Bombay High Court
Age 55 Years vs University on 22 October, 2010
Bench: B.R. Gavai, A.A. Sayed
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6789 of 2010
Vinayak S/o. Bhagwanrao Bhise
Age 55 years, Occ. Service
R/o. 197, Nandanwan Colony,
Aurangabad
Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
through it's Secretary
Higher & Technical Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Search Committee for Recommending
Eligible Names for the post of Vice-Chancellor,
through it's Nodal Officer
Dr. Madhumadan, Registrar
Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey
Women's Univeresity,
1, Nathibai Thackersey Road, Mumbai-400 020
3] Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad
Through it's Registrar.
Respondents.
Shri S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1
Shri Ravi Kadam, Advocate General for the respondent No.2
Shri R.R. Mane, Advocate for respondent No.3.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:34:10 :::
2
2] with WRIT PETITION NO. 6788 OF 20101
Dr. Gunderao s/o. Kishanrao Kulkarni,
Age 59 years, Occ. Service
R/o. Flat No.1, Plot No.12,
Yogeshwar Silver Heights,
Ahinsa Nagar, Jalna Road, Aurangabad.
Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
through it's Secretary
Higher & Technical Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Search Committee for Recommending
Eligible Names for the post of Vice-Chancellor,
through it's Nodal Officer
Dr. Madhumadan, Registrar
Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey
Women's Univeresity,
1, Nathibai Thackersey Road, Mumbai-400 020
3] Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad
Through it's Registrar.
Respondents.
Shri S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1
Shri Ravi Kadam, Advocate General for the respondent No.2
Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:34:10 :::
3
3] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6576 OF 2010
Yeshwant S/o. Kondji Khillare
Age 54 years, Occ. Service
R/o. 68, Saket Nagar, Bhavsingpura,
Aurangabad.
Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
through it's Secretary
Higher & Technical Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Search Committee for Recommending
Eligible Names for the post of Vice-Chancellor,
through it's Nodal Officer
Dr. Madhumadan, Registrar
Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey
Women's Univeresity,
1, Nathibai Thackersey Road, Mumbai-400 020
3] Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada
University, Aurangabad
Through it's Registrar.
Respondent.
Shri S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1
Shri Ravi Kadam, Advocate General for the respondent No.2
Shri R.R. Mane, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM:-B.R. GAVAI AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 22ND OCTOBER, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT { PER B.R. GAVAI, J.] :
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2] All the petitioners in these petitions challenge the action
of the respondent No.2 - Search Committee, inasmuch as, the said
Committee has not called the petitioners for interview/presentation
before it, for the post Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.3
University.
3]
Since the issues involved in the petitions are identical,
the same are being finally disposed of by this common judgment.
4] An advertisement was issued by the Chairman, Search
Committee for inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor of
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University (hereinafter
referred to as "the University"). The said Search Committee came to
be appointed according to the provisions of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, as amended by the Act No. XIV of 2009. It appears
that after receipt of the applications, which were about 100 in
number, the Search Committee decided to call only 34 persons, for
presentation before the Committee. The petitioners were not called
for the presentation. Being aggrieved by the action of the
respondent No.2 Committee, in not inviting them for the purpose of
presentation, the petitioners have approached this court.
5] We have heard Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Kadam, the learned Advocate
General, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6] Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that as per the advertisement which was
published, though short listing of the candidates applying for the
post was permissible, the same cannot be done in the manner,
which contravenes the order issued by the State of Maharashtra
dated 27th May, 2009 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said order" for
short). The learned counsel submits that in view of Clause I of the
said order, the qualifications as prescribed in Part A of the Schedule
are mandatory and unless the candidates qualify the requirements
prescribed in part A of Schedule to the said order, the candidate
cannot be considered for the post of Vice Chancellor.
7] The learned counsel further submits that all the persons
named in para.7 of the W.P. No. 6576/2010, who have been invited
by the Committee, do not answer the requirement in part A of the
Schedule of the said order. It is submitted that though petitioner -
Prof. Bhise qualifies all the requirements of Part A, he has not been
called for presentation. The learned counsel further submits that in
so far as Dr. Khillare is concerned, though he has worked as Head of
the Department for 2 years, if his experience as Director of Students
Welfare is taken into consideration, then, he would be meeting the
requirement of possessing 5 years administrative experience. The
learned counsel fairly concedes that in so far as Dr. Kulkarni is
concerned, he possesses only 2 years experience as Head of
Department. It is submitted that in accordance with the relevant
statutes of the University, the Post of Head of Department goes by
rotation amongst all the Professors. It is, however, submitted that
in so far as the other Universities are concerned, such is not the
requirement and, therefore, the provision in the said order, which
requires that a candidate must have 5 years of administrative
experience is discriminatory in nature and, therefore, liable to be
quashed and set aside.
