Gujarat High Court
Kaushal Arvindkumar Bhatt vs The Gujarat Technological ... on 31 March, 2023
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 547 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8631 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 547 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 583 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8631 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 583 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8631 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KAUSHAL ARVINDKUMAR BHATT
Versus
THE GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH THE
REGISTRAR
==========================================================
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 31/03/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
The Challenge in these two Letters Patent
Appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, is addressed to the same judgment and order
dated 25.03.2022 of learned Single Judge whereby the
Special Civil Application filed by petitioner-
respondent no.2 herein came to be allowed.
1.1 Learned Single Judge set aside the appointment
of original respondent no.2 as Associate Professor
(Management) with Gujarat Technological University.
He was directed to forthwith vacate the post in
question. The University was further directed to
consider the petitioner for the post on the ground
that she was the candidate who held the
qualifications prescribed for the post.
2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 547 of 2022 is
preferred by the original respondent no.2 whose
appointment was set aside, whereas the other Letters
Patent Appeal is by the Gujarat Technological
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
University, calling in question judgment and order of
learned Single Judge.
2.1 Since both the appeals arise from the very
judgment and order of learned Single Judge and
involve similar facts and identical issues, they were
heard together to be treated by this common judgment
and order.
3. Noticing the basic facts, the original
petitioner prayed in her petition to hold and declare
that respondent no.2-appellant of first captioned
Letters Patent Appeal, was ineligible for the post of
Associate Professor (Management). It was prayed to
set aside the appointment of respondent no.2 made on
06.11.2019. The petitioner prayed to direct the
respondent University to consider her case for
appointment to the post as per her selection pursuant
to the advertisement. For declaration that
respondent no.2 was ineligible, a writ of quo
warranto was prayed for. In respect of the second
limb of the prayer to direct the University to
consider the case of the petitioner, mandamus was
sought for.
3.1 The respondent Gujarat Technological University
published advertisement No. 20/19 along with other
advertisement for different posts, for recruitment to
the post of Associate Professor (Management) for
School of Management and Computer Application. Two
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
posts were advertised out of which one was for open
category, whereas the other was for Scheduled Tribe
category. The process of selection was comprised of
interview after scrutiny of application and
shortlisting of the candidates.
3.1.1 The petitioner stated that as she possessed
Ph.D degree in Management and fulfilled the other
required criteria, therefore applied for the post in
open category. Total 29 applications were received
for two posts. At the end of the scrutiny, the name
of the petitioner was mistakenly included in the list
of candidates not qualified for interview, which
error however came to be corrected upon submission of
the petitioner and she was called for interview which
was held on 22.10.2019.
3.1.2 The result of the selection process was
declared on 06.11.2019. Respondent no.2 was shown as
selected candidate in general category. The
petitioner's name figured in the wait-list.
3.2 The advertisement mentioned the eligibility
criteria for the post of Associate Professor
(Management), which was as under,
"(a) Ph.D degree in Management with first class
or equivalent at either Bachelor's or Master's
level in the relevant/appropriate branch or
equivalent branch. AND
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
(b) At least total 6 research publication in SCI
journals / UGC / AICTE approved list of
journals. AND
(c) Minimum of 8 years of experience in teaching
/research / industry. Out of which at least 2
years shall be post Ph.D experience.
(d) Possess the basic knowledge of Computer
application as prescribed by the Government of
Gujarat."
3.2.1 The appointment to the post of Associate
Professor is made by direct selection as well as by
way of promotion. The qualifications for the post
are governed by All India Council of Technical
Education (AICTE) Regulations, which are published
under Notification dated 01.03.2019. Regulation
5.2(c) provides for qualification of the post.
3.2.2 Section 5.2(c)(i) deals with direct
recruitment. The requirements are,
For Direct Recruitment
(a) Ph.D. degree in the relevant field and First
class or equivalent at either Bachelor's or
Master's level in the relevant branch and
(b) At least total 6 research publications in
SCI journals/ UGC/ AICTE approved list of
journals and
(c) Minimum of 8 years of experience in
teaching/ research industry out of which at
least 2 years shall be Post Ph.D. experience.
