Madras High Court

Dr. G. Chandran vs The Registrar on 27 September, 2024

Author: A.D. Jagadish Chandira

Bench: A.D. Jagadish Chandira

                                                                                    W.A.(MD) No.1444 of 2018

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             RESERVED ON             : 22.07.2024

                                            PRONOUNCED ON : 27.09.2024

                                                          CORAM

                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
                                                             AND
                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

                                               W.A.(MD). No. 1444 of 2018


                    Dr. G. Chandran                                   ... Appellant / Petitioner

                                                             -vs-

                    1.        The Registrar,
                              Tamil University, Thanjavur.

                    2.        The Vice Chancellor,
                              Tamil University, Thanjavur.

                    3.        R. Kamarasu                             ... Respondents/ Respondents

                    Prayer:         Writ Appeal filed as against the order dated 05.07.2018 passed in
                    W.P.(MD). Nos. 3441 of 2018.


                                          For Appellant       ::     Mr. Sasikumar
                                          For RR 1 and 2      ::     Mr. M.K. Sachin Rahul

                                                             *****



                    1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.A.(MD) No.1444 of 2018



                                                      JUDGMENT

(made by K.Rajasekar,J.,)

This writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the

dismissal of writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.3441 of 2018, whereby, the relief

Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 herein from in any

manner filling up the vacancy to the post of Professor in Folklore, Department

of Folklore in respondent University, consequently directing the respondents

1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Professor in Folklore, was

rejected.

2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal, in brief are as follows:

The writ petitioner was working as Assistant Professor, Tamil

Department in Mannar Saraboji Government College, Thanjavur and obtained

qualifications in M.A. (Tamil), Diploma in Folklore, M.Phil. (Folklore), Ph.D.

(Folklore). As per the Notification advertised by the first respondent/ Tamil

University on 11.11.2017 in the Tamil Daily Newspaper 'Dhinathanthi',

applications were invited for filling up the vacancy to various posts including

the post of "Professor in Folklore Department". The qualification prescribed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

by the University is in accordance with the qualification prescribed by the

University Grants Commission Regulation (UGC Regulation hereafter). The

petitioner has also participated in the selection process and he has received

call letter dated 28.12.2017 to attend the interview scheduled to be held on

09.01.2018 at 12:00 PM at the respondent University. After attending the

interview, the petitioner has been under impression that he was having the

maximum qualification among the candidates, who had been called for the

interview and he would be considered for selection and appointment for the

post of Professor. But, the respondent University selected the third

respondent herein, who was not having sufficient qualification for the post,

hence the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking the relief as stated

earlier.

3. The writ petition was resisted by the University that proper

selection process was followed, all the applications were initially verified,

scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee and those, who had sufficient

qualification for the said post alone, were called for the interview. Pursuant to

the interview conducted by the Interview and Selection Committee, the

Selection Report of the Committee was placed before the Syndicate and the

Syndicate has also decided to appoint the third respondent herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. During the hearing, the learned Single Judge has called for the

relevant files of the Selection Committee in a sealed cover and the same was

produced before the Court. Since the Writ petition was filed before issuance

of appointment order, the Writ Court has passed an interim order dated

20.02.2018, injuncting finalisation of selection process. Further, the third

respondent herein was also impleaded in the writ petition as party.

5. The case of Respondent No.3 is that he is having the academic

qualification of B.(Lit.,), B.(Ed.,), M.A. (Tamil), possesses the qualification of

SLET, M.A. (Meiyiyal) and Ph.D. in Lexicography (Agarathiyal). He further

stated that he is not only having academic qualification but also other

qualifications as per the UGC norms. Based on the above qualifications, he

had applied for the post of Professor and he had also participated and

performed well in the interview conducted by the University.

