for creative work at the national level. He was appointed as a Research Scientist category 'A' by University Grant Commission on 24,5.1988 and he continued as a Research Scientist category 'A' till 30.10.1993. He was appointed as a Reader in Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, affiliated to Allahabad University on 1.11.1993 and was confirmed on the said post on 23.4.1996. He applied on 20.11.1996 for the post of Reader in the Allahabad University and permission was sought from the Vice-Chancellor for submitting the application after the expiry of time for submission of the application as advertised and such permission having been granted to him by the Vice-Chancellor, he submitted his application on 20.11.1996 for the post in question.
7. The version of the petitioner No. 2 is that he was appointed as a Junior Research Fellow in the department of the Physics of Allahabad University in the year 1980 and he functioned as such for three years and continued to work as a Junior Research Fellow till the year 1983. He was appointed as Geo Physicist in Oil and Natural Gas Commission in the pay scale of Rs. 2,500-5,150 w.e.f. 2.7.1993 and continued to work in that capacity till 3.10.1998. He was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics in Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwa Vldyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna, Madhya Pradesh on 4.7.1990. On advertisement being made by the university for the post of Reader in Physics department of the university, he submitted his application on 13.2.1995, within the prescribed time for submission of the application and after the recommendation by the selection committee having been made and approved by the executive council, he was appointed on 14.12.1996 as Reader and since then he is working in the university.
8. The first contention of the petitioners is that the date for considering eligibility of a candidate is the date when the selection committee interviews the candidate and if the date of the selection is taken into account, the petitioner No. 1 had not acquired experience of three years teaching as a Reader and the petitioner No. 2 had no experience of three years teaching as a Lecturer. The petitioner No. 2 was short by 4 months and Petitioner No. 1 by 8 months in teaching experience as Lecturer/Reader by 28.2.1995. This controversy has been resolved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and by this Court also. The Full Bench of this Court in Pranveer Singh Satvat v. Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya, Kanpur and Ors., 1997 (Supp) AWC 445 : (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1682 held that in absence of any date specified in advertisement or in statute, last date for submission of application form is to be taken as that date for possession of eligibility qualification of the applicant keeping in view the general proposition that only a candidate possessing the eligibility qualification can submit application for the post. In Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr., JT 1997 (4) SC 99, it was held that the eligibility of the candidates will be judged with reference to the date by which application is to be filed and any person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. In U. P. Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and Anr. v. Alpana, 1994 (2) AWC 675 (SC) ; JT 1994 (1) SC 94, where the application was filed by the candidate whose result was not declared till the date of the submission of the application but was declared before the date of interview, the Apex Court held that she cannot be called for interview by the selection committee as on the date of submission of the application, result of her law examination was not declared. In Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bajpai v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1997 (1) AWC 2.151 (LB) (NOC) : (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1367, the candidate obtained requisite qualification after a few days of the date fixed for submission of the application was held not entitled for selection. It is now well-settled principle of law that the last date of submission of the application is to be taken as the date of possession of eligibility qualification of an applicant.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent raised another objection that the application of the petitioner No. 1 after the expiry of the date mentioned in the advertisement was not entertainable. This may be true but in the advertisement itself the following clause has been added ;
"In exceptional cases, the application form may be entertained after the last date under the order of the Vice-Chancellor."
10. The advertisement clearly envisages that in ease the Vice-Chancellor permits a candidate to submit his application after the expiry of the time mentioned in the advertisement, he can submit his application and it shall be taken to have been filed within the prescribed time. The application of such candidate cannot be rejected simply on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed time mentioned in the advertisement. This extension of the time, however, will not extend the date of the eligibility qualification of the candidate.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners were working as Research Fellows and the period for which they had worked as Research Fellows should be treated as working on the post of Lecturer. He has relied upon the guidelines issued by the University Grant Commission. Clause (9) of the aforesaid guidelines reads as under :
"9 (a) The medical facilities concerning accommodation, library and disbursement of monthly salary may be provided by the university to the research scientists in the same manner they are providing to the temporary teachers. The Scientists appointed by the U.G.C. may be treated at par with the temporary teachers appointed (long term) by the university."