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
3.2.3 For promotional incumbents, it is
Regulation 5.2(c)(ii). It would be seen from the
above eligibility criteria mentioned in the
advertisement based on the AICTE Regulations that in
order to be eligible for the post of Associate
Professor by way of direct recruitment, the candidate
should have Ph.D degree in the relevant field.
3.3 It was the case of the petitioner in the
petition that it was learnt by her that the
qualifications held by respondent no.2 who was
selected was not in consonance with the eligibility
requirement. The petitioner stated that she
addressed letter to the Registrar of the University,
but did not receive any reply even after reminder was
sent. It was averred that the application under
Right to Information was made wherefrom, it became
known to the petitioner that respondent no.2 did his
Ph.D in Commerce. It was stated that when the
petitioner approached the AICTE with her grievance
that the selected candidate was not holding the Ph.D
in the relevant field, AICTE asked the University to
look into the issue.
3.4 The University addressed letter to the Deputy
Director, AICTE dated 20-21.01.2020 to explain that
the selected candidate held Ph.D in Commerce and that
as per the AICTE Notification dated 01.03.2019,
Commerce was the discipline of Management. It was
the stand of the University that respondent no.2 was
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
therefore eligible and was found suitable for the
post in question. It was stated that the selection
of the respondent no.2 was approved by the Board of
Governance of the University.
3.5 It is was the contention of the petitioner that
the respondent no.2 did not possess the requisite
educational qualification of Ph.D in Management and
that since he possessed Ph.D in Commerce, it was the
eligibility criteria recognised by the University
beyond the advertisement. It was the contention that
the consideration of the qualification of the
respondent no.2 of the Degree of Ph.D in Commerce was
contrary to Regulation and that the appointment was
required to be set aside. It was contended that as
respondent no.2 did not have the Ph.D in basic branch
of Management, he was liable to vacate the post. It
was prayed to issue the writ of quo warranto.
3.6 While allowing the petition, learned Single
Judge noticed Regulation 5.2(c) of the Notification
dated 01.03.2019, which provided for qualification of
Associate Professor to observe that in order to be
eligible to the post of Associate Professor by direct
recruitment, the incumbent should have Ph.D in
relevant field.
3.6.1 It is the view taken by the learned Single
Judge that in no circumstances, the Ph.D degree in
Commerce could be treated as equivalent to Ph.D in
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
Management and since the selected candidate,
respondent no.2, held the Ph.D in Commerce, he was
required to be treated as ineligible. The
observations and findings of learned Single Judge are
extracted herein,
"7.1 Reading the qualification makes it clear
that an incumbent should have a Ph.D degree in
Management and have a first class or equivalent
at either Bachelor's or Master's level in the
relevant/appropriate branch. In the present
case, the petitioner was a Ph.D in Management
whereas the respondent No.2 holds a Ph.D in
commerce. By no strecth of interpretation can a
Ph.D in Commerce be treated to be equivalent to
a Ph.D in Management, though the subjects may
overlap. This is because the primary requirement
for the post is a Ph.D in Management. The
petitioner is qualified and available and even
the first Scrutiny Committee opined that the
respondent No.2 was ineligible. No special
circumstances were brought out why a second
Scrutiny Committee opined otherwise.
3.6.2 Learned Single Judge proceeded thereafter to
emphasize that the incumbent to be selected must hold
Ph.D in Management. He observed that the opinion of
the expert was insignificant when one compares the
management versus commerce. In paragraph 7.4,
following was observed,
"Obviously therefore, the advertisement of the
GTU required that in order to be eligbile for
appointment for an Associate Professor by direct
recruitment an incumbent essentially and
primarily must hold a Ph.D in Management. The
argument therefore about the relevance of
Management versus Commerce in context of the
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
syllabi and the opinon of Dr.Kulkarni pales into
insignificance. The FAQ of the UGC also is in
context of equivalence of M.Com vs. MBA and the
UGC regulation therefore cannot be pressed into
service when there are special qualification
prescribed by the AICTE. It is in this context
that "relevant branch" has to be read. The
University and the council for the respondent
No.2 are distorting the Court into getting into
the arena of the question of relevance,
appropriateness and / or equivalence of the
course of Management vs. Commerce. The court
need not step into that controversy when the
primary consideration is whether an incumbent
needs the degree of Ph.D in Management for being
considered. Admittedly, the respondent NO.2 does
not hold a Ph.D in Management but a Ph.D in
commerce."