6. After hearing the arguments of all parties, the learned Single

Judge has held that the qualification for the subject called Ph.D. in

Lexicography is equivalent to Ph.D. in Folklore. The learned Single Judge

also perused the entire Report on the Selection process produced by the

University and satisfied that the Scrutiny Committee has verified the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

credentials of the seventeen applicants, and out of the 17 applicants, only six

candidates were cleared for interview by the Scrutiny Committee, after taking

note of their marks/ points obtained by them and as per the Academic

Performance Indicator (API). Accordingly, all the six candidates were called

for the interview and out of six, five candidates appeared before the Selection

Committee. Based on the marks awarded by the Interview Committee and

also based on the API score obtained by each of the candidates, the Section

Committee gave report to the Syndicate that the third respondent was suitable

to the post and placed the writ petitioner in the waiting list.

7. Based on the Selection Committee Report, the Syndicate, after

conducting a meeting on 27.03.2018, has approved the recommendations of

the Selection Committee. Since, the Writ Court has passed an Interim Order

injuncting the University from publishing the results, the final results of

selection have not been published. In this regard, the learned Single Judge, in

his order dated 05.07.2018, has concluded in paragraph Nos. 45 and 46 as

follows:

"45. On perusal of the file produced by the respondent University consisting of the relevant documents pertaining to the Scrutiny Committee's decision, Selection Committee's decision and the Syndicate's decision of the respondent University, this Court is of the considered view that, no Rule or Regulations prescribing the qualification either under the UGC or in the Notification of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

respondent University, has been violated by any of the Authorities of the respondent University, while making the process of selection.

46. When that being the position, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the ground raised by the petitioner and the challenge made in this writ petition are liable to be rejected, as he has not made out a case for interference."

8. Thereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

Aggrieved over the dismissal of the writ petition, this Intra Court Appeal has

been filed.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant:

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant (writ petitioner)

submits that the selection to the post of Professor in Folklore in the

Department of Folklore was notified in violation of Clauses of the General

Instructions contained in the Notification issued by the first respondent

herein. Thereby the selection process was done in favour of the third

respondent herein, who is having qualification in other subject Ph.D. in

Lexicography, which is not equivalent to Ph.D. Folklore possessed by the

appellant. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to note

that the appellant has secured 100% teaching evaluation in the field subject,

secured 600 marks under API Score and also additionally possesses various

qualifications including research experience of 20 years. He has relied on the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of

2006 dated 05.12.2006 and the order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.

(MD).No.21880 of 2017. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P.

(MD).No.21880 of 2017, has quashed the Notification dated 11.11.2017

prescribing the qualification of M.A.(Tamil) as an equivalent to the

qualification of M.A.(Folklore) for the post of Assistant Professor.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents:

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the University

submits that in the case in hand, the learned Single Judge has called for entire

records of the Selection process including the marks awarded to each

candidate and also thoroughly verified various stages of the selection process

including the marks awarded by the Interview and Selection Committee,

subsequent scrutiny of the Selection Committee and the approval of the

Syndicate. He further submitted that the third respondent is more suitable

than the appellant herein. He further submitted that the earlier Orders of the

Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, are passed based on the earlier

UGC Regulations issued in the year 2000, which is related to the post of

Assistant Professor and the same is not applicable to the post of Professor. He

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

further submits that this Court, in earlier cases had considered the validity of

the Notification issued for the purpose of filling up of vacancy to the post of

Assistant Professor in the year 2004 on the ground of infraction of the UGC

Regulation 2000, but now, new Regulation has been issued in the year 2010

and the prescribed qualification has been changed for the post of Assistant

Professor, hence this ground is not helpful to the writ petitioner.

11. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on

both sides and perused the materials on record.

Discussions and conclusions:

12. The writ petitioner has come forward with the writ petition

seeking writ of mandamus, forbearing respondents 1 and 2 herein from, in any

manner, filling up the vacancy to the post of Professor in Folklore,

Department of Folklore in respondent University and also challenging the

selection process of the University, after participating in the interview, after

completion of the selection process, but before publication of the final

selection list.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13. According to the writ petitioner, Clause-7 of the General

Instructions to the candidates was incorporated by violating the UGC

Regulations and for filling the post of Professor in Folklore, the person who

had obtained Doctoral Degree in Folklore has to be considered and be given

preference and the persons, who are holding Doctoral Degree in any other

discipline are not eligible for the appointment. A perusal of Notification

dated 11.11.2017 shows that the essential qualifications for the post of

"Professors", are prescribed as follows:

1. An eminent scholar with a doctoral degree in the concerned-

allied-relevant discipline and published work of high quality and actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of ten publications as books and or research/policy papers.

