Bombay High Court
Suresh Govindrao Borkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 December, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp619816.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6198 OF 2016
Dr.Suresh Govindrao Borkar,
age: 60 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Head of Department,
Plant Pathology,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
02 The Governor, Respondent No.2 deleted
The State of Maharashtra, vide Court's order
Rajbhavan, dated 26.08.2016.
Walkeshwar Road,
Malabar Hill,
Mumbai 400 035.
03 The Mahatma Phule Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Rahuri,
through its Registrar,
Rahuri,
Ahmednagar-413 722.
04 Dr.K.P.Viswanatha,
R/o The Mahatma Phule
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri,
Rahuri,
Ahmednagar-413 722. Respondents
Mr.P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.Vijay V. Deshmukh,
advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 deleted as per Court's order dated 26.08.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:10:49 :::
{2}
wp619816.odt
Mr.M.N.Navandar, advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.P.S.Dighe &
Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocates for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.
Reserved on : 04th August, 2017.
Pronounced on : 20th December, 2017.
JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 Petitioner is praying for issuance of writ, order or
direction in the nature of writ of quo warranto and is praying to
quash and set aside appointment of Respondent No.4 as the Vice
Chancellor of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri. The
petitioner is also praying for issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to issue appointment order appointing
him as Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Rahuri.
3 The petitioner is presently working as Head of the
Department with Respondent No.3-University and was one of the
candidates shortlisted during the process conducted for making
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of Respondent No.3-
University. There are 4 Agricultural Universities established in the
State and the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra is Chancellor of
these Universities by virtue of the powers vested under the
Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeets) Act,
1983. There were vacancies for the posts of Vice Chancellor in two
{3}
wp619816.odt
Universities i.e. Respondent No.3 - Mahatma Phule Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Rahuri and Dr.Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishii
Vidyapeeth, Dapoli. The Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra
appointed Search Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice
J.N.Patel (Retired) for recommending names of suitable candidates
for the post of Vice Chancellor of Dr.Balasaheb Sawant Konkan
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli. The Search Committee had invited
applications from suitable candidates vide notification dated
14.08.2015. The Search Committee received about 50 applications
in response to the notification/advertisement and during scrutiny
of documents, the Committee shortlisted names of 12 candidates
who were held to be eligible for personal interaction with the
Committee. The petitioner was also found to be eligible and was
called for interaction. It is contended that Respondent No.4,
though tendered an application, was not found suitable and was
adjudged as "ineligible" and thus was not called for personal
interaction by the Committee. The Committee recommended
names of 5 candidates including the petitioner. However, finally
the Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor appointed one Dr.Tapas
Bhattacharya as Vice Chancellor of Dr.Balasaheb Sawant Konkan
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli.
4 The Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor also formed a Search
Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr.R.A.Mashelkar for
recommending suitable names for being appointed to the post of
Vice Chancellor of Respondent No.3-Mahatma Phule Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Rahuri. A notification/advertisement was issued
calling applications from suitable candidates on 06.10.2015.
{4}
wp619816.odt
5 According to the petitioner, since he fulfills requisite
criteria, he was found eligible and his name was shortlisted by the
Committee. The petitioner contends that though Respondent No.4
was found ineligible during the process for selection of Vice
Chancellor of Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, he was found
eligible erroneously by the Committee under the Chairmanship of
Dr.R.A.Mashelkar. The Committee shortlisted 5 names and
forwarded the list to the Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor.
Respondent No.4, according to the petitioner, though does not
fulfill the eligibility criteria, has been appointed as Vice Chancellor
of Respondent No.3 - Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri
for a term of five years, by the Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor by an
order dated 28.12.2015. According to the petitioner, his name also
figured in the list of shortlisted candidates by the Committee under
the Chairmanship of Dr.R.A.Mashelkar, however, though he
possesses superior qualification and fulfills requisite norms for
appointment, he was not preferred and Respondent No.4 came to
be appointed.