3.6.3 Learned Single Judge stated that the Court
could not be drawn into the arena of question of
appropriate and/or equivalence of the course of
management versus commerce. Accordingly and yet,
learned Single Judge allowed the petition by setting
aside the appointment of respondent no.2. It was
further directed to University to consider the
petitioner for appointment to the post holding that
she possessed the prescribed qualification.
3.7 While challenging the judgment and order of
learned Single Judge, Gujarat Technological
University in its Letters Patent Appeal submitted
that the qualification required for the candidate to
be posted by way of direct recruitment as Associate
Professor (Management) was "Ph.D Degree in Management
with first class or equivalent at either Bachelor's
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
or Master's level in the relevant/appropriate branch
or equivalent branch". It was the stand of the
University that candidate should possess Ph.D Degree
or equivalent branch. It was contended that commerce
is considered as equivalent branch as far as
recruitment to the Management Post is concerned.
4. The learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavaty
assisted by learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla for the
University submitted that the subjects of Commerce
were taught in Master of Business Management (MBA)
and subjects of Management were taught in M.Com. The
subjects of Commerce were considered to be
equivalent, it was stated. It was therefore the case
of the University that a candidate possessing Ph.D
degree in Commerce would be considered as equivalent
where Ph.D. degree in Management was required. It
was submitted that respondent no.2 had been
possessing Ph.D degree in Commerce and therefore, as
per the advertisement as well as the Regulations of
AICTE, Commerce could be considered as equivalent
branch, and the Ph.D degree in relevant field.
4.1 It was pointed out that respondent no.2 was
selected by the University after obtaining the
opinion of the subject expert Professor Shirish
Kulkarni, Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University.
It was also submitted that AICTE Regulations
stipulated that the procedure of considering the
equivalence of degrees shall be devised by the
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
affiliated university concerned. It was submitted
that the Board of Governors of Gujarat Technological
University passed Resolution on 28.03.2018 adopting
AICTE Rules for recruitment to academic and teaching
posts.
4.1.1 It was therefore submitted that holding of
Ph.D. degree by respondent no.2 was in relevant
branch only and learned Single Judge committed
serious error in substituting his view that
respondent no.2 possessed Ph.D in the branch not
acceptable as part of eligibility.
4.2 In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
University before the learned Single Judge, the stand
was taken on the above lines and submissions were
canvassed with elaboration before the Court that as
per Regulation 5.1(b), the minimum qualification for
direct recruitment on the post of Associate Professor
was "Ph.D. degree in the relevant field and First
Class or equivalent at either Bachelor's or Master's
level in the relevant branch".
4.2.1 The University, it was submitted, having
considered all relevant aspects, treated the Ph.D in
Commerce with the subject of management and commerce
to be equivalent. It was submitted that the Master's
degree in business administration was considered
equivalent with M.Com. for the post of Associate
Professor and the subjects of MBA and Commerce were
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
subjects in relevant field. It was on the same logic
that the relevant field was viewed and construed to
treat Ph.D. in commerce as equivalent acceptable
eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant
Professor.
4.3 Learned senior advocate for the University
however submitted that university was inclined to re-
advertise the post as may be advised. While this
submission and statement coming forth from the
University is noted, this Court dissuades itself from
expressing anything in said regard as the arguments
were canvassed on merits by the aggrieved parties.
Suffice it to say that the University is the master
of its own affairs.
4.4 Learned senior advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi
assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the
appellant-respondent no.2 submitted at the outset
that the post of Associate Professor (Management)
could not be said to be a public office to maintain a
writ of quo warranto. He then submitted that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the
requirement in the advertisement was Ph.D. in
management or equivalent branch. It was submitted
that the appointment to the post of Associate
Professor was to be governed by AICTE Regulations
which provided for Ph.D. degree in relevant field
along with other qualifications needed for the post
of Associate Professor. It was therefore submitted
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
that the candidate should have Ph.D. in relevant
field to be eligible to be appointed to the post.
4.4.1 It was submitted that it was not even the
case of the original petitioner that respondent no.2
was not eligible for being considered for the post of
Associate Professor (Management) as Ph.D. in Commerce
possessed by him could not be said to be relevant for
the purpose of appointment to the post by way of
direct selection. It was submitted that though
learned Single Judge observed that the qualification
mentioned in the advertisement has to be read in the
context of AICTE Notification, he failed to apply the
same to hold that the relevant field would not
include commerce.
