Gaya Charan Tripathi, Ram Kishore ... vs Union Of India And Ors.
1994 Latest Caselaw 304 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

(1) Rule D. B.-Since the issue involved is very short and we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we propose to dispose of both the writ petitions at this stage itself by this common judgment. The petitioners in these petitions challenge, she appointment of the third respondent viz., Dr. Kamla Kant Mishra as Director Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (for short the Sansthan, an autonomous organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860, fully financed by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), set up to propagate, develop and encourage Sanskrit learning and research by establishing taking over Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeths in various parts of the country and by associating with the institutions with similar objectives. As per the Rules of the Sansthan, the Director (Nideshak) is its Chief Executive Officer and is to be appointed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. He is responsible for the day to day management of the administrative academic and financial activities of the Sansthan. The petitioners claim that they were eligible to the post of Director but their candidature was ignored and the third respondent was selected despite the fact that he did not posses the essential teaching experience as preserved in the advertisement inviting applications for the said post. In Cwp No. 2198 of 1993 filed by Dr. Gaya Charan Tripathi, there are six respondents viz., the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education as respondent No.1, the Sansthan as respondent No. 2, Dr. Kamla Kant Mishra as respondent No. 3, Dr. K. N. Rao and Dr. S. Janaki as respondents 4 and 5 respectively and Dr. Ram Kishore Shukla as respondent No. 6, whereas in Cwp No. 2889193, filed by Dr. Ram Kishore Shukla only Union of India, the Sansthan and Dr. Kamla Kant Mishra are the three respondents.

(2) Respondent No. 1, the Ministry of Human Resource Development issued an advertisement in March 1992 (with which we are presently concerned) inviting applications for the post of Director The eligibility conditions, prescribed for the post, under the Head "Qualifications and Experience" are material and it is convenient to set them out at his stage. (3) Qualifications & Experience : Essential (a) A Masters Degree in Sanskrit or Acharya or equivalent degree. (b) Research Degree of Doctorate level or published work of equivalent standard. (c) Ten years of teaching experience as Professor Reader at a University or in a post-Graduate College. (d) Five years experience of Educational Administration. Not.-The eligibility conditions of (c) & (d) above are relaxable at the discretion of the Selection Committee in the case of otherwise deterring well qualified candidates. Desirable : (a) (i) Degree or Title in traditional system equivalent to Acharya for those possessing Master's Degree in Sanskrit or equivalent Degree; and (ii) Degree equivalent to M. A. (Sanskrit) for those holding an Acharya Degree or equivalent. (b) Post-Doctoral Research. (c) Original publication of high academic standard. (d) Experience of guiding research, scholars. (e) Experience in editing and manuscriptology. (f) Knowledge of English/Foreign Language(s). (g) Administrative experience of running either a traditional school or college or an institution of higher learning."

(3) The appointment was to be on a contractual basis for a period of five years or till the incumbent attained the age of 60 years whichever was earlier.

(4) On receipt of the applications, respondent No. I constituted a selection Committee consisting of a Chairman, one ordinary Member from the said Ministry, three expert Members and one Member Secretary. The Selection Committee after considering relevant merits of 16 candidates, who appeared before it for interview, recommended 'the following candidates, in order of preference, for the post of Director : 1. Dr. Kamla Kant Mishra respondent No. 5 (in both the writ petitions). 2. Dr. R. K. Shukla (respondent No. 6 in Cwp No. 2198/93 and petitioner in Cwp 2889193).

(5) It appears, the Government acceded the recommendations of the Election Committee and appointed Dr. Kamla Kant Mishra to the post of Director.

(6) In Cwp 2198193, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid recommendations of the Selection Committee, inter aha, on the grounds that: (1) the Selection Committee was not properly constituted inasmuch us Dr. K. N. Rao, who had acted as Chairman of the Selection Committee had neither any Degree in Sanskrit language nor had any association with the propagation, teaching, training or research in the filed of Sanskrit learning and Dr. S. Janaki having the Reader Scale at the fag end of her career was not competent enough to judge the suitability of the candidates of the professor Scale, (2), respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite 10 years teaching experience as Professor Reader at a University or in a Post Graduate College as also 5 years experience of educational administration. In support of his stand that respondent No. 3 did not have 5 years experience of educational administration, the petitioner points out that the said respondent was discharged from the post of Deputy Education Officer in the Ministry of Human Resource Development before completing his probation term of two years and reverted back to his parent institution, National Council of Educational Research and Training (in short the NCERT). The petitioner also challenges the selection of respondent No. 6, Dr. R. K.. Shukla on the ground that: (1) he has hardly any publication to his credit and (2) he has no knowledge of English language, one of the desirable qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. On these grounds the petitioner has prayed that selection of respondent No. 3 the post of respondent No. 3 to the post of Director be set aside with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to hold a fresh selection turn the said post.