6 Section 17 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities
(Krishi Vidyapeets) Act, 1983 lays down procedure for making
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of the Agricultural
University. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as under:
17 Vice-Chancellor :-
[(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
{5}
wp619816.odt
suitable names to the Chancellor for
appointment of Vice-Chancellor, namely :-
(i) a member nominated by the
Chancellor, who shall b 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 Director General, Indian Council
of Agricultural Research, New Delhi;
(iii) the Principal Secretary (Agriculture)
or Secretary (Agriculture), as the case may
be, in the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development an Fisheries
Department of the Government of
Maharashtra;
(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 recognized
institution of the University;
(d) No meeting of the Committee shall
be held unless all the three members of
the Committee are present:]
[(2) The process of preparing a panel shall
begin at least three months before the probable
date of occurrence of the vacancy of th Vice-
Chancellor and shall be completed within the
time limit fixed by the Chancellor. The
Chancellor however, may, extend such time if in
the exigency of the circumstances it is
necessary so to do, so however that the period
so extended shall not exceed three months in
{6}
wp619816.odt
the aggregate.]
(2A) The Committee shall recommend a panel
of not less than five suitable persons for the
consideration of the Chancellor for being
appointed as the Vice-Chancellor within a
period of two months from its constitution. 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.
(2B) The Chancellor may select one of the said
persons from such panel for the post of the
Vice-Chancellor and appoint the person to such
post. If the Chancellor does not approve any of
the person in the panel or if the person selected
by the Chancellor for the post of the Vice-
Chancellor is not willing to accept the office of
the Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor may require
the above mentioned Committee to prepare a
fresh panel.
(2C) A person for being 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
{7}
wp619816.odt
Gazette, in consultation with the
Chancellor.
(2D) 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.]
7 As has been laid down under Section 17, the Search
Committee, appointed for making recommendations of suitable
candidates for the post of Vice Chancellor, shall consists of a
Member nominated by the Chancellor, who shall be (i) 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; (ii) the Director General,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi; (iii) the
Principal Secretary (Agriculture) or Secretary (Agriculture), as the
case may be, in the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry Dairy
Development and Fisheries Department of the Government of
Maharashtra. The Member nominated by the Governor, shall be
the Chairman of the Committee.
8 As has been recorded above, Justice J.N.Patel (Retired)
was appointed as the Chairman of the Search Committee for
recommending names for the post of Vice Chancellor of
Dr.Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, whereas,
Dr.R.A.Mashelkar, who is an eminent Scientist, has been appointed
as Chairman of the Search Committee for making
recommendations of suitable candidates for the post of Vice
Chancellor of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri. So far as
Members of the Committees are concerned, Dr. Dinesh Kumar Jain
{8}
wp619816.odt
and S. Ayyappan were common Members in both the Committees.
9 It is the contention of the petitioner that two Members
of the Committee were common and Respondent No.4 was not
found eligible by the Search Committee for making
recommendations of the names of suitable candidates for the post
of Vice Chancellor of Dr.Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Dapoli. According to the petitioner, since Respondent
No.4 was not found to be eligible during the process which was
conducted simultaneously in respect of Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth,
he could not have been adjudged eligible and ought not to have
been appointed as Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Phule Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Rahuri. According to the petitioner, Respondent No.4
does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Rules.
10 The eligibility conditions and qualifications for
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor are prescribed under
the order issued in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (2C) of Section 17 of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Universities Act, 1983. Part "A" of the Schedule lays down
essential qualifications and experience. Part "B" prescribes
desirable experience and Part "C" prescribes expected skill and
competency. Same is as recorded below:
Schedule
PART 'A'
1) Earned Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in
Agriculture or related fields.
2) Experience of 20 years in teaching,
research and extension education in
{9}
wp619816.odt
Agriculture or related fields, out of which at
least 8 years should be in the rank of Professor
or equivalent.
3) At least five years of Administrative
experience, not below the rank of Head of the
Department or equivalent posts.
4) 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
National/International level.
5) Execution of at least one major research
project/sponsored multidisciplinary research
project.
6) Experience of working with international
bodies or international exposure through
participation in training programmes held
outside the country.
PART 'B'
1) Experience of working on the Statutory
Authorities of a University/ICAR.
2) Demonstrable Experience of handling
academic assessment and accreditation
procedure.
