Nilabja Sikdar vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3374 Cal

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                Appellate Side


Present :-
The Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya


                              WPA 11498 of 2020

                                   Nilabja Sikdar
                                          vs
                                 Union of India & Ors.

For the petitioner                    :        Mr. Reetobroto K. Mitra, Adv.
                                               Mr. Priyankar Saha, Adv.
                                               Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv.



For the ISI                           :        Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Ld. DSG.
                                               Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Adv.
                                               Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
                                               Mr. Sunil Gupta, Adv.


Last Heard on                         :        10.05.2023.

Delivered on                          :        12.05.2023.


Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner is presently doing his Fellowship in the Human Genetics

Unit of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) from 2.8.2013. The Fellowship is for

5 years. The Fellowship, namely, the Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship was

instituted by the Department of Biotechnology for Indian nationals working

overseas who are interested in scientific research positions in India. The tenure

of the petitioner as Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellow was extended for a further

period of 2 years from 1.8.2018.

2. The present writ petition was filed on 22.12.2020 for a mandamus on the

respondent no. 4, the Indian Statistical Institute, to call the petitioner for an

interview in terms of the petitioner's application dated 13.9.2018 in response to

an advertisement published by the ISI for the post of Associate Professor. The

advertisement was published on 14.6.2018. The petitioner also seeks to be

absorbed in the post of Associate Professor after emerging successful in the

interview.

3. The instant proceeding saw a contempt being filed by the petitioner on

the basis of the stand taken by ISI at the initial stage of the writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties subsequently however settled for

hearing of the writ petition. The contempt proceedings are hence not being

referred to in detail in the judgment since the Court proposes to deal with the

issues raised by the petitioner and ISI on the petitioner's absorption to the post

advertised by ISI on 14.6.2018.

4. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the action on

the part of ISI in failing to consider the petitioner for the post advertised is

arbitrary and bereft of credible reasons. Counsel submits that the petitioner

was kept in the dark as to the status of his application dated 13.9.2018 for the

post of Associate Professor in Biological Sciences Division in ISI. It is submitted

that the only unambiguous point taken in the affidavit-in-opposition of ISI is

that the petitioner was considered for the posts of Assistant Professor as well

as Associate Professor but since the petitioner was over-aged for the former,

the petitioner's candidature was evaluated only for the latter i.e. Associate

Professor. Counsel submits that the petitioner was 43 years when he applied

for the posts in 2018 but has since crossed the age limit for both the posts.

Counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to be selected for the post of

Associate Professor in the Biological Sciences Division as per the advertisement

published by ISI.

5. The learned DSG appearing for the ISI places the documents in relation

to the selection process of the Institute and submits that there has been no

arbitrariness therein and the petitioner was not selected since the petitioner's

candidature was not found to be suitable for the post of Associate Professor.

Counsel places the Procedure for Faculty Recruitment of ISI where the

Divisional Screening Committee - Recruitment (DSC-R) is in charge of

evaluation of the candidates for the post advertised by ISI. Counsel submits

that the petitioner was undergoing the Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowship

under the Department of Bio-Technology (DBT) which was the funding agency

and ISI was the host institute which provided the petitioner with

infrastructural support. Counsel submits that the petitioner cannot claim any

right as a Ramalingaswami Fellow for appointment to a faculty position in ISI.

6. The Indian Statistical Institute was declared to be an "Institution of

National Importance" by The Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959. Section 3 of

the Act declares that the object of ISI was to make it an institution of national

importance while section 4 grants exclusive power to the Institute to hold

examinations and grant degrees and diplomas in statistics, mathematics,

quantitative economics, computer science and other subjects related to

statistics as may be determined by the Institute notwithstanding the University

Grants Commission Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force.

Therefore, the respondent no. 4 ISI is empowered by the statute to hold

examinations, assess and evaluate the applications of the candidates for a

faculty position in the Institute.

