Service Law: Appointment – Appellant was engaged by Respondent-University as ‘Guest lecturer’ to teach ‘Karam Kand’ to the students in the Department of Sanskrit – University issued an advertisement inviting application to one post of lecturer in ‘Karam Kand’ – Appellant applied for the post – Selection Committee recommended the candidature of appellant for appointment to said post – But the Executive Council disagreed with the Selection Committee on the ground that the Vice Chancellor failed to request the Chancellor to nominate subject experts in the Selection Committee – Accordingly, Chancellor annuled the recommendation for appointment of appellant – Appellant filed writ petition which was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Chancellor on the ground that admittedly there was no University in the country awarding a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and, therefore, there were actually no experts in the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ – Pursuant to the direction, the Chancellor considered the matter and again rejected the recommendation of Selection Committee – Appellant filed fresh writ petition – By impugned order, High Court dismissed writ petition holding that after the order of remand, the Chancellor had consulted a few experts and found that the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ is altogether different from the subject ‘Sanskrit’ and that therefore, with the qualifications that the appellant possessed, he could not be appointed – On appeal, held: The consultations by the Chancellor with certain persons and the information gathered by him were beyond the scope of order of remand passed by High Court – The information collected by the Chancellor not only enlarged his original objections to the selection of the appellant but was also gathered behind the back of the appellant – In the absence of any specific prescription, the University ought to have referred the question of what constitutes relevant subjects, before the process of selection began – Neither the University nor the Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that the appellant was not qualified in the “relevant subject” – Their initial objection was that the Selection Committee did not include the subject experts nominated by the Chancellor – After it was pointed out that there were no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as no University was offering a specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to the Chancellor – The Chancellor went on a detour to find out what are the differences between the subject of Sanskrit and the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ – This was clearly erroneous – The parameters to be applied to a case where an incumbent to a post does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed for a post, are different from the parameters to be applied to a case where no specific qualifications are prescribed for a particular post – The question as to what constitutes “relevant subject” should have been left to the experts, before the advertisement was issued, especially when the statutes did not prescribe any specific qualifications – This did not happen in this case – In fact the question whether subject experts were available at all in ‘Karm Kand’, itself became a matter of controversy – The entire controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the tug of war in the year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the then Vice Chancellor, making the appellant a victim in the line of fire – Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of all this – In the case on hand no candidate was available with a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee which comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit found the appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject – The appointment itself was to the post in the Department of Sanskrit – In view of the fact (i) that the appellant has been teaching the very same subject for the past nearly 16 years; and (ii) that the original Selection Committee which found him eligible for appointment, comprised of Professors from the Department of Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ was a part, a direction issued to respondent-University to regularise the services of the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The University conceded that the statutes do not contain any prescription regarding the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. It also conceded that the advertisement did not indicate any specific qualification except that the aspirant should hold a post graduate degree in the relevant subject. In the absence of any specific prescription, the University ought to have referred the question of what constitutes relevant subjects, before the process of selection began. Neither the University nor the Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that the appellant was not qualified in the “relevant subject”. Their initial objection was that the Selection Committee did not include the subject experts nominated by the Chancellor. After it was pointed out that there were no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as no University was offering a specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to the Chancellor, to ascertain whether subject experts were actually available and whether the failure of the Vice Chancellor to seek nomination of such experts from the Chancellor vitiated the whole process. Finding that the answer to the said question was too difficult to be provided, the Chancellor went on a detour to find out what are the differences between the subject of Sanskrit and the subject of ‘Karm Kand’. This was clearly erroneous and the High Court unfortunately omitted to notice this mistake. [Paras 10, 11][822-C-F]
2. The parameters to be applied to a case where an incumbent to a post does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed for a post, are different from the parameters to be applied to a case where no specific qualifications are prescribed for a particular post. The question as to what constitutes “relevant subject” should have been left to the experts, before the advertisement was issued, especially when the statutes did not prescribe any specific qualifications. This did not happen in this case. In fact the question whether subject experts were available at all in ‘Karm Kand’, itself became a matter of controversy. The entire controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the tug of war in the year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the then Vice Chancellor, making the appellant a victim in the line of fire. Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of all this. The expression “equivalent qualifications” has a different connotation than the expression “relevant subject”. [Paras 13, 14][823-A-D] Punjab University v. Narinder Kumar and Others
(1999) 9 SCC 8 – held inapplicable.
Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University (2014) 3 SCC 767 : [2013] 17 SCR 1025 – referred to.
3. In the case on hand, no candidate was available with a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee which comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit found the appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject. The appointment itself was to the post in the Department of Sanskrit. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, the Academic Council of the University held a meeting on 22.08.2013. Agenda No.10 for the said meeting related to the qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. The recommendation made by the Head of the Department of Sanskrit was accepted by the Academic Council. If only the High Court had looked into the minutes of the meetings of the Academic Council it could have easily appreciated that the appellant was entitled to succeed. [Paras 16, 17, 18][824-A-C, E]
4. In view of the fact (i) that the appellant has been teaching the very same subject for the past nearly 16 years; and (ii) that the original Selection Committee which found him eligible for appointment, comprised of Professors from the Department of Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ was a part, a direction is issued to the 5th respondent-University to regularise the services of the appellant. [Para 20][824-G-H; 825-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.