(7) In Cwp No. 2889 of 1993, Dr. R. K. Shukla, who has been placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee, challenges the selection of respondent No. 3 on the ground that he does not possess the essential qualifications of 10 years leaching experience as Professor or Reader at a University or in a Post Graduate College and five years experience of educational D administration. It is also averred that respondent No. 3 was denied promotion of the text higher post of Professor in his parent institution, the Ncert, thrice because he was not considered fit for the said post. Besides, his discharge from the Post of Deputy Education Officer and his challenging the same in the Central Administrative Tribunal, but without success, is also highlighted. The petitioner prays that the empanelment of respondent No. 3 at SI. I be declared illegal with a direction to respondents I and 2 to appoint him to post of Director.

(8) The petitioners are resisted by respondents 1 and 3 who have filed their answers to the show cause notices. An affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 4, Mr. K. N. Rao, Chairman of the Selection Committee, wherein he states that respondent No. 3 did possess essential qualification, including 10 years teaching experience as a Professor or Reader as required by Clause 3(c) of the advertisement Mr. Rao further goes on to say that the Selection Committee may be deemed to have relaxed the said eligibility condition in view of emergence and outstanding merit of respondent No. 3 in terms of the note appended to sub-clause (c) and (d) of Clause 3 of the advertisement.

(9) In the answer tiled on behalf of respondent No. 1, while denying that the Selection Committee was properly constituted, it is pointed out that Mr. K. N. Rao who retired as Chief Controller of Accounts in the Indian Audia, was nominated as Chairman of the Selection Committee keeping in view his administrative and academic background. Similarly it is stated that Dr. S. Janaki was nominated as expert member keeping her academic background in view. It is stated that both the petitioners and respondent No. 3 fulfillled the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement hut a departmental inquiry as per she advice of the Central Vigilance Commission was pending against Dr. Gaya Charan Tripathi, petitioner in Cpw 2198193. As regards the teaching experience as Professor/Reader at a University or in a Post Graduate College of Dr. K. K. Mishra, the stand of respondent No. is that he has been working as a Reader in, Sanskrit for the last about 15 years in Ncert, which is a national level institute for educational research and development and in-service training of teachers and it also runs colleges leading to Graduate and Post Graduate degrees and following the University Grants Commission (UGC)'s recruitment norms for the post of Professor, which make a scholar with 10 years experience in research at University/ National level institute eligible for a Post of Professor's scale, he duly fulfillls the requirements of teaching experience. It is also stated that since Dr. K. K. Mishra fulfillled all the necessary qualifications, there was no question of granting any relaxation to him by the Selection Committee in terms of the note appended to sub-clause (c) and (d) of Clause 3 of the advertisement.

(10) The stand of respondent No. 3, Dr. K. K. Mishra. in hi.s answer is on similar lines as that of respondent No. 1. He also asserts that he possesses all the essential qualifications. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, who have more or less reiterated their respective stands taken in their petitions and answers to the show cause notice. The petitioners allege that since Dr. K. K. Mishra did not possess essential qualifications. recommendation of the Selection Committee for his selection *O the aforesaid post is illegal. Seeking to support the recommendations of the Selection Committee, it has been contended by Mr. Keshav Dayal and Mr. D. D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 3 respectively that Dr. Mishra was fully qualified for the post. While making a reference to the resolution dated 24 July 1961 of the Government of India. Ministry of Educational on the formation of Ncert and the Notification dated 19-9-1991. issued by the UGC. prescribing minimum qualifications for the posts of Professor, Reader etc.. Mr. Thakur has canvassed that Ncert is a national level institute, undertaking training programmes for Trained Graduate Teachers, Post Graduate Teachers etc. and it can, therefore, be treated as a Post Graduate College. His stand is that since Dr. Mishra has been working as Reader in the, Ncert for more than 10 years and otherwise qualified for the. post of Professor as per the norms prescribed by the Ugc in the aforesaid notification, Dr. Mishra fulfills the requisite essential qualifications of 10 years teaching experience in a Post Graduate College.

(11) But the main thrust of Mr. Thakur's arguments is that in the absence of any allegation of malafide or bias and the Selection Committee having taken a reasonable and liberal view in the matter of a A passive assessment of all the candidates who appeared before it. this Court, in judicial review, should not interfere with its recommendations in support be has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the University of Mysore and Anr. v. C. D. Govinda Rao and Anr.. .

(12) We are quite conscious of the fact that we are not sitting in an appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. It was for the Selection Committee to decide as an expert body as to which candidate fulfillled the eligibility qualifications and was fit for the post of Director. What we have to examine is whether 1) there has been any illegality or patent material irregularity either in the constitution of the Selection Committee or in the procedure adopted by the Committee vitiating the selection of respondent No. 3 for the post of Director or proved mala fids affecting his selection (See : Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Etc. v. B. S. Mahajan Etc. ).

