http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  596 of 2008

PETITIONER: SAURABH PAL & ANR

RESPONDENT: THE CHANCELLOR, VEER BAHADUR SINGH & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/2008

BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & R.V. RAVEENDRAN& J.M. PANCHAL

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.596  OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) 10251/2006)

                                Leave granted.                 Selection was conducted to the four posts of Lecturer in the Department of M CA,  Uma Nath Singh Institute of Engineering and Technology, affiliated with Veer Bahadur  Singh Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur.          The Selection Committee recommended the  following names for the four vacant posts in Lecturers in the department of MCA: (1)  Saurabh Pal (Appellant No.1); (2) Nupur George; (3) Amrendra Singh; and (4) Prabhat  Verma.  It also prepared a waiting list with two names: (i) Surjeet Kumar (Appellant no.2)  and (ii) Shahzad Shamim (Fifth respondent).  2)              The first appellant who secured first rank and three other selected candidat es  were appointed as Lecturers.  The second appellant-Surjeet Kumar who was at serial number  one in the waiting list was subsequently appointed as one of the four candidates appointed a s  Lecturer did not join.   

                                               -2- 3)      The 5th respondent-Shahzad Shamim, the second wait listed candidate filed a writ  petition contending that the appellants did not possess the requisite qualification for the  post  and, therefore, their selection as Lecturers was illegal.  He contended that the appellants  possessed only a degree in M.Sc. (Computer Science) whereas the others possessed the  degree of "MCA" or "BE";  that M.Sc. (Computer Science) was not prescribed on  qualification by  AICTE; and that, therefore, the appointment of appellants was illegal; and  if  they were excluded, he becomes entitled to be appointed.    4)              The 5th respondent relied on Table-E-2 forming part of  AICTE Norms which  prescribed the minimum qualification and experience for  Teaching Posts in Degree Level  Technical Institutions,  Master of Computer Application (MCA) Programmes, as follows:            "First Class B.E./B.Tech. in Computer Science /Engineering/Technology OR First Class   MCA Degree."

               However, Note (2) appended to Table-E-2 provided as

follows:

       "In the discipline of Computer Science/Engineering /Technology, in lieu of the "Firs t Class  degree at Bachelor’s and/or Master Lever in the appropriate branch", first class Master’s  Degree in Computer Science/Engineering/Technology together with a First Class Bachelor’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Degree in any area of Engineering/Technology will be acceptable."    5)              The University which was a respondent in the writ petition filed by the 5th  respondent, however, contended that both the appellants  possessed the qualification  prescribed by  

                                               -3- it in the recruitment advertisement and the qualification prescribed by it was in accordance   with the AICTE Norms.  The qualification prescribed in the advertisement was as follows:         Lecturer:       (For Engineering Branches)                         Essential: First Class Bachelors’ Degree in                     appr opriate branch  of Engineering Technology.

                       Desirable: Master’s degree in relevant branch.

The University submitted that "M.Sc. (Computer Science)" was treated as equivalent to  ’MCA’ and, therefore, the appellants were qualified for being appointed as a lecturer-MCA,     6)              The High Court relying on Table=E-2 of AICTE Norms held that the two  appellants did not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, set aside their select ion.   Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7)              We heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 5th  respondent. 8)              Table-E-2 issued by the AICTE when read with Note (2) under Table-E-2  clearly shows that the degree possessed by the appellants was also a requisite qualification   for  appointment as Lecturers in MCA.  The Division Bench of High Court clearly mis-read   Table E-2 of AICTE Norms as it failed to notice Note (2) to Table E-2.  We are informed that   the copy of Table E-2 produced by the 5th respondent in the writ petition was not complete  and did not contain the Note.  Be that as it may.  We  are satisfied that the appellants  possessed the requisite qualification.  As the decision of the  

                                               -4- High Court setting aside their appointments is erroneous, it is set aside and the challenge  to  the appointment of the appellants as Lecturers is rejected.  Their appointment is upheld.         The appeal is disposed of accordingly.