3) Experience to guide Ph.D. Students.
4) Experience in handling youth
development work such as organizing students
centric activities for their all-round
development.
{10}
wp619816.odt
5) Experience of organizing events such as
workshops, seminars, conferences at an
International level within the country in the
field of agriculture.
PART 'C'
1) Technical Skills - (a) Openness towards
technology and a deeps conviction regarding its
potential applications in a knowledge-based
settings;
b) Reasonable high level of comfort in the
use of technology;
2) Managerial Skills -
a) Ability to anticipate issues and problems
and prepare advance strategic plans.
b) Ability to generate resources and allocate
the same appropriately;
c) Capacity to work effectively under
pressure and manage work and resources
within tight deadlines;
d) Good understanding of financial
management including revenue generation,
planning and fiscal control;
3) Alignment with corporate objectives and
State as well as National level priorities -
a) Ability to identify the needs of the
communities in key sectors.
{11}
wp619816.odt
b) Deep understanding of the challenges
before the Nation and how higher education can
respond to developmental needs;
c) Demonstrable understanding of
curriculum development issues, especially
those relating to widening participation and
social inclusion.
4) Leadership skills -
a) Exceptional ability to motivate a divers
group of stakeholders;
b) Keen desire to further the mission and
goals of the organizations;
c) Ability to think strategically and
innovatively and maintain a broad perspective;
d) Ability to lead by personal example with
openness to new ideas and a consultative
approach in implementation of the same.
5) Interpersonal Communication and
Collaborative Skills-
a) Demonstrable success in developing and
executing National and International
Collaborative arrangements;
b) Ability to interact effectively and
pursasively with a strong knowledge base at
senior levels and in large forums as well as on a
one-to-one basis;
c) Evidence of being an active member of
professional bodies and association in pertinent
{12}
wp619816.odt
fields.
Notes: (1) The prescribed essential
qualifications are the minimum and the mere
possession of the same does not entitle
candidates to be called for Personal Interaction.
(2) The Search Committee reserves the right
to prescribe higher standards in essential
qualifications and experience while short listing
the candidates for Personal Interaction.
11 The petitioner contends that Respondent No.4 does not
fulfill eligibility criteria prescribed under clause (3) of Part A of the
Schedule. A candidate shall have at least five years' administrative
experience not below the rank of Head of the Department or
equivalent post. According to the petitioner, Respondent No.4 does
not possess five years' of administrative experience and the
concerned Respondent has misled the Committee by
demonstrating that he fulfills requisite criteria. The details of
administrative experience have been furnished by Respondent No.4
along with his application, which reads as below:
Details of administrative experience not below the rank of Head of the
Department (HOD) or equivalent posts.
Sr. Post Equivalent From To Total
No. Level Years and
Months
1 Director of Director 30.09.2015 Till date One month
Research
2 Director of Director 30.08.2012 30.08.2015 3 years
Extension
3 Principal Scientist Head of the Feb 2010 Aug.2012 2 years
(Chickpea) Scheme 6 months
4 University Head, University Feb. 2012 Aug 2012 7 months
{13}
wp619816.odt
Dept of Genetics & Head
Plants Breeding
5 Principal Scientist Zonal Head March FEb. 2010 11 months
(Chickpea) and 2009
Associate Director
of Research
6 Associate Director Zonal Head Aug 2008 Feb. 2009 6 months
of Research
7 Professor (Plant Head of the Sept 1998 Aug 2008 9 years
Breeding) & Scheme 11 months
Scheme head,
AICRP on Arid
Legumes
8 Associate Breeder Head of the Dec. 1995 Sept 1998 2 years
& Scheme head, Scheme 9 months
AICRP on Arid
Legumes
Total Experience 20 years
3 months
12 According to the petitioner, experience of Respondent
No.4 as a Director of Research, Director of Extension and
University Head, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, even
if considered to be admissible, it would be merely a three years'
and eight months, which falls short of requisite mandatory
requirement of five years' administrative experience. According to
the petitioner, the contention of Respondent No.4 that his
experience as a Head of the Scheme in the capacity of Principal
Scientist and Professor shall be construed as an administrative
experience, cannot be accepted. The petitioner contends that the
post held by Respondent No.4, at the relevant time, as Principal
Scientist (Chick Pea) or the post of Professor (Plant Breeding or
Associate Breeder and Scheme Head, AICRP), cannot be considered
to be equivalent post with Head of the Department. The petitioner
contends that the post of Principal Scientist (Chick Pea), which
{14}
wp619816.odt
Respondent No.4 held for the period of two years and six months
cannot be equated with the post of Head of the Department of the
University. The Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy
Development and Fisheries' Department, has published Statue i.e.