8] Shri Jadhavar further submits that on comparative
assessment with the 5 persons named in para. 7, as stated
hereinabove, it would reveal that the petitioners are much more
qualified and entitled to be considered for the post of Vice
Chancellor, than the aforesaid 5 persons.
9] The learned counsel submits that since the petitioners
are not challenging the invitation issued to the aforesaid 5 persons,
it is not necessary to join them as party respondents in the present
petitions. The learned counsel further submits that the limited relief
claimed in the petitions, is an opportunity to present themselves
before the Committee, so that the Committee can judge their
suitability for the post of Vice Chancellor.
10] The learned Advocate General, on the contrary submits
that the Search Committee which is appointed as per the provisions
of the Maharashtra Universities Act ( hereinafter referred to as " the
said Act" for short), consists of eminent persons, and is chaired by a
retired Judge of the Supreme Court. He submits that the other 2
persons in the Committee are Principal Secretary of the Higher
Education Department of the State of Maharashtra and a person not
below the rank of Director of Head of an Institute or organization of
national repute, nominated by the Management Council and the
Academic Council. The learned Advocate General submits that in
view of the provision of sub-section (3A) of Section 12, as amended
by the 2009 amendment, the Screening Committee is required to
recommend a candidate, taking into consideration the various
factors as stated in the said provision.
11] The learned Advocate General submits that the
Screening Committee, upon appreciation of the material placed
before it, has decided to shortlist 34 person out of 100. It is
submitted that such a shortlisting has been done on the basis of the
material placed before it, considering the eligibility and suitability of
the candidates. It is submitted that upon the scrutiny of material
submitted by each of the candidates, it was found that the 34
candidates were more suitable to be shortlisted for the purpose of
presentation. The learned Advocate General further submits that
there are no allegations of malafides against the members of the
Committee. It is submitted that the discretion which has been
exercised by the Committee, has been exercised within the
parameters , as laid down by the statute, of which judicial scrutiny
would not be permissible in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12] The learned Advocate General further submits that, it is
not as if that the Committee has found the petitioners to be
unsuitable. It is submitted that the Committee was required to adopt
some criteria for shortlisting and by adopting the said criteria, it has
shortlisted 34 candidates. The learned Advocate General fairly
concedes that merely because the Committee has not short listed
the petitioners, does not reflect on the caliber and amount to casting
any aspersions regarding the suitability of the petitioners. It is
therefore, submitted that no interference would be warranted in the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The learned Advocate
General relies on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of
"Basvaiyah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others" reported in
(2010)8 SCC 372.
13] The procedure for appointment of Vice Chancellor has
undergone a change by way of amendment to the Maharashtra
Universities Act, 1949, by Maharashtra Act No. XIV of 2009. Section
12 of the said Act has been substantially amended. It will be
necessary to refer to the said provision, which reads thus :-
"In Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
"(a) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section
shall be substituted namely :-
"(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by
the Chancellor in the manner stated hereunder :-
(a) There shall be a Committee consisting of
the following members to recommend suitable
names to the Chancellor for appointment of Vice-
Chancellor, namely :-
(i) a member nominated by the Chancellor,
who shall be the retired Judge of the Supreme
Court or retired Chief Justice of a High Court or an
eminent scientist of national repute or a recipient
of Padma Award in the field of education;
(ii)the Principal Secretary of Higher and
Technical Education Department or any officer
not below the rank of Principal Secretary to
Government nominated by the State
Government;
(iii) the Director or Head of an institute or
organization of national repute, such as, Indian
Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of
Management, Indian Institute of Science, Indian
Space Research Organization or National
Research Laboratory, nominated by the
Management Council and the Academic Council,
jointly, in the manner specified by the State
ig Government by an order published in the Official
Gazette;
(b) The member nominated by the Chancellor
shall be the Chairman of the Committee;
(c) The members nominated shall be the
persons who are not connected with the
University or any college or any recognized
institution of the university;
(d) No meeting of the Committee shall be held
unless all the three members of the Committee
are present."
(b) for sub-section (3), the following sub-
section shall be substituted , namely :-
"(3) The Committee shall recommend of panel
of not less than five suitable persons of the
consideration of the Chancellor for being
appointed as the Vice-Chancellor. The names so
recommended shall be in alphabetical order
without any preference being indicated. The
report shall be accompanied by a detailed write
up on suitability of each person included in the
panel.