4.4.2 It was submitted that commerce and
management were not only relevant fields but were
areas of interdisciplinary nature. It was submitted
that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that
Ph.D in Management was sine qua non for appointment
to the post was contrary to the Regulations framed by
AICTE was not liable to be sustained.
4.5 Learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the
original petitioner supported the judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge to submit that in
appointing original respondent no.2 who held the
qualification of Ph.D. in Commerce, to the post of
Associate Professor (Management), the University
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
crossed the prescription of eligibility. It was
submitted that the post in question was a public
office and was one of the authorities mentioned under
the University statutes. It was submitted that when
the qualification needed was Ph.D in relevant field,
relevant field had to be construed to be the field of
Management only, as rightly held by the learned
Single Judge. When the selectee possessed the degree
of Ph.D. in Commerce from the Saurastra University
from the faculty of commerce, he was wrongly treated
as eligible, he submitted.
4.5.1 Learned advocate for the original
petitioner-respondent no.2 herein further submitted
that the question was not of equivalent degree, but
it was of relevant filed and also as to whether the
selectee possessed the requisite qualification
itself. It was submitted that the advertisement was
clear in mentioning the required qualification. He
relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr.
Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur
University [(2001) 8 SCC 532]. For his submission
that the writ of quo warranto was maintainable, he
relied on the decision of Central Electricity Supply
Utility of Odisha vs. Dhabei Sahoo & Ors. [(2014)1
SCC 161] and the decision of this Court in Mukesh V.
Chavda vs. State of Gujarat[2013 (1) GLR 165].
4.5.2 It was next submitted by the learned
advocate for respondent no.2 that the first scrutiny
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
committee disqualified the selectee and thereafter,
another scrutiny committee was appointed. It was
submitted that the University sought opinion of the
expert Dr. Kulkarni who himself held Ph.D. in
Commerce and he was part of Selection Committee.
Pressed into service was the decision of the Supreme
Court in Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs.
Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767], in which it
was held that broad principle may be acceptable that
the academic issues must be left to be decided by the
expert body and the Court cannot act as an appellate
authority, but at the same time could not be said
that the unreasonable view of the expert body could
not be subjected to judicial review.
5. Having considered the compass and contours of
the controversy, it may be stated that what is prayed
for is the writ of quo warranto to unseat respondent
no.2 on the post of Associate Professor, Management.
The writ of quo warranto is a technical writ. The
quo warranto is issued when the holder of the office
which is of public nature lacks qualification
necessary for such post, when the appointee could be
said to have usurped the post.
5.1 It is trite principle reiterated in Central
Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha (supra) and
other decision that a writ of quo warranto can be
issued only where there is a violation of statutory
provisions.
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
5.1.1 In Central Electricity Utility of Odisha
(supra), the Supreme Court stated that the
jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing writ of quo
warranto is limited. Extracting the observations,
"From the aforesaid exposition of law it is
clear as noon day that the jurisdiction of the
High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto
is a limited one and can only be issued when the
person holding the public office lacks the
eligibility criteria or when the appointment is
contrary to the statutory rules.... The basic
purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer
jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see
that a public office is not held by usurper
without any legal authority."
(para 21)
5.1.2 In the University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda
Rao and Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491], the Apex Court quoted
Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edition, Vol.II,
p.145], which is relevant to consider,
As Halsbury has observed "An information in the
nature of a quo warranto took the place of the
obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against
a person who claimed or usurped an office,
'franchise, or liberty, to, inquire by what
authority he supported his claim, in order that
the right to the office or franchise might be
determined:"
Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding
affords a judicial remedy by which any person,
who holds an inde- pendent substantive public
office or franchise or liberty, is called upon
to show by what right he holds the said office,
franchise or liberty, so that his title to it
may be duly determined, and in case the finding
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
is that the holder of the office has no title,
he would be ousted from that office by judicial
order. In other words, the procedure of quo
warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control
the Executive from making appointments to public
office against law and to protect a citizen from
being deprived of public office to which he has
a right. These proceedings also tend to protect
the public from usurpers of public office, who
might be allowed to continue either with the
connivance of the Executive or by reason of its
apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a
person can effectively claim a writ of quo
Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 11, p.