the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Act laying down
qualifications for the academic posts. The qualifications
prescribed for the Head of the Department are recorded in
Appendix-1 of the order. The petitioner contends that the post of
Professor is not equivalent to the post of Head of Department and
as such, experience of Respondent no. 4, as a Professor of plant
breeding for the period of nine years and eleven months, cannot be
construed as an administrative experience within the prescription
of Paragraph no. 3 Part A of the Schedule, framed for appointment
of Vice-Chancellors. According to the petitioner, the post of
Principal Scientist is not prescribed under the Statute and as
such, the experience of Respondent no. 4, as Principal Scientist,
cannot be equated with Head of the Scheme or the University Head
and the experience gained by Respondent no. 4 for a period of two
years and six months cannot be construed as an administrative
experience for the purposes of claiming eligibility. The petitioner,
thus, contends that since Respondent no. 4 does not fulfill basic
eligibility criteria, he ought not to have been considered for
appointment.
13 Respondent no. 4 has caused appearance in the
matter and contested the claim. It is contended that petitioner has
suppressed material facts and has annexed incorrect statement of
eminence prepared by him showing experience of Respondent no. 4
as three years and eight months only. According to Respondent
{15}
wp619816.odt
no. 4 there are many complaints against the petitioner and there
were certain departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against
him and petitioner has been held responsible for committing the
act of indiscipline and has also been penalised. According to
Respondent no.4, he fulfills the requisite criteria prescribed under
the relevant regulations. Respondent no. 4 was found to be most
suitable amongst five candidates, those were shortlisted by the
Committee. The Hon'ble Chancellor - Governor of Maharashtra
was pleased to appoint him to the post of Vice-Chancellor of
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri. The subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Committee need not be interfered in
exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. According to Respondent
no. 4, this is not a fit case for exercising writ jurisdiction.
Respondent no. 4 does not lack essential qualifications and as
such, there arises no question of issuance of writ of quo warranto.
14 That so far as experience of Respondent no. 4 as
Director of Research, Director of Extension and University Head, is
concerned, same can surely be considered as an administrative
experience. Petitioner contends that the Statutes framed by the
University laying down the qualifications do not provide for the
post of Principal Scientist or Head of the Scheme and as such,
experience of Respondent no. 4 as Head of the Scheme cannot be
construed as an administrative experience. The appointment of
Respondent no. 4 as Principal Scientist cannot be construed to be
an appointment on the post equivalent to Head of the Department
and as such, Respondent no. 4 does not fulfill criteria laid down
under clause (3), Part A of the Schedule. It must be noted that
merely because Statute framed by the University do not provide for
{16}
wp619816.odt
aforesaid post of Principal Scientist, it cannot be said that the
experience of Respondent no. 4 as Principal Scientist / Head of the
Scheme cannot be construed as administrative experience. The
specifications as regards responsibilities of the Principal Scientist
have not been recorded in writing and those have not been
produced before us.
15 Respondent no. 4 contends that as a Principal
Scientist since he was Head of the Scheme, he had to perform
administrative functions, same cannot be disregarded for the
reason that the Search Committee has accepted contention of
Respondent no. 4. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
Search Committee, which has conducted due enquiry and
examined documentary record and has interviewed the candidates,
cannot be disregarded while exercising writ jurisdiction. The
contention of the petitioner that merely because there is no
reference to the post of "Principal Scientist" in the Statute framed
by the University, cannot be a reason to hold that the post held by
Respondent no. 4 as Principal Scientist and his functions as Head
of the Scheme, cannot be equated with the Head of the
Department. Respondent no. 4 does possess academic
qualifications and fulfills all other requisites prescribed under the
regulations and thus, has been adjudged as qualified for the post
of Vice-Chancellor.
