Sushma Suri vs Jamia Millie Islamia And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 117 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bahri, J.

(1) This writ petition raised a challenge to the appointments of Respondents 5 to 7 on the posts of Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Jamia Millia Islamia, on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee and for direction to continue the petitioner in the said post of Lecturer in that college.

(2) It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Shri H.C.Ganguli and Prof.A.K.Sen were not competent to be members of the Selection Committee in view of Section 25 of the Jarmia Millia Islamia Act, 1988. We have perused the provisions of the said Section and find that the Selection Committee for making appointments to the post of Reader /Lecturer is to comprise of : (i) Head of the Department concerned; (ii) One Professor to be nominated by the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor); (iii) Two persons not in the service of the University, nominated by the Majlis-i-Muntazimah ( Executive Council) out of a panel of names recommended by the Majlis-i-Talimi (Academic Council) for their special knowledge of, or interest in, the subject with which the Reader/Lecturer will be concerned.

(3) The contention raised is that name of Shri Ganguli was not out of the panel of names recommended by the Academic Council for being selected as members of the Selection Committee and thus, it was totally .illegal to have co-opted Shri Ganguli as member of the Selection Committee.

(4) It has been disclosed in the counter- affidavit of Respondents 1 to 3 that Academic Council had made a panel of persons for the post of Professor which is higher post than the post of Reader/Lecturer and Shri Ganguli was named in that panel and he participated in the Selection Committee which met for selecting the candidates for the post of Professor and he, for convenience sake also on that date, was taken on the Selection Committee for the post of Reader/Lecturer. It is urged that if Shri Ganguli is capable and competent person to be in the Selection Committee for the higher post of Professor, he was obviously eminently suited for being member of the Selection Committee for the post of Reader/Lecturer. It is urged that the name of Shri Ganguli had been approved by the Academic Council for being brought on the panel, may be for the panel for the post of Professor and no prejudice has been caused , the candidates or to the petitioner if he has been also made member of the Selection Committee for the post of Reader/Lecturer. We find a lot of merit in this plea of the respondents. After all, the purpose of constituting the Selection Committee was that only unbiased persons be members of the Selection Committee and selection should be made from the names put on panel by the Academic Council. Shri Ganguli had been selected and put on panel by the Academic Council though for making selection for the post of Professor which was a higher post than the post of Reader/ Lecturer and if he had been also chosen to participate in the Selection Committee for Reader/Lecturer, it cannot be said that he had been brought in clandestinely or in violation of any rules.

(5) Another contention raised before us is that one Professor was to be nominated by the Vice- Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor has illegally nominated Prof.H.Y.Siddiqui. It is urged that such person should have been nominated who was concerned with the speciality for which the selection is being made and Professor who belongs to the Department of Social Work was not competent person to be put on the Selection Committee.

(6) It is urged on behalf of respondents 1-3 that Section 25 clearly gives complete discretion and power to the Vice-Chancellor to nominate any Professor. There are- no limitations fixed regarding the choice of the Professor to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. It is mentioned that the said Professor is an eminent academician from the Department of Social Work and no qualifications are prescribed for such a nominee of the ViceChancellor. So, there is no illegality committed in Vice-Chancellor nominating Prof. Siddiqui as member of the Selection Committee. We find that there is no merit in this plea of the petitioner that Prof.Siddiqui was not properly nominated as member of the Selection Committee. Section 25 does not put down any limitations on the power of the Vice-Chancellor to nominate any Professor. So, it cannot be said that by nominating Prof. Siddiqui the Vice-Chancellor has committed any illegality which could vitiate the constitution of the Selection Committee.

(7) It has been then urged that respondents 5 to 7, in fact, did not fulfill the requisite qualifications. In respect of Respondent No.5, it is mentioned that he had no specialization as was the mandatory requirement as mentioned in the advertisement with regard to the post in question. In the counter- affidavit it is mentioned that Respondent No.5 is N.E.T. qualified and Post Graduate Gold Medalist (66.2% in M.A. Psychology) from the University of Delhi and has a teaching experience in the specialized field of Psychometry. In view of this, it is not possible to hold that Respondent No.5 lacked in mandatory specialization as was required for this post.

(8) It is pleaded that Respondent No.6 could not have been called for interview a-s he became eligible only after the candidates had been short-listed for being interviewed by the Selection Committee. This averment is also controverted by the respondents. It is disclosed that in view of the University Grants Commission guidelines dated February 10, 1993, the candidates who had submitted their Ph.D. thesis up to 'December 31, 1993, were to be considered for appointment and Respondent No.6 had submitted his directorate thesis prior to December 31, 1993 and he had a brilliant academic record and thus, no rule or regulation has been breached in considering his candidature.. We find that there is no merit in this contention of the petitioner that Respondent No.6 has been illegally considered for the post in question when we find that he had achieved the requisite qualification prior to the meeting of the Selection Committee.

(9) Lastly, it was urged that Respondent No.7 was not possessing any good academic record as he had scored about 52.45 aggregate marks in his various degrees whereas only candidates having secured 55% of marks are normally considered. No rule or regulation has been referred to in support of this plea of the petitioner that candidate possessing only 55% or above marks are to be considered. Respondent No.7 had 63.25% marks at the Master's level and qualification prescribed is that candidates should have good academic record with atleast 55% marks or equivalent at Master's level. So, Respondent No.7 clearly met with the requirement of having more than 55% marks at Master's level. It is also to be emphasized that petitioner had also appeared before the Selection Committee but unfortunately the Selection Committee had not selected the petitioner for the said post. This court is not to examine the comparative merits of the candidates in order to decide whether the selection of Respondents 5 to 7 is valid. This job was to be left to the experts who were the members of the Selection Committee. We do not find any illegality or malafides in the selection. We, hence, find no merit in this petition and we dismiss the same but leave the parties to bear their own costs.