145.warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that
the office in question is a public office and is
held by a usurper without legal authority, and
that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as to
whether the appointment of the alleged usurper
has been made in accordance with law or not.
(Para 7)
5.1.3 Thus, the essential conditions for issuing
writ of quo warranto are that it would lie against
holder of public office who lacks the qualification
to hold office and that his appointment is not in
accordance with law. An appointee who lacks statutory
qualification and thus has been usurper of office can
be removed from the post by issuing writ of quo
warranto. The appointment therefore manifestly
should be against law to unseat such apointee. It is
the apparent breach of statutory provisions, which
may have led the appointment, would attract the writ
of quo warranto.
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
5.1.4 Having noticed the principles underlying,
the writ of quo warranto, now adverting to the
factual matrix, in the present case it is in respect
of post of Associate Professor (Management) in the
respondent Gujarat Technological University that a
writ of quo warranto is prayed for declaring
respondent no.2 appointee as ineligible. The
ineligibility is advanced on the ground that
respondent no.2 did not hold Ph.D in the 'relevant
field'. The qualification prescribed in the
advertisement read with AICTE Regulations,
contemplated that candidates must inter alia hold
Ph.D degree in the 'relevant field'.
5.1.5 It was contended that since the post was of
Associate Professor (Management), the nomenclature
Management indicated that the candidate must possess
Ph.D degree in Management only and that the
Management only would be the relevant field. As per
the case of the petitioner, to be stated at the cost
of repetition that since the respondent hold the Ph.D
in Commerce, he was not eligible.
5.1.6 According to the respondent University, the
management course was part of commerce. The commerce
and management, it was that, with reference to the
syllabi attached with them were interdisciplinary
subjects and that commerce and management were
interactive. It is trite principle that eligibility
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
and suitability of qualification are the aspects
within the domain of the appointing authority.
5.1.7 The University considered it rightful to
treat the Ph.D. Degree in Management, Ph.D. Degree in
Commerce to be acceptable for Ph.D. in Management for
the purpose of the post in question. In other words,
the University treated the Ph.D. Degree in Commerce
to be equivalent to the requirement attached to the
post as eligibility. When the requirement postulated
the Ph.D. Degree in the 'relevant field', the
University took the view that the 'relevant field'
would encompass, in the facts and circumstances and
having regard to interactive subjects, the Management
as well as Commerce. The 'relevant field' was
construed by the University for its inclusive ambit
for the purpose of deciding eligibility.
5.1.8 The qualification accepted by the
University has the dimension of equivalence and it
was the decision in the expert academic field. The
University, obtained the expert advice of Dr.
Kulkarni before arriving at a decision that the Ph.D.
Commerce could be accepted as one satisfying the
eligibility criteria. The decision was ratified by
the Board of Governors of the University. Thus, the
decision on the point became an academic expert
decision. Such decision of the University has to be
accepted by the Court. It is trite that the Court
does not sit in appeal over the academic decisions.
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
5.1.9 Furthermore, when the issue travels in the
realm of equivalence, as observed and held by the
Supreme Court in Gurunanakdev University vs.
Sanjaykumar Katwal [(2009) 1 SCC 60], in Rajendra
Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University [AIR 1986 SC
1448] and in Basic Education Board, U.P. vs.
Upendrarai & Ors.[(2008) 3 SCC 432] that such
questions are in the domain of the University, which
is best fitted to decide having regard to the
courses, the syllabus etc. Such questions are the
academic considerations and policy decisions of their
own kind. The Court would not substitute the academic
wisdom, nor would impose its view on the spacious
ground that it is a better view.
5.2 In the University of Mysore (supra), a writ of
quo warranto was prayed for and the facts were
comparable. By seeking the writ, one Anniah Gowda
was called upon to show cause under what authority he
was holding the post of the Research Reader in the
Central College, Bangalore. Similar as done in this
case, also prayed for writ of mandamus for the
direction to calling upon the university to appoint
the petitioner as Research Reader. The ground was
the same, mainly that said Anniah Gowda did not held
the requisite qualification which was prescribed in
the advertisement.