12. This clause only relates to the facilities to be provided to a research fellow and for that purpose such research scientists are treated as temporary teachers (long term) by the university. This guideline was for a limited purpose, namely, for providing facilities to research scientists. It does not mean that the persons who had been appointed as research scientists shall, ipso facto, be treated as Lecturers in the university. The appointment of teachers in the university is made under the provisions of the State Universities Act read with the Statutes of University. A person can be appointed as a Lecturer in the University only in accordance with Statute. The petitioners worked as research fellows or research scientists, cannot claim that they had experience of teaching as Lecturer or Reader in the University merely because they had worked as research scientists or research fellow.
13. The question still remains as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Clause (ii) of Statute 11.02 (1) (a) of the First Statute of the University of Allahabad. The petitioners had been working as research fellows. The petitioner No. 1 had worked as Junior Research Fellow in Allahabad University between 1973-1975, then as Senior Research Fellow between 1978-85, a Research Associate between 1985-1988 and then Research Scientist category 'A' between 24.5.1988 to 30.10.1993. The petitioner No. 2 had worked as a Junior Research Fellow in the Department of Physics, Allahabad University between 1980-83 and thereafter worked as Geo-Physiclst in Oil and Natural Gas Commission. Their case could have been considered for relaxation by the selection committee and if in its opinion, they had outstanding research work to their credit, the relaxation could have been given to them under the said proviso. The petitioners, respondent No. 4 and other candidates had appeared before the selection committee. The selection committee selected the names of the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 was appointed from the category of general candidate and petitioner No. 2 was selected from the category of O.B.C.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there cannot be a deemed relaxation unless the selection committee had in writing stated so in its report. He has relied upon Smt. Rukma Rawat v. Chancellor, Garhwal University. Lucknow and Ors., 1997 (3) AWC 1373, wherein it was observed that there cannot be deemed or presumed relaxation. It should be borne from the record of the selection committee that in fact it has relaxed the minimum qualification of teaching experience of three years on the date, the application was to be submitted as prescribed by the advertisement. In Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Anr., 1995 Suppl (4) SCC 706. the selection committee did not use the word 'relax' the minimum qualification but still the Court held that if the selection committee has selected, it shall be deemed to have been relaxed.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the question is whether the appointment of the petitioners should be set aside and fresh advertisement may be made for the post in question. Petitioner No. 1 had been appointed as a Reader in the Physics department of Allahabad University as a general candidate and petitioner No. 2 as O.B.C. candidate. They had been working as Reader in the Allahabad University since December, 1996. They had admittedly research work to their credit. It may be that mere working for a long time will itself not validate and invalidate act or appointment but the Court while examining the entire matter is not obliged to interfere with an order of appointment in all the cases. In Ashok Kumar's case (supra) the Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of appointment/seniority even though it was found that the applicants had no requisite qualification on the date of the submission of the application. In Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., JT 1994 (6) SC 531, the appointment of the employee was not set aside on the ground that he had worked for a long time. In Pranveer Singh Satvat's case (supra), this Court on the facts found that the petitioner was not entitled to continue in service. In this case, however, we are not interfering with the appointment of the petitioners for three reasons, firstly, the petitioners had to their credit research work and their case could have been covered by the proviso and the selection committee had power to relax the minimum qualification prescribed under Clause (ii) of Statutes 11.02 referred to above. There is no suggestion that the selection committee was not aware of the proviso referred to above and did not take into consideration the research work of the petitioners. Secondly, the petitioners had been working since 1996 and thirdly they have lost their lien, they had been working in another college and lastly respondent No. 4 is not claiming as a backward candidate and the petitioner No. 2 having been appointed as an O.B,C, candidate and no one has challenged his appointment as O.B.C. candidate.
16. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Chancellor dated 26.8.1999 is hereby quashed.
17. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.