2. A minimum of ten years experience in post-graduate teaching and/or research at a University/ National Level Institution including experience of guiding research at Doctoral Level.

3. Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses and technology-mediated teaching process.

4. A minimum score as indicated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) as set out in the UGC Regulations 2010.

5. For direct recruitment of Professor in the University consolidated API Score of 400 points is required along with other specified eligibility qualifications.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14. Admittedly, before applying to the post, the writ petitioner was

aware of the qualification prescribed in the Notification. The learned Single

Judge has categorically analysed the claim made by the petitioner on the basis

of qualification for the post of Professor prescribed under Regulations 4.0.0

and observed in his order dated 05.07.2018 in paragraph No.27 as follows:

"27. The distinction made between the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor and Professor by the UGC Regulations is a purposive distinction and therefore, the word "relevant" used in both clauses can be interpreted for its own purpose. In the case of Assistant Professor, Post Graduate qualification with 55% marks in the relevant subject is a must, whereas, for the post of Professor, apart from other qualifications, a Ph.D., qualification is a must and such a Ph.D., is from either the concerned subject or allied subject or a relevant subject."

15. It is the case of the writ petitioner that since he is having

qualification in the concerned subject i.e., Ph.D. in Folklore, he shall be given

preference and if no person with the concerned subject is available, then only

the persons, who are holding Ph.D., in other discipline is eligible to be

appointed. Admittedly, either in the Notification or General Instructions or in

the UGC Regulations, there is no provision to give preference to the persons,

who are holding Doctoral Degree in the concerned discipline. Without any

Rules prescribing preference as claimed by the writ petitioner, he is not

entitled to canvas the same, as a matter of right.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16. The law with regard to judicial review in the matters of providing

relaxation, preference or any other concession in the matters of recruitment is

well settled. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hirandra Kumar Vs. High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors. [(2020)17 SCC 401], reiterated

that, the prayer of age, relaxation or any other Educational qualifications, it is

the legitimate right of the Authority to decide. The Court, in exercise of

judicial review cannot usurp that power and the relevant paragraphs of the

judgment are extracted hereunder.

"21 . The legal principles which govern the determination of a cut- off date are well settled. The power to fix a cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control which an authority exercises over the selection process. A certain degree of arbitrariness may appear on the face of any cut-off or age limit which is prescribed, since a candidate on the wrong side of the line may stand excluded as a consequence. That, however, is no reason to hold that the cut- off which is prescribed, is arbitrary. In order to declare that a cut- off is arbitrary and ultra vires, it must be of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that it has been fixed without any rational basis whatsoever or is manifestly unreasonable so as to lead to a conclusion of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

22. Several decisions of this Court have dealt with the issue. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0772/1997 : (1997) 6 SCC 614, a two judge Bench of this Court dealt with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. Rule 11(1) prescribed that a candidate for direct recruitment should not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for the receipt of applications. Rejecting the contention that the cut-off was arbitrary, this Court held that the fixation of a cut-off

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

prescribing maximum or minimum age requirements for a post is in the discretion of the Rule making authority. The Court held thus:

5....In the first place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-

off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a cut-off cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot make the cut- off date, per se,arbitrary unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable.

The same view has been adopted in other decisions, including those in (i) State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad MANU/SC/0418/1990 : (1990) 3 SCC 368 ("Ramjee Prasad"); (ii) Union of India v. Sudheer Kumar Jaiswal MANU/SC/0540/1994 :

(1994) 4 SCC 212 ("Sudheer Kumar Jaiswal"); (iii) Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai (2001) 9 SCC 356 ("Shivbachan Rai");

and (iv) Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal MANU/SC/8455/2008 : (2009) 3 SCC 35 ("Ramesh Chandra Agarwal")."

17. Similarly, in the matters of academic standards, Courts shall not,

normally, interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the

experts in the field, unless any malafides are attributed against the experts. A

Constitution Bench of Apex Court, in University of Mysore and Ors. and vs.