5.2.1 In the University of Mysore (supra), the
advertisement prescribed these qualifications, (a) A
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
First or High Second Class Master's Degree of an
Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a
Foreign University in the subject concerned (b) A
Research Degree of a Doctorate Standard or published
work of a high Standard (c) Ordinarily, ten years
(not less than five years in any case) experience of
teaching post-graduate classes and guiding research
in the case of Professors and at least five years
experience of teaching degree classes and independent
research in the case of Readers (d) The knowledge of
regional language Kannada is considered as a
desirable qualification. Preference will be given to
candidates who have had experience in teaching and
organization of research and have also done advanced
research work.
5.2.2 The qualifications prescribed in above case
thus were that the applicant should possess a first
or high second class Masters degree of an Indian
University or an equivalent qualification of a
foreign university. It was contemplated that the
candidate should possess a first class masters degree
of an Indian university or high second class master's
degree of an Indian university or qualification of a
foreign university, which is equivalent to a first
class or a high second class Master's degree of an
Indian university.
5.2.3 The Supreme Court held that whether the
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
foreign degree is equivalent to high second class
masters degree of an indian university is a question
relating purely to an academic matter and courts
would naturally hesitate to express a definite
opinion, specially when the selection board of the
experts considered a particular foreign university
degree as so equivalent.
5.2.4 The Supreme Court observed thus,
"In our opinion, in coming to the conclusion
that appellant No. 2 did not satisfy the first
qualification, the High Court is plainly in
error. The judgment shows that the learned
Judges concentrated on the question as to
whether a candidate obtaining 50 per cent marks
could be said to have secured a high Second
Class Degree, and if the relevant question had
to be determined solely by reference to this
aspect of the matter, the conclusion of the High
Court would have been beyond reproach. But what
the High Court has failed to notice is the fact
that the first qualification consists of two
parts-the first part is: a high Second Class
Master's Degree of an Indian University, and the
second part is: its equivalent which is an
equivalent qualification of a foreign
University.
(para 12)
5.2.5 It was observed that High Court could not
have discarded the expert opinion,
The High Court does not appear to have
considered the question as to whether it would
be appropriate for the High Court to differ from
the opinion of the Board when it was quite
likely that the Board may have taken the view
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
that the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham
University which appellant No. 2 had obtained
was equivalent to a high Second Class Master's
Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of
the question pertains purely to an academic
matter and Courts would naturally hesitate to
express a definite opinion, particularly, when
it appears that the Board of experts was
satisfied that appellant No. 2 fulfilled the
first qualification. If only the attention of
the High court had been drawn to the equivalent
furnished in the first qualification, we have no
doubt that it would not have held that the Board
had acted capriciously in expressing the opinion
that appellant No. 2 satisfied all the
qualifications including the first
qualification.
(para 12)
5.2.6 It was further observed,
On reading the first qualification, the position
appears to be very simple; but unfortunately,
since the equivalent qualification specified by
cl. (a) was apparently not brought to the notice
of the High Court, it has failed to take that
aspect of the matter into account. On that
aspect of the matter, it may follow that the
Master's Degree of the Durham University secured
by appellant No. 2, would satisfy the first
qualification and even the second.
(para 12)
5.2.7 The Apex Court held,
Therefore, there is no doubt that the High Court
was in error in coming to the conclusion that
since appellant No. 2 could not be said to have
secured a high Second Class Master's Degree of
an Indian University, he did not satisfy the
first qualification. It is plain that Master's
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
Degree of the Durham University which appellant
No. 2 has obtained, can be and must have been
taken by the Board to be equivalent to a high
Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian
University, and that means the first
qualification is satisfied by appellant No. 2.
That being so, we must hold that the High Court
was in error in issuing a writ of quo warranto,
quashing the appointment of appellant No. 2.
(Para 12)
5.3 The Supreme Court proceeded to further observe
responding to the order of the High Court critizising
the report of the Board on the issue, stating that it
would be safe to leave the academic decisions on the
experts,
We are unable to see the point of criticism of
the High Court in such academic matters. Boards
of Appointments 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. There is no allegation
about mala fides against 38-2 S. C. India/64 the
experts who constituted the present Board; and
so, we think, 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 criticism made by
the High Court against the report made by the
Board seems to suggest that the High Court
thought that the Board was in the position of an
executive authority, issuing an executive fiat,
or was acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal,
deciding disputes re- ferred to it for its
decisions. In dealing with complaints made by
citizens in regard to appointments made by
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
academic bodies, like the Universities, such an
approach would not be reasonable or appropriate.
