U.P. Public Service Commission vs Dr Saad Usmani

2. This appeal relates to appointment on the post of Professor in "Moalejat" (Medicine) in Government Unani Colleges in U.P. The U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") issued an advertisement inviting applications for two posts of Professors in Moalejat. One of the essential qualifications prescribed for the said post was: "Ten years' teaching experience of the subject (eight years only in case of postgraduate) including three years on the post of Reader in a recognised institution". Dr Saad Usmani, respondent herein, was one of the applicants for the said post. The question is whether he was eligible for consideration for appointment on the post. The respondent had worked as permanent Demonstrator between 15-5-1980 to 30-10-1988. With effect from 31-10-1988 till 22-11-1990 the respondent worked as Lecturer in Moalejat. From 23-11-1990 onwards the respondent had worked as Reader in "Kulliyat" (Fundamentals of Medical Science). The Commission was of the view that the respondent did not possess the requisite teaching experience and he was not called for interview. He filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.

3. Before the High Court the case of the respondent was that his experience as Demonstrator should be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the requirement of ten years' teaching experience and reliance was placed on the decision of the Commission dated 30-10-1992. The High Court has accepted the said submission of the respondent and has held that since the respondent was employed as a full-time Demonstrator his experience as Demonstrator from 15-5-1980 to 30-10-1988 should be counted and since the respondent had worked as Lecturer and also as Reader for three years, he had the requisite ten years' experience.

4. Shri R.B. Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, has placed before us a copy of the decision of the Commission dated 30-10-1992 which shows that for the purpose of counting of experience as Demonstrator two conditions are necessary:

(i) the experience must be as a Demonstrator on full-time basis and not as a part-time Demonstrator; and

(ii) the experience as Demonstrator should have been after acquiring postgraduate qualification on the post of Clinical Registrar/ Demonstrator.

5. The respondent satisfied the first condition inasmuch as he had worked as a full-time Demonstrator but he did not satisfy the second condition since he did not possess a postgraduate qualification. In view of the decision of the Commission dated 30-10-1992 the experience of the respondent on the post of Demonstrator could not, therefore, be taken into account and if the period the respondent worked as Demonstrator is excluded he did not have the requisite ten years' teaching experience. There was, therefore, no infirmity in the view of the Commission that the respondent did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Professor in Moalejat. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in holding that the respondent fulfilled the conditions of eligibility and was wrongly denied consideration for the post of Professor in Moalejat by the Commission.

6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.