Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition, wherein the petitioners have prayed for an order allowing them to participate in the selection process initiated pursuant to the Advertisement dated 03-07-2019 and Advertisement dated 11-06-2020 issued by Aligarh Muslim University (‘AMU’) for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry), the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. directed AMU to adhere to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555, in letter and spirit. It further instructed the Registrar of AMU to ensure that future advertisements are clear and free from ambiguity. Specifically, terms like “concerned/relevant/allied subject” should be avoided, and the qualifications must be clearly stated to allow all eligible candidates to participate, preventing any prejudice due to unclear language.
The petitioners contend that they possess the qualification of M.Sc. in ‘Industrial Chemistry,’ which they argue qualifies as an “allied subject” and thus meets the essential qualification criteria for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry).
The Court noted that a similar controversy arose in regard to an earlier recruitment process conducted by AMU and matter reached up to Supreme Court in a case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra), wherein it was held that master’s degree holder in Industrial Chemistry would not be better suited for post of Lecturer (Chemistry) without there being any specific declaration in the advertisement to this effect. In that regard, it was further observed that post advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to pure Chemistry stream, without any specific clause that a person holding M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry would also be eligible or could be suited more.
The Court noted that in Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra), it was further directed that the University must clearly lay down the exact essential qualifications required for filling the post in question. The Court emphasized that the specific subject and subject-stream required for making an application should be explicitly indicated in the advertisement.
The Court observed that it appears that AMU has failed to understand and follow the directions given in the judgment of Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) in its true spirit. The Court noted that AMU did not provide specific clarification regarding the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) in the subsequent advertisements. Specifically, the University did not clarify whether an M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry would be considered an equivalent qualification. Instead, the advertisement used ambiguous language, stating: “A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade on a point-scale, wherever the grading system is concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university).” The Court pointed out that the terms “concerned/relevant/allied subject” could have different interpretations in varying contexts, leading to ambiguity in the eligibility criteria. On one hand, the University has adopted the stance that an M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry falls within the category of an “allied subject” and, therefore, qualifies as an eligibility criterion for consideration for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry). However, on the other hand, an arbitrary decision was made that the petitioners’ candidature would only be considered as a last resort, i.e., if candidates holding an M.Sc. in Chemistry were not available or deemed unsuitable.
The Court found that the action of the University, on its face, is arbitrary. In the subsequent advertisement, the University described the eligibility as having a master’s degree with 55% marks in a concerned/relevant/allied subject, without providing any clarification as to whether an M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry would be considered an allied subject for the purpose of the Chemistry post. As a result, it is likely that many candidates with an M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry chose not to participate due to this ambiguity. The direction given in Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra), was not followed, and the ambiguity was unfortunately repeated.
The Court noted that, during the pendency of the writ petition over the last five years, the posts in question have already been filled. Since the selections made are not under challenge, the relief sought in the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
However, the Court directed AMU to ensure that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) is followed in its true letter and spirit. The Court further directed that the Registrar of AMU must remain cautious in the future while publishing advertisements, ensuring that no ambiguity is created. Specifically, the Court emphasized that ambiguous terms such as “concerned/relevant/allied subject” should be avoided. Instead, the University must clearly specify the qualifications required, so that all eligible candidates are able to participate in the selection process, ensuring that no individual is left prejudiced by unclear or ambiguous language.
[Amna Khatoon v Aligarh Muslim University, Writ – A No. – 368 of 2021, decided on 12-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner:– Mohd Aadil Siddiqui,Tauseef Khan
Counsel for Respondent:– A.S.G.I.,Abrar Ahmad,Shashank Shekhar Singh