Service Law – Appointment – Eligibility criteria – When cannot be interfered – Respondent-University published advertisement inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy) – Appellant appointed to the said post – Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the appointment of the appellant, filed writ petition in the High Court – Appointment of the appellant set aside by Single Bench – Intra-court appeal filed by the appellant – Dismissed – Held: Condition of the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy – Appellant possessed Diploma in Yoga Education – Undoubtedly, in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it was not recorded that the Diploma possessed by the appellant was equivalent to the educational qualifications advertised, but the Selection Committee was comprised of experts in the subjects and, therefore, even if it was not specifically mentioned, the decision could not have been interfered with only because the Court found that Diploma in Yoga Education is not the same as Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy – Not only the Selection Committee found the appellant suitable but even the Equivalence Committee, constituted in terms of the directions of the Single Bench, also found the Diploma of the appellant as the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement – Therefore, once the Experts took decision that the appellant met the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the Court in exercise of power of judicial review could not have come to the conclusion that the Diploma possessed by the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions advertised and set aside the appointment of the appellant – Judgment passed by the High Court set aside – Appellant be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, seniority and pay fixation but he will not be entitled to pay for the period he was out of service. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The condition of the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. The appellant possesses Diploma in Yoga Education. The Court in exercise of power of judicial review could not come to a conclusion that the Diploma possessed by the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions advertised. The Court only looked to the bare nomenclature of Diploma possessed by the appellant. No doubt, in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it is not recorded that the Diploma possessed by the appellant is equivalent to the educational qualifications advertised but the Selection Committee was comprised of experts in the subjects and, therefore, even if it was not specifically mentioned, the decision could not have been interfered with only because the Court finds that Diploma in Yoga Education is not the same as Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement remains the same i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. It is only Diploma in Yoga Education which has been considered as equivalent to Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. Not only the Selection Committee has found the appellant suitable but even the Equivalence Committee, constituted in terms of the directions of the Single Bench, also found the Diploma of the appellant as the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement. Therefore, once the Experts have taken a decision that the appellant meets the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the Court could not have interfered with and set aside the appointment of the appellant. Consequently, the judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, seniority and pay fixation but will not be entitled to pay for the period he was out of service. [Paras 16, 17 & 19] [72-D-G; 73-A-C] B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 306 : [2008] 14 SCR 288 ; Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 284 : [2008] 11 SCR 992 ; Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015)
8 SCC 484 : [2015] 3 SCR 729 – referred to.
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.