7. There is little doubt that ISI can frame and formulate criteria for

evaluation of candidates for an advertised position and select candidates in

accordance with the evaluation procedure for the concerned post. The question

is whether the rejection of the petitioner breaches the benchmark of

reasonableness and transparency which is to be expected of a statutory body

and would consequently call for interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

8. The undisputed facts which are relevant to answer the above question

are that the petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor in Biological

Sciences in response to an advertisement published by ISI on 14.6.2018. The

petitioner's application on 13.9.2018 was accompanied with relevant

documents as required under the advertisement. The petitioner filed a writ

petition on 22.12.2020 as the petitioner was not informed of the outcome of the

application. The petitioner sought for a direction on ISI for calling the petitioner

for an interview and thereafter to absorb the petitioner for the post applied for

(Associate Professor in Biological Sciences Division). The affidavit-in-

opposition of ISI and the material referred to show that the petitioner's

application contained several gaps in the form of non-furnishing of required

documentation. For instance, the petitioner did not mention the intended post

for which the application was made and also failed to mail the single PDF file to

the Director and Professor in-charge of the Division.

9. The petitioner also did not submit a reference letter. The petitioner's

application was however considered despite the technical errors, for both the

posts of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor and scrutinized in

accordance with the recruitment rules of ISI. Since the petitioner had crossed

the age limit for the post of Assistant Professor - being 44 years of age as on

the date of the advertisement - the petitioner's candidature was accordingly

evaluated for the post of Associate Professor.

10. The evaluation was made by the Divisional Screening Committee-

Recruitment (DSC-R). The DSC-R duly evaluated the petitioner's research

publication profile, teaching experience in the relevant level, proposed research

and teaching plan. The evaluation was subsequently ratified by the Selection

Committee of ISI. The petitioner's candidature was not considered to be

suitable for the post of Associate Professor. No recruitment was however made

by ISI since none of the candidates was found suitable for the advertised post.

11. There is no evidence on record to show that ISI or the DSC-R of ISI

conducted the evaluation in a manner which would call for judicial

interference. In any event, ISI, which is an Institute of national importance and

is not fettered by the UGC Act or by any other law entities, is to make an

independent evaluation of the suitability of a candidate for an advertised post

in ISI.

12. The law is well settled that a Writ Court will not interfere in a selection

process for an examination or for a position and substitute its own opinion for

that of the statutory authority unless a case of arbitrariness, irrationality and

procedural impropriety as well as bias and mala fides is conclusively made out

by an aspirant. Reference in this context may be made to Nelima Misra vs.

Harinder Kaur Paintal; (1990) 2 SCC 746, M.V Thimmaiah vs. Union Public

Service Commission; (2008) 2 SCC 119. In Madras Institute of Development

Studies vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan; (2016) 1 SCC 454, the Supreme Court

reiterated that the decision of the academic authorities on the suitability of a

candidate to be appointed as associate professor in a research institute cannot

normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction and the

appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification or

experience. In Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. The Dean, B.J. Medical College; (1992)

2 SCC 220 the Supreme Court cautioned that courts must be very slow in

passing orders in matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational

authorities except where the interest of justice so mandates.

13. The fact that the petitioner was a Ramalingaswami Fellow under the

Department of Biotechnology cannot improve the case sought to be made out

by the petitioner. ISI is merely the host institute providing infrastructural

support under the Fellowship to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot

claim that any right as such has accrued to the petitioner for being appointed

to a faculty position in ISI. The petitioner also cannot claim to be holding a

current position of a scientist or otherwise in ISI.

14. Moreover, filing of the writ petition itself and the relief sought for is

against judicial precedents in the matter. The claim of the petitioner having the

requisite qualifications for the post cannot automatically translate to a right to

be appointed; that is entirely within the expert domain of the respondent

Institute. It is inconceivable that a candidate would approach a Writ Court for

a mandamus on an academic institution for calling the candidate for an

interview and thereafter to absorb the candidate in the advertised position after

succeeding in the interview.

15. The argument that the petitioner was within the age for the post of

Assistant Professor in 2018 does not assist the petitioner since the petitioner's

application for the post of Associate Professor was also evaluated by the Expert

Committee.

16. In view of the above reasons, this Court does not find any basis to

interfere with the evaluation process of ISI or to declare the same to be falling

short of the accepted standards of assessment of the suitability of the

candidates. The Court also does not have the constitutional mandate to issue a

mandamus on the ISI to select the petitioner for the advertised post. WPA

11498 of 2020 is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Any

interim orders granted earlier are accordingly vacated and merge with this

judgment. All other connected applications are disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon fulfillment of requisite formalities.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)