The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment regarding academic qualifications and employment. The court ruled that a degree accepted by a university for PhD enrolment must also be considered valid for employment purposes. This order came in response to a petition filed by Seema Sharma, who works as a guest faculty at the Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry in Solan.
Petitioner's Challenge to University Decision
Seema Sharma challenged the university's decision to deny her marks for her MSc in botany degree. This occurred during the selection process for the post of assistant professor in forest products. The university advertised this position on June 9, 2022. Despite her application, Sharma was not awarded any marks for her MSc in botany. Consequently, she did not appear in the merit list and was not selected for the post.
Court's Observations on Degree Validity
Justice Sandeep Sharma presided over the case and made clear observations. He noted that the university had accepted Sharma's MSc in botany degree for her enrolment in the PhD programme. This programme focused on forestry, medicinal, and aromatic plants. Therefore, the judge stated there was no valid reason for the interview committee to withhold marks for the same degree during the employment selection.
Justice Sharma emphasized a critical point. He said, "Once the university accepted the MSc degree in botany for the petitioner's enrolment in the PhD programme, the interview committee had no occasion to deny her marks for that degree." This statement underscores the inconsistency in the university's actions.
University's Contradictory Actions
The court records revealed further contradictions. When appointing Sharma as a guest faculty in the department of forest products, the university had granted her marks for her MSc in botany. Justice Sharma questioned this discrepancy. He argued that the university could not adopt a different approach for the assistant professor post.
Justice Sharma elaborated in his order. He mentioned, "If MSc in botany was considered an allied subject for PhD enrolment, the university could not ignore it while assessing her qualifications for the assistant professor selection." This highlights the need for consistency in evaluating academic credentials.
Legal Arguments Presented
During the hearing, senior advocate Sanjeev Bhushan represented Seema Sharma. He presented strong arguments to the court. Bhushan contended that since the university enrolled Sharma in the PhD programme based on her MSc in botany, it could not now deny marks for that same degree. He stressed that botany was recognized as an allied discipline, making her eligible for the PhD course.
Bhushan further argued that the grounds which made her eligible for the PhD should also apply to her employment consideration. Denying marks on the very basis that qualified her for higher studies was unjust and illogical.
Court's Directives and Implications
The High Court issued specific directives following its ruling. It ordered the Y S Parmar University to reconsider Sharma's candidature for the vacant assistant professor post. The court mandated that the university grant her due marks for her MSc in botany degree. This decision ensures that her qualifications are fairly assessed in line with previous university acknowledgments.
This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases in academic institutions. It reinforces the principle that universities must maintain consistency in how they evaluate degrees for different purposes. The ruling protects the rights of candidates who rely on their accepted qualifications for career advancement.
The case originated from Sharma's discovery upon inquiry. She learned that her non-selection was due to the university not counting her MSc in botany, as she lacked a master's degree specifically in forest products. The court's intervention corrects this oversight, affirming the value of allied disciplines in academic and professional settings.