C.D. Govinda Rao and Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 491], has observed in paragraph

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Nos.13 and 14 as follows:

13. 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. 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 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. As we have already observed though the High Court felt some difficulty about the two remaining qualifications, the High Court has not rested its decision on any definite finding that these qualifications also had not been satisfied. On reading the first qualification, the position appears to be very simple; but unfortunately, since the equivalent qualification specified by clause (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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

would satisfy the first qualification and even the second. Besides, it appears that appellant No. 2 has to his credit published works which by themselves would satisfy the second qualification. 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 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.

14. Before we part with these appeals, however, reference must be made to two other matters. In dealing with the case presented before it by the respondent, the High Court has criticised the report made by the Board and has observed that the circumstances disclosed by the report made it difficult for the High Court to treat the recommendations made by the experts with the respect that they generally deserve. 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 court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the court to leave the decisions of academic matter to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face that the courts generally can be.

18. The above observation was reiterated by the Apex Court in

Medical Council of India vs. Sarang and Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 427]. The

Hon'ble Apex Court, in Manish Sharma vs. Director, Department of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Medical Education and Research [2017 (4) SCC 577], while considering a

dispute regarding the equivalence between two years Postgraduate Diploma

and Postgraduate Degree in Anaesthesiology, has observed that the question

whether the prescribed qualification is equivalent to a particular stream or not

can be considered only by the Competent Authority in terms of the applicable

rule, and observed that the Competent Authority shall take a decision.

19. Recently, in Shifana P.S. vs. The State of Kerala and Others

[2024 INSC 580], the Apex Court while considering the role of the Courts in

assessing equivalent degrees, has held in paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15 as

follows:

"13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the post advertised vide Notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold such a degree. It is the case of the appellant that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as equivalent to a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). However, the said argument does not hold water and is misconceived.

14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 404] held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied)

15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of India and Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 343], a three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another [(2009) 1 SCC 610] held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published."

20. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Court is not

empowered to interfere in the matters of academic standards and prescribing

the qualification is a matter for the Recruiting Authority to determine the

same. Since there is no rule or instructions for providing preference to the

persons obtaining Doctoral Degree in the subject concerned, the claim made

by the petitioner that he shall be given preference over the persons holding

Doctoral Degree in other discipline is not sustainable and the learned Single

Judge has rightly rejected the same.

21. The appellant has also relied on the Division Bench judgment of

this Court in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of 2006, wherein this Court, while deciding

the challenge regarding qualification for the post of Assistant Professor, after

interpreting the UGC Regulation 2000 has held that the Notification issued by

the Tamil University prescribing qualification for the purpose of filling up the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

post of Assistant Professor with an infraction of UGC Regulation and thereby

the Notification impugned therein was quashed. The Division Bench has also

compared the subjects between the M.A.(Tamil) and M.A.(Folklore) and held

that M.A.(Tamil) is not equivalent to that of M.A. (Folklore) for the

appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Folklore.

22. The above judgment is not relevant to the present case in hand

for two reasons since, it was relating to the qualifications to the post of

Assistant Professor and in the earlier Regulation 2000, the equivalent Degree

obtained from the Indian University was not prescribed as qualified Degree,

whereas in the UGC Regulation 2010, the Master's Degree obtained from an

Indian University was considered as a qualification for appointment to the

post of Assistant Professor. This issue has been elaborately dealt by us in

W.A.(MD).Nos. 877 to 879 of 2018 and we have taken a view that a provision

approving the equivalent Master's Degree of the relevant subject from an

Indian University as qualification had been incorporated in the UGC

Regulations and thereby we have set aside the Order passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.(MD).Nos.21879 to 21881 of 2017. Hence, we are of the

view that the contention of the appellant that a person, who is not having

Doctoral Degree in Folklore is not eligible to be appointed for the post of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Professor in the Department of Folklore is rightly rejected by the learned

Single Judge in the order impugned in this writ appeal and we are not inclined

to interfere with the same.

23. The other contention raised by the appellant is that he is more

qualified than the third respondent herein. The learned Single Judge has

thoroughly examined the report of the Selection Committee including the

original files and recorded the satisfaction that the Selection Committee has

awarded marks rightly to the candidates participated in the interview and