(Para 13)
5.4 It is highlighted that consideration which may
be germane for writ of certiorari are not relevant
for issuing writ of quo warranto, and then it was
observed further,
What the High Court should have considered is
whether the appointment made by the Chancellor
had contravened any statutory or binding rule or
ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court
should have shown due regard to the opinions
expressed by the Board & its recommendations on
which the Chancellor has acted. In this
connection, the High Court has failed to notice
one significant fact that when the Board
considered the claims of the respective
applicants, it examined them very carefully and
actually came to the conclusion that none of
them deserved to be appointed a Professor. These
recommendations made by the Board clearly show
that they considered the relevant factors
carefully and ultimately came to the conclusion
that appellant No. 2 should be recommended for
the post of Reader. Therefore, we are satisfied
that the criticism made by the High Court
against the Board and its deliberations is not
justified.
(Para 13)
5.5 It was stated denying the writ of quo warranto
that the writ of quo warranto is of technical nature,
which consideration was ignored by the High Court.
Certain conditions were required to be satisfied
before writ of such nature could be issued, it was
emphasised.
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
5.6 Noticeably, the requirement in the present case
contemplated that the candidate should possess Ph.D.
in the relevant field. In the view of the Unviersity
the relevant field would envelope Management and
Commerce both and that the Ph.D. in Commerce would be
a good qualification to be accepted for the post of
Associate Professor (Management). In Rajbir Singh
Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devilal University, Sirsa,
[(2008) 9 SCC 284], the question was appointment to
the post of Reader. The Supreme Court addressed the
concept of 'relevant subject', which was the
qualification prescribed. The appellant who
possessed M.A. and Ph.D. in political science was
selected to the post of Reader in public
administration. The appointment was held to be
valid.
5.6.1 Besides highlighting that the experts had
regarded political science and public administration
to be one discipline and asserting the primacy of
academic expert view, the Supreme Court applied the
Mimansa principles of interpretation. They are the
principles laid down by Jaimini around 5th Century BC
in its Sutras and subsequently explained by the
scholars. The Supreme Court explained that in
Mimansa, casus omissus is known as Adhyahara. The
Adhyahara principle permits to add words to a legal
text.
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
5.6.2 The Supreme Court stated that Mimansa
principles have an edge or the Maxwell's principles
inasmuch as the Maxwell does not go into the further
details and sub-categories. On the other hand, in
Mimansa system, general category of Adhyahara has
under it, several sub-categories such as Anusanga,
Anukarsa, Vakyashesha, etc. In holding that the
relevant subject for the post of Reader in public
institution would have valid intake of M.A and Ph.D.
in political science, the Supreme Court applied the
Anusanga principle, also known as elliptical
extension. It means that an expression occurring in
one clause is often meant also for a neighboring
clause.
5.6.3 The Mimansa principles highlighted by the
Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra), in
paragraphs 21 to 24 could be applied to the facts of
the present case also. The 'relevant subject' could
be inserted with Commerce as Anusanga to Management
to arrive at a conclusion, as done by the academic
experts of the University, that it could connote the
eligibility criteria as prescribed. Anusanga is one
where two seemingly different, could go together to
become substitute for each other, and stand together
rationally.
6. In any view, writ of quo warranto is not an
appeal over an academic decision. When more
particularly, the decision in the instant case
C/LPA/547/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/03/2023
treating the Ph.D. in Commerce to be in 'relevant
field' for the purpose of post of Associate Professor
(Management), cannot be said to be founded on any
irrational consideration.
6.1 In view of the reasons supplied as above, which
operate so as not to sustain the impugned judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge, any other
aspect including whether, the post in question was a
public office or not, and whether learned Single
Judge was justified in principle in directing the
consideration of the case of the petitioner to be
appointed on the post in question, simultaneously
while issuing the writ of quo warranto, are not
needed to be gone into.
7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the
judgment and order of learned Single Judge stands set
aside. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are allowed.
Civil Applications are disposed of as requiring
no orders in view of the decision in the appeals.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