(3A) A person recommended by the Committee
for appointment as a Vice chancellor shall,
(a) be an eminent academician or an
administrator of high caliber;
(b) be able to provide leadership by his own
example;
(c) be able to provide vision and have ability to
translate the same into reality in the interest of
students and society ; and
(d) possess such educational qualifications and
experience as may be specified by the State
Government, by an order published in the Official
Gazette, in consultation with the Chancellor.
(3B) The eligibility conditions and the process
for recommendation of names for appointment as
Vice Chancellor shall be given wide publicity to
ensure the recommendation of most suitable
candidates."
14] It can thus be seen that for appointment of Vice
Chancellor, a Committee of 3 members, to recommend a panel of
suitable persons, is required to be constituted. A member
nominated by the Chancellor, who shall be a retired Judge of the
Supreme Court or retired Chief Justice of a High Court or an eminent
scientist of national repute or a recipient of Padma Award in the field
of education is required to be appointed as Chairman of the said
Committee. The other members of the Committee are required to
be the Principal Secretary of Higher and Technical Education
Department or any officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary
to Government nominated by the State Government; and the
Director or Head of an institute or organization of national repute,
such as, Indian Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of
Management, Indian Institute of Science, Indian Space Research
Organization or National Research Laboratory, nominated by the
Management Council and the Academic Council, jointly, in the
manner specified by the State Government by an order published in
the Official Gazette It is further required that all these members
are independent members, not connected with the University or any
college or any recognized institution of the University. Sub-section 3
of Section 12, requires the said Committee to recommend a panel of
not less 5 persons for consideration by the Chancellor.
15] For recommending a person for the post of Vice
Chancellor, the Committee is required to satisfy itself that the
candidates recommended possess the following qualifications :-
A) that, he is an eminent academician or
administrator with high caliber.
B) that, he is able to provide leadership by his own
example
C) that, he is able to provide a vision and an ability to
translate the same into reality in the interest of the
students and society.
D)
igthat, he possesses such educational qualification
and experience as may be specified by the State
Government by an order published in the official Gazette
in consultation with the Chancellor
Sub-section (3B) of Section 12 requires that the eligibility conditions
of the process for recommendation of the names for appointment of
Vice Chancellor shall be given wide publicity to ensure
recommendation of suitable candidates.
16] It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the requirement
of clause (d) of sub-section (3A), read with sub-section (3B) of
Section 12, the State of Maharashtra has published an order dated
26th May, 2009 in the official Gazette specifying the essential
qualifications and experience for the post of Vice Chancellor.
17] Clause (1) of the said order reads thus :-
" Whereas the Vice Chancellor of a University is
the Principal academic and executive officer of
the University and is responsible for development
of the academic programmes and general
administration of the University for ensuring
efficiency and good order of the University;
And whereas xxx.
igand whereas xxx
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (3A) of
Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,
1994, (Mah.XXXV of 1994) and of all other
powers enabling it in that, the Government of
Maharashtra, in consultation with the Chancellor,
hereby :-
specifies that the person being recommended by
the Committee shall possess the essential
qualifications and experience as set out in part
`A' of the Schedule appended hereto; and may
possess desirable experience, expected skill and
competencies as set out in Part `B" and Part `C'
respectively of the said schedule"
18] It can thus be seen that the said order provides that a
person who is recommended by the Committee is required to
possess the essential qualifications and experience , as stated in
Part A of the Schedule appended thereto. The desirable experience,
expected skill and competencies, as set out in part B and C in the
said order, as already stated hereinabove, are desirable and not
essential.
19] Part A of the Schedule to the said order deals with the
essential qualification and experience required for the post of Vice
Chancellor. It would, therefore, be necessary to refer to the said Part
A of the Schedule, which reads thus :-
"Essential Qualification and Experience :-
(1) Earned Doctorate in any discipline and
good academic record.
(2) Experience in the field of Higher Education
of at least 15 years in teaching and
research in a university/well established
institution of repute and/or at the
undergraduate and postgraduate level.
(3) Minimum of five research publications in
peer-reviewed/referred international
research journals after Ph.D. and/or
published quality books in a recognized
discipline, referenced for study in higher
education at the National/International
level.
(4) At least 5 years of administrative
experience in the field of Higher Education
not below the rank of Professor and Head of
the Department in a university/Principal (in
Professor's Grade) of a Senior College/Head
of a national/international institution of
Advanced Learning.