(13) It is common ground that there are no recruitment rules for the post of Director nor are there any rules, statutory or otherwise governing the constitutional of the Selection Committee, in the absence where of it cannot be said that the constitution of the Selection Committee as illegal or improper. Though we are not satisfied with the allegation that Dr. K. N. Rao has no knowledge of the Sanskrit language but keeping in view the fact that duties of a Director are basically of administrative nature, the inclusion, of Dr. Rao, with vast administrative experience, in the Selection Committee could, not be said to be otherwise illegal in any way. Keeping in view the academic background of Dr. S. Janaki, no fault can be found with her inclusion in the Selection Committee. Similar is the position regarding the allegation, of violation of the procedure vitiating the selection process as none has been shown to exist.

(14) During the course of hearing we had called for the record of the proceedings of the Selection Committee. The file has been produced before us, which contains the minutes recorded, by the Committee on 16 October, 1992 after interview with the candidates and its recommendations also Along with a tabulated statement giving particulars of experience and special remarks in respect of each of the candidates with the following note : "Note :--Candidates at S. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 have been called for personal talk despite not fulfillling the experience of 10 years as Reader/Professor because :- (a) More than 10 years P. G. Teaching experience; (b) The fact that the experience qualification is relaxable at the discretion of the Selection Committee; and (c) The ambiguous statement by candidates in the biodata sent earlier in. the application in response to the advertisement."

(15) The said note, prepared by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education for placement before the Selection Committee and appended by the Committee with the minutes indicates that 12 out of 21 candidates called for the interview, including respondent No. 3, whose name appeared at Serial No. 7 of the statement, did not, strictly speaking, possess the requisite teaching experience of 10 years in a University or a Post Graduate College and further that this essential qualification was relaxable at the discretion of the Selection Committee. The minutes of the interviews recorded by the Selection Committee state that 16 candidates, whose names were given in the aforesaid tabulated statements, were interviewed and after holding personal talk with the .said candidates, the Committee made the impugned selection placing Dr. K.K. Mishra. respondent No. 3. at SI. No. 1 and Dr. Ram Kishore Shukla petitioner in Cwp No. 2889193, at SI. No. 2. This it did with the knowledge, as i( bad been made aware in the tabulated statement that respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite teaching experience but had been called for interview Along with some others similarly situated, keeping in view that the said essential qualification was relaxable at the discretion of the Selection Committee.

(16) The stand of respondent No. 1 and Dr. K. N. Rao, Chairman of the Selection Committee, taken in their respective answer's to the show cause notice is that respondent. No. 3 did possess all the requisite qualifications (which included 10 years of teaching' experience as Professor reader at a University or a Post-Graduate A College). In support it is stated in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that as per the Ugc norms, research experience in a national level institution like Ncert is equivalent to the Post Graduate teaching and in terms of notification dated 19 September 1991, issued by the Ugc, Respondent No. 3 is fully qualified for the post of a Professor and that while considering the cases of all the candidates, the Selection Committee kept these norms in view and found that the said respondent fulfillled the necessary qualification of teaching experience. This is seriously contested by the petitioners herein, who contend that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee to go into the question whether Ncert could be deemed to be a Post Graduate College, particularly when the petitioners did possess the requisite teaching experience. The contention raised appears to be plausible. However, the Selection Committee in its wisdom, in the totality of circumstances, found that Respondent No. 3 was fit to be appointed to the post of Director. It is not possible for us to decipher from the minutes of the Selection Committee as to what transpired at their meeting; whether there were deliberations on the point of teaching experience and/or on relaxation of the said condition. Though a mention about it by the Selection Committee was desirable to negate the possible impression of acting on dotted lines, the minutes are silent on it. As noted above, in the present case. the Committee was apprised that the aforesaid qualification was relaxable at their discretion. The fact that the Committee did select respondent No. 3 in the above circumstances is suggestive of the fact that either they considered respondent No. 3's working as a Reader in Sanskrit in the Ncert as fulfillling the requisite qualification of 10 years teaching experience in a Post Graduate College or relaxation of this condition was granted to him in exercise of their discretion. Be that as it may, a further probe in it is not called for in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in The Chancellor & Anr. etc. v. Dr. Bijavananda Kar & Ors., Jt 1993(6) Sc 473(3), holding that the question whether a candidate fulfills the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the concerned Selection Committees. which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection. The fact remains that the selection Committee did make the selection. There are no allegations of malafide or bias by the Committee, in the absence whereof the selection by them cannot be said to be illegal, or potency irregular.

(17) For the view we have taken, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether the Ncert could be considered as a Post Graduate College

(18) For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our writ jurisdiction to upset the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Director of the Sansthan on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.

(19) In the result both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.