1. The present MCC has been filed by the applicant/petitioner seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 9.7.2019 passed in WPS No.
2267/2016.
2. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner is that the modification is being sought to the extent that, in paragraph 3 as
well as in paragraph 11 of the order dated 9.7.2019, the date of advertisement has been wrongly mentioned, inasmuch as the date of advertisement is
in fact 23.12.2015, whereas inadvertently it has been got typed as 23.12.2005. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner further wants the order to be
modified to the extent of fixing certain time limit within which the respondent authorities have to act on the directives given by this Court and the
applicant/petitioner be also directed to participate in the inquiry. Further clarification has also been sought for by the applicant/petitioner to the extent
that the inquiry of the credentials of respondent no.4 â€" Smt. Mridularatna Chourasiya to be done in accordance with the norms laid down by the
University Grants Commission.
3. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of the following observations made by this Court while deciding WPS No. 2267/2019 vide order dated
9.7.2019 :-
“10. …If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, then either the respondent No.4 does not have the requisite experience or on the other
hand, if she has in fact the teaching experience during the intervening period, then the Ph.D. which she has obtained may not be acceptable as per the
UGC norms. These two substantive objections which the petitioner has raised is one which needs proper inquiry and it appears that the respondents
No. 1 to 3 have not taken due care on the said objections which the petitioner has raised. In the opinion of this Court, the contention raised by the
petitioner should not be taken lightly. It needs an inquiry which till date has not been conducted.
11. Given the said facts, it is ordered that let the respondents No.1 & 2 conduct an inquiry so far as the credentials of the respondent No.4 in the light
of the requirement as per the advertisement dated 23.12.2005 so far as the post of Head of the Department, Polytechnic Institutions in Costume
Designing and Dress Making is concerned. While conducting the inquiry, the respondents No.1 & 2 are expected to verify the actual experience, if
any, that the respondent No.4 then had as was required under the advertisement and shall also consider whether the Ph.D. that the respondent No.4
has is one which is firstly from a recognized University and secondly whether it is a valid Ph.D. or not.â€
4. From the plain reading of the aforesaid observations/directions given by this Court, it is quite evident that the respondent authorities are expected to
take due care while inquiring into the credentials which the respondent no.4 had submitted for obtaining employment. It is also evidently clear from the
observations as to the shortcomings alleged by the applicant/petitioner so far as the respondent no.4 is concerned and it is on these facts that the writ
petition was disposed of on 9.7.2019.
5. Without expressing further opinion, it is expected that the authorities concerned would take into consideration the observations and contentions
reflected in the entire order dated 9.7.2019 while conducting the inquiry. Again, without making any further modification of the order, it is expected
that the respondent authorities would act on the directives given by this Court within a reasonable period.
6. In paragraph 3 as well as in Paragraph 11 of the order dated 9.7.2019, the date of advertisement now shall be read as “23.12.2015†instead of
23.12.2005.
7. The MCC stands disposed of accordingly and to the above extent.