16 The contention of the petitioner that since Respondent
no. 4 was not adjudged as eligible during the process of selection
for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, he will have to be adjudged as ineligible
{17}
wp619816.odt
during the process, is not liable to be accepted. The scrutiny of the
decision of holding Respondent no. 4 ineligible during the selection
process for appointment of Vice-Chancellor for Konkan Krishi
Vidyapeeth, is not a matter of consideration in the instant matter.
It is not known as to why Respondent no. 4 has been adjudged as
ineligible. There are no reasons recorded for holding so by the
Search Committee headed by Justice J.N. Patel (Retired). The
correctness or otherwise of the said decision cannot be a matter of
consideration in this petition and merely because Respondent no.
4 was adjudged as ineligible in the said process will not lead to a
conclusion automatically that the said respondent is ineligible for
appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor. We have to examine
decision of the Search Committee on the basis of material placed
before us. The contention raised by the petitioner that Respondent
no. 4 is ineligible and lacks basic qualification for the post of Vice-
Chancellor, deserves to be rejected.
17 The petitioner relied upon decision of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Centre for PIL and Another Vs. Union of
India and another, reported in 2011(4) SCC 1. In paragraph 51, it
is recorded thus:
"51 The procedure of quo warranto confers
jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to
control executive action in the matter of making
appointments to public offices against the
relevant statutory provisions. Before a citizen
can claim a writ of quo warranto he must
satisfy the court inter alia that the office in
question is a public office and it is held by a
person without legal authority and that leads to
the inquiry as to whether the appointment of
the said person has been in accordance with
{18}
wp619816.odt
law or not. A writ of quo warranto is issued to
prevent a continued exercise of unlawful
authority."
18 While considering the aspect of judicial review vis-a-vis
appointment to the public post, it is recorded in the matter of
R.K.Jain Vs. Union of India, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 119, vide
para 73 that,
"... Judicial review is concerned with whether
the incumbent possessed requisite qualification
for appointment and the manner in which the
appointment came to be made or whether the
procedure adopted was fair, just and
reasonable. We reiterate that the Government
is not accountable to the courts for the choice
made but the Government is accountable to the
courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its
decisions when impugned under the judicial
review jurisdiction."
19 In the instant matter, applying aforesaid principle to
the instant matter, it must be recorded that there is nothing to
infer that the decision is unlawful or illegal. The choice of the
Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor for making appointment to the post
of Vice Chancellor, amongst the five shortlisted candidates, cannot
be a subject matter of review under writ jurisdiction.
20 In the matter of Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal
& another, reported in 2013 (1) SCC 501, it is reiterated that, "the
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writ of co-warranto is limited
to one which can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to the
statutory rules." In the instant matter, it cannot be said that the
{19}
wp619816.odt
appointment of Respondent No.4 is contrary to the statutory rules.
21 The petitioner has also invited our attention to the
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Food
Corporation of India and others Vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami,
reported in 2014(13) SC 211 and in para 10 of the judgment, it is
recorded thus:
"10 Once it is held that there has to be
formation of opinion and such an opinion is
assailable in a legal forum, we are of the view
that the said opinion has to be founded on
certain objective criteria. It must reflect some
reason. It can neither be capricious nor
fanciful but demonstrative of application of
mind. Therefore, it has to be in writing. It may
be on the file and may not be required to be
communicated to the employee but when it is
subject to assail and, eventually, subject to
judicial review, the competent authority of the
Corporation is required to satisfy the court that
the opinion was formed on certain parameters
indicating that there was no necessity to hold
an enquiry. Thus, the High Court has correctly
understood the principle stated in A. Prahalada
Rao and we do not find any fault with the same.
