@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe writ petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking to challenge a communication, dated 3.4.2009 issued by the Registrar In-charge of the first Respondent University. The Petitioner sought for an information under the Right to Information Act and when the information was not furnished by the Public Information Officer, he filed an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority by the impugned communication informed the Petitioner that the post of Professor in Medical Biochemistry was not a reserved post. The Petitioner was considered not eligible as he did not have 10 years teaching/research experience. Challenging the said communication, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 17.4.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court had granted an interim stay of all further proceedings. A notification was published by the University in The Hindu newspaper, dated 11.7.2008 insofar as it seeks to make recruitment to the post of Professor in the department of Medical Biochemistry under the first Respondent University including finalization or approval or selection of wait listed candidates by the Syndicate. Though the interim order was granted as early as April, 2009, the first Respondent University for reasons best known did not take any steps to vacate the interim order nor came up with any counter affidavit. It is only after the matter was listed for hearing, the counter affidavit, dated 10.09.2011 was filed on behalf of the Respondents.
3. Heard the arguments of Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. G. Thilakavathy, learned Counsel for Respondents.
4. The first Respondent University had published a notification on 11.7.2008 calling for applications for various posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in various departments. In the department of Medical Biochemistry, one post of Professor under unreserved category was sought to be filled up. It is stated that the scale of pay and qualification will be as per the UGC norms. The general instructions supplied along with the application form stated the qualification for the post of Professor, which reads as follows:
Professor:
An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, with 10 years of experience in post-graduate teaching and/or experience in research at the University/National Level Institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level/ [or] an outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.
In exceptional cases, the teachers with 15 years of UG teaching/research experience will also be considered.
5. The bone of contention between the parties was whether the Petitioner is having 10 years experience in Post Graduate teaching and has experience in research at the University, including experience in gaining research at Doctoral level?
6. The contention of the Petitioner was that he is having full qualification. He claimed that he has teaching experience for more than 14 years as technical assistant, which involves both research and teaching work. The first Respondent University had re-designated his post as Lecturer by proceedings, dated 11.7.2000. As on the date of application, he claimed that he had possessed more than 12 years teaching experience at post graduate level and 12 years research experience excluding the period spent for obtaining Ph.D. Degree. He also claimed that he had published several research papers and that his entire qualifications and credentials have been filed in the form of bulk typed set containing as many as 345 pages.
7. The Respondent University in turn contended that the post of Technical Assistant is a non teaching post and does not involve any research or teaching and is governed by the service condition of non teaching employees. Though the Respondent University had decided to re-designate the Technical Officers, in the case of the Petitioner, who had obtained Ph. D in the year 1988, re-designation was made with effect from 11.7.2000 with conditions. The conditions include that such redesignation as Lecturer will be prospective and it shall not be taken as qualification for any promotion and his past service will not be counted for any advancement. The University also wrote to the UGC and it was informed by a communication dated 3.2.2009 that redesignation for the post of technical office can be considered for lecturership. Actually based on the said communication only, the University had recognised him as a lecturer on prospective basis. But in the subsequent communication, dated 29.3.2000, the UGC informed to one of the Professor of the University that the UGC was not in favour of redesignation of technical assistant as lecturer. It is in this context, the Respondents University had stated that the Petitioner''s qualification cannot be considered as teaching experience so as to enable him to apply for the post.
8. The rival contentions made by the parties cannot be decided by this Court and as the matter relates to academic affairs, it has to be decided only by the University. Since both sides were strongly contending about the eligibility or otherwise, the matter cannot be decided on the basis of pleadings of parties.
9. The Supreme Court in
10. The same principle was reiterated in
While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But university organs, for that matter any authority in our system, are bound by the rule of law and cannot be law unto themselves. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the court out.
11. Both these decisions were quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in
12. Further the Supreme Court recently dealt with more or less a similar case. In that case the question was whether a post of Research Assistant can be considered as a teaching post and whether that experience can be counted as a qualification to be considered as eligibility for the post of a Professor in an University. In that case, an academic committee went into the issue and was satisfied with the qualification. It was approved later by the Syndicate. A challenge made to that decision was repelled by the Supreme Court vide its decision in
24. There is another aspect of this matter which is also relevant for proper decision of this appeal. We have already indicated earlier that the Board of Appointment was constituted with experts in this line by the University Authorities. They have considered not only the candidature of the Appellant and his experience as a Lecturer and Research Assistant along with others came to hold that it was the Appellant who was the candidate who could satisfy the conditions for appointment to the post of Professor. Such being the selection made by the expert body, it is difficult for us to accept the judgments of the High Court when we have failed to notice any mala fides attributed to the members of the expert body in selecting the Appellant to the said post.
25. In University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, while dealing with the selection of candidates for academic matters by a Board of experts appointed by the University for the post of Reader and the recommendation of the Board, this Court at para 13 of the aforesaid decision observed: (AIR pp. 496-97)
13. Boards of Appointments are nominated by the universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. The criticism made by the High Court against the report made by the Board seems to suggest that the High Court thought that the Board was in the position of an executive authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for its decision. In dealing with complaints made by citizens in regard to appointments made by academic bodies, like the universities, such an approach would not be reasonable or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ, the High Court has made certain observations which show that the High Court applied tests which would legitimately be applied in the case of writs of certiorari. In the judgment, it has been observed that the error in this case is undoubtedly a manifest error. That is a consideration which is more germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari. What the High Court should have considered is whether the appointment made by the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted. In this connection, the High Court has failed to notice one significant fact that when the Board considered the claims of the respective applicants, it examined them very carefully and actually came to the conclusion that none of them deserved to be appointed a Professor. These recommendations made by the Board clearly show that they considered the relevant factors carefully and ultimately came to the conclusion that Appellant 2 should be recommended for the post of Reader. Therefore, we are satisfied that the criticism made by the High Court against the Board and its deliberations is not justified.
26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any mala fides attributed against the members of the expert body of the University. The University Authorities had also before the High Court in their objections to the writ petition taken a stand that the Appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for appointment. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any mala fides either of the expert body of the University or of the University Authorities and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations cannot be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction.
In the present case, no such exercise was undertaken and on a mere scrutiny the Petitioner''s application was rejected. Hence this Court is obliged to interfere with the decision.
13. However, this Court is refrained from giving any finding on the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner. But in the present case it is admitted that in view of the interim stay, the post has not been filled up and since more than two years have elapsed, it cannot be filled up on the basis of the earlier notification, dated 11.7.2008. Therefore, the University has to advertise afresh calling for applications for filling up the said post. As and when such advertisement is made and if the Petitioner makes an application staking his claim, the University Syndicate should appoint a sub committee of experts to decide the question as to whether the Petitioner''s experience can be counted as a teaching experience coming within the norms prescribed by the UGC and adopted by the University. The committee so appointed shall consider the relevant materials produced by the Petitioner and also other inputs and pass a speaking order. If the Petitioner is still aggrieved, liberty to him to make further challenge.
14. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
