Dr. R.P. Tiwari vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 582 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. As this writ petition involves only a short legal question, the writ petition is taken up for disposal, with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ commanding the respondents to consider and accept the major research project proposals of the petitioner with the honorarium as per guide-lines of 9th plan scheme and to assign the Major Research Project to the petitioner without delay.

3. Petitioner claims to be a highly qualified and recognised scholar of English Language and literature being the former Principal and Head of Department of English of Raja Balwant Singh College (Post Graduate) Agra. Petitioner is stated to have attended a good number of academic conferences and a number of candidate complete the Ph.D. under his supervision. Petitions has to his credit a number of academic achievements.

4. petitioner is state to be a recipient of a project of UGC from July 1994 to 1997. Petitioner is state to have applied for financial assistance under the 9th Plan Scheme of the UGC. The proposal given by the petitioner in December 1998 after screening by the Screening Committee was liable to be put up before the Panel of Experts for recommendation by June, 1999 and project would have commenced thereafter. However, there was no response to it and finally he received letter and telegram dated 8.6.2000 calling upon him to appear on 19.6.2000 and make his presentation on the project. The petitioner submits that asking him thereafter to appear on 19th June. 2000 was a mere formality and eyewash. In fact the Expert Committee had already met on 17th and 18th of June, 2000.

5. The petitioner's proposal had got tagged along with the proposals of Urdu Academy and was not available for consideration on 17th and 18th June, 2000 when the selection for English Panel took place. petitioner states that when he reached there on 19th, the officer receiving him was very helpful and admitted that the proposal of the petitioner had been misplaced. Petitioner was assured that his proposal would be traced and placed before the panel in August/September, 2000. However, no such meeting of Experts took place. The petitioner was informed that panel of Experts will hold meeting on 8th and 9th of February, 2001. Petitioner was again required to appear on 8th and 9th February, 2001. On that date the petitioner's proposal could still not be traced for being placed before the panel of Experts and he was asked to supply a xerox copy. Petitioner was hardly given nay time to canvass his proposal.

6. The petitioner's basic grievance therefore is firstly the mixing up of his proposal with the Urdu Academy, its non-consideration and lastly promising it to consider the same without actually considering ti even on 8th and 9.2.2001.

7. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition seeking a mandamus for consideration and acceptance of a research project proposal with honorarium as per guide-lines of the 9th plan Scheme. It is submitted that there is no vested right to have proposal accepted. It is urged that Court would not interfere in a decision of academic experts.

8. On merits, the respondents submit that selections could not be made in 1999 due to unavoidable circumstances, therefore, the applications were kept for the year 2000. It is averred that he project received from the petitioner was titled "The Indian Freedom Movement.... Urdu Poetry". The proposal was placed before the Urdu panel on 19.6.2000 within the knowledge of petitioner. Upon the petitioner's insistence that it should be placed before the English panel of Experts, it was not possible to do so as the English Panel had already met on 17th and 18th June, 2000. However, petitioner's request for placing it before the English panel was accepted. The English panel of Experts Professor Alok Bhalla CIEFL and Professor Surabhi Banerjee Calcutta University considered the proposal of petitioner. The Expert Committee after hearing the petitioner and examining the proposal fount it to be ill defined and vague proposition. The petitioner was advised after the rejection to even modify the proposal.

9. In nutshell, the case of the respondents is that the proposal received due consideration from the Committee of experts, who unfortunately could not agree with the propose and rejected the same. The petitioner was also given the option of submitting a fresh proposal.

10. These are matters, which are best left to the experts. The judicial intervention in such matters has to be minimal. The petitioner has not been able to show any irrationality of aberration in the matter of the decision making process. Any academic scholar cannot as of right claim that the proposal submitted by him has to be accepted. These are matters which are to be assessed objectively and in the case of rejection dissatisfaction and disappointment will naturally result to he aspirant. However a case of belied expectation cannot be turned into the basis for seeking a writ of mandamus for acceptance of the proposal. The respondents have clarified that the project and proposal carrying the caption "The Indian Freedom movement-Urdu Poetry was put up before the Urdu Committee. However, as desired and insisted upon by the petitioner it was put up before the Committee of Experts in English and duly considered. The case does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.