22 The petitioner contends, relying upon the aforesaid
judgment, that the Search Committee has not made
recommendations in consonance with Section 17 (2A) of the Act. It
is contended that as required under the provision, the report is not
accompanied by a detailed write up on suitability of each person
included in the panel. On perusal of the report of the Search
Committee, it does appear that the Committee has communicated
its opinion in the "Remarks" column, which was forwarded for
{20}
wp619816.odt
consideration of the Hon'ble Governor/Chancellor. The sufficiency
or otherwise of the reasons, for formation of a particular opinion,
would not be a matter of scrutiny by this Court.
23 The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment
delivered by the Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat
at Mumbai, in the matter of Vasant Ganu Patil Vs. The Chancellor,
University of Mumbai & others, (PIL No.92 of 2010, decided on
11.12.2014). The appointment of Vice Chancellor Dr.Rajan Welukar
was questioned in the aforesaid petition on the ground that the
selected candidate does not fulfill requirement of essential
qualification set out in Part A of the order dated 27.05.2009, issued
by the State Government. The eligibility condition refers to
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. While dealing with the issue, in
paragraph no.62, referring to the role of Search Committee, it is
observed by the Division Bench, thus:
"62 True, the Search Committee does
not discharge any adjudicatory functions and,
therefore, there may not be any statutory
requirement to record reasons for its decision.
However, this does not mean that their decision
should not be based on reason. The
circumstance that there is no statutory
requirement to record reason, does not confer
upon the Search Committee any immunity from
applications of mind to all relevant
considerations and exclude irrelevant
consideration. The fact that the Committee is
required to give a detailed write up is itself an
indication that there has to be some
{21}
wp619816.odt
contemporaneous material to indicate that
there was proper application of mind and
cogent reasons in support of decision arrived
at, particularly as the Search Committee was
entrusted with the function of examining
whether the candidates aspiring to be
appointed to a high ranking post in the
academic field fulfilled the minimum eligibility
criteria and further recommend the names of
the eminent academicians to the Chancellor for
being appointed as Vice-Chancellor."
24 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.4, placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of University
of Mysore Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao and another, reported in AIR
1965 SC 491, has contended that in academic matters, while
making appointment on the board of experts of the University for
selection of the candidates for the post of Readers, the Courts, in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, may not cause interference.
Reliance is placed on para 13 of the judgment, which reads thus:
Placitum (D)
".... Boards of Appointments to the post of
teacher 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. If there is no allegation about mala
fides against the experts who constituted the
Board, 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 Board is not in the
position of an executive authority, issuing an
executive fiat, nor does it act like a quasi
judicial tribunal deciding disputes referred to it
{22}
wp619816.odt
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. Tests which would legitimately be
applied in the case of writs of certiorari cannot
be applied. The question of manifest error is a
consideration which is more germane and
relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari.
What the High Court should consider is
whether the appointment made by the
Chancellor on the recommendation of the
Board had contravened any statutory or
binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the
High Court should show due regard to the
opinion expressed by the Board and its
recommendations on which the Chancellor has
acted."
25 Similar proposition has been laid down in the matter of
Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K. Santosh and others, reported in AIR
2013 SC 141. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that judicial
review of expert opinion, in the absence of allegation of bias, is
unwarranted. In the matter of Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal
University and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 669, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated the same proposition. The issue
before the Apex Court was in respect of appointment to the post of
Professor in the University requiring ten years' teaching and/or
research experience. While considering the issue, it is observed
that since reasons furnished by the Syndicate, as being obvious
basis of the experts opinion, the Chancellor ought not to have
interfered with the view of the experts.
26 In the instant matter also, view of the Search
Committee, which has been the basis for making appointment of
{23}
wp619816.odt
Respondent No.4 and the Members of the Search Committee, being
the Experts, their opinion shall not be lightly brushed aside and
also shall not be disregarded.
27 There are neither mala fides alleged nor it has been
contended that the action is vitiated on account of colourable
exercise of powers. There does not appear to be reasonable ground
for setting aside appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice
Chancellor of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri.
Respondent No.4 has been appointed some two years before and
has almost completed half of the term.
28 For the reasons recorded above, no interference is
called for in the writ petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed being
devoid of substance.
29 Rule discharged. No costs.
A.M.DHAVALE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp619816