(5) Execution of at least one major research
project.
(6) Experience of working with international
bodies or international exposure through
participation in workshops, seminars, or
conferences held outside the country.
(7) Experience of organizing events such as
workshops, seminars, conference at an
ig international level within the country in the
field of higher education.
(8) Demonstrated experience in leadership."
20] Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of the
respondents that in view of Clause 4 of Part D of the Schedule, a
wide discretion is vested with the Committee to relax any of the
conditions, in case of a suitable candidate, it will not be necessary
for us to go into that question since a categorical statement is made
by the learned Advocate General that the Committee has not
relaxed any of the essential qualifications and experience, as
provided in part A of the Schedule.
21] It is not in dispute that in so far as Dr. Kulkarni is
concerned, he only possess 2 years administrative experience, as
required under clause (4) of part A of the schedule. It is contended
on behalf of the petitioners that, in so far as Dr. Khillare is
concerned, his experience as Head of the Department alongwith
experience as Director of Students Welfare is required to be taken
into consideration while determining his eligibility as per clause (4)
of Part A.
22] We are afraid, as to whether the same would be
permissible. Clause (4) of Part A, specifically provides that 5 years
experience has to be in the field of Higher Education, not below the
rank of Professor and Head of the department in a
University/Principal in Professor's Grade of a senior college/Head of a
national/international institution of Advanced Learning. The
contention of the petitioners that the experience of Professor Khillare
as Director of Students Welfare is also required to be taken into
consideration so as to comply the requirement of clause (4), if
accepted, in our view, the same would amount to re-writing the
essential qualifications provided in clause (4). In our view, it will not
be permissible for us to do so.
24] The next contention of the petitioners, which is required
to be considered by us is that, since it is only the Babasehab
Ambedkar Marathwada University, which requires that the post of
Head of the Department has to be occupied by rotation and that the
same is not provided in the other Universities and hence, the said
condition is liable to be quashed and set aside. Admittedly, these 2
petitioners have responded to the advertisement knowing very well
the essential qualifications as prescribed under the said order. It is
only after the said petitioners have not been short listed for the
purpose of presentation, they are now seeking to challenge the said
condition as discriminatory and unconstitutional.
.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
" K.A. Nagmani Vs. Indian Airlines_" reported in (2009) 5 SCC
515, a candidate having participated in the selection process cannot
be permitted to turn back and thereafter say that some of the
conditions of eligibility are not sustainable in law. In that view of the
matter, the contention in that respect deserves to be rejected.
25] In so far as Dr. Bhise is concerned the learned Advocate
General states that the Committee has considered that Clause (1) of
the Essential Qualification requires that the candidate must have a
Doctorate in any discipline and good economic record. It is stated
that the Committee has found that though he possesses the
Doctorate, the academic record of the said candidate is not good,
inasmuch as, the marks which he has secured at the graduation
level, were not of a suitable standard. He submits that the
Committee , on the basis of a reasonable criteria, has also found the
said Dr. Bhise to be ineligible. We , therefore, find that the ground
on which the Committee has not found Dr. Bhise eligible for short-
listing cannot be said to be irrational.
26] Now, that leads us to the next question, as to whether
the persons who have been invited for presentation by the
Committee( those who are named in para.7 of the petition), were
eligible and suitable for shortlisting or not.
27] It is not in dispute that the petitioners though having
sufficient opportunity, have chosen not to implead those persons as
party respondents, since the petitioners contend that they are not
against the invitation to those persons for the purpose of
presentation, we are not inclined to non suit the petitioners only on
that ground. We have, therefore, made a pertinent query to the
learned Advocate General, as to whether any relaxation has been
given to those persons, in so far as the essential qualifications as
mentioned in Part A of Schedule is concerned. A categorical
statement has been made by the learned Advocate General that
none of the essential conditions, as prescribed under Part A has
been relaxed by the Committee in so far as those 5 persons, who
have been invited by the committee for presentation, are concerned.
28] While examining the proceeding of the Search
Committee, our jurisdiction would be very limited. We cannot be
expected to sit in an appeal over the decision of the Search
Committee and that too, consisting of eminent and independent
persons. It is a settled principle of law that while invoking the
jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative action, we can only
examine the decision making process and not the decision.
. The Apex Court in the case of "Tata Cellular Vs. Union
of India" reported in (1994)6 SCC 651.has observed in para.77 as
under :-
"The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question
of legality. Its concern should be :
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its
powers?
2. Committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal
would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a
particular policy or particular decision taken in the
fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with
the manner in which those decisions have been taken.
The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to
case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an
administrative action is subject to control by judicial
review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality : This means the decision- maker must
understand correctly the law that regulates his
decision-making power and must give effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesday unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it does not
rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As
a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department, ex Brind28, Lord Diplock refers specifically
to one development, namely, the possible recognition
of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the
test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider
whether something has gone wrong of a nature and
igdegree which requires its intervention".
29] It can thus be seen that it will only be permissible for us
to scrutinize the decision making process of the Committee if we find
that the proceedings of the Committee suffers from illegality and for
that, the petitioner would be required to prove that the decision
maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his
decision making power and he is not able to give effect to it.
The second ground available would be as to whether the
decision making process can be faulted by applying the principle of
Wednesbury's reasonableness. The third ground on which we can
interfere is of procedural impropriety.
30] As already discussed hereinabove we have ourselves
found that 2 of the petitioners do not answer the requirement of
clause (4) of Part A of Schedule to the said Order. In so far as the
third petitioner, viz. Dr. Bhise is concerned, his academic record has
been found not up to the mark by the Committee and for that the
Committee has also given a reason as to why it has found so. As
already discussed hereinabove, we cannot sit in appeal over the
decision of the Committee. It would be permissible for us to
interfere, only if, it is found that while arriving at a decision the
Committee has taken irrelevant factors into consideration or not
considered the relevant factors, thereby vitiating the decision
making process, on the ground of irrationality.
As pointed out hereinabove, a specific statement has
been made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the
Committee that the Committee has found that all the 5 persons,
named in para.7, answer the requirement of Part A. As already
stated hereinabove, the said persons are not party respondent to the
present petition.
In view of the specific statement made by the learned
Advocate General that the Committee has found that all those 5
persons possess the essential qualification as provided in part A of
the schedule and none of the essential conditions has been relaxed,
we find that the contentions raised in that behalf also need to be
rejected.
31] The Apex Court in identical fact situation, in the matter
of Basvaiah (supra) has observed on para.20 and 21, as under :-
"20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the
University that the Expert Committee had carefully
examined and scrutinized the qualification, experience
and published work of the appellants before selecting
them for the posts of Readers in Serology. In our
considered opinion, the Division Bench was not justified
in sitting in appeal over the unanimous
recommendations of the Expert Committee consisting of
five experts. The Expert Committee had in fact
scrutinized the merits and de-merits of each candidate
including qualification and the equivalent published work
and its recommendations were sent to the University for
appointment which were accepted by the University.
"21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have
to show deference and consideration to the
recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of
distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case,
experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and
published work of the appellants and thereafter
recommendations for their appointments were made.
The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have
sat as an appellate court on the recommendations
made by the country's leading experts in the field of
Sericulture. (Emphasis supplied)
34] In the present case as well, as in the case of Basvaiah
(supra), the Search Committee has scrutinized the merits and
demerits of each of the candidates, including their qualifications.
The Expert Committee consists of distinguished experts, who are
persons of eminence and are independent persons. No allegations
of malafides have been made against any of the members of the
Committee that the criteria of short listing adopted by the
Committee was done in order to either suit someone or non-suit the
petitioners. In the absence of those allegations, we cannot be
expected to sit in an appeal over the decision of the Search
Committee consisting of eminent and distinguished Experts.
35] The Apex Court, in the aforesaid decision, after
considering all the judgments on the point has observed in para. 38
, thus :-
"We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate
and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic
matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly
when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts
constituting the selection committee. It would normally
be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave
the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a
matter of principle, the courts should never make an
endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the
experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its
constraints and limitations in academic
matters." [ Emphasis supplied]
36] In the absence of any allegation attributing malafides to
any of the members of the Committee and in view of the fact that
two petitioners out of three, do not answer the requisite qualification
in Clause (4) of part A of the Schedule of the said order and that the
challenge of the petitioners about discrimination having been found
to be without substance and so far as the third petitioner is
concerned, since his academic record was found to be not up to the
mark by the Committee and in view of the specific statement made
by the learned Advocate General that the Committee has not
relaxed any of the essential qualification in case of those 5 persons
who have been invited by the Committee, and not finding any
irrationality or unreasonableness in the decision making process of
the Committee, we are not inclined to interfere in our extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitions, therefore, must fail and as such are dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
[A.A. SAYED,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.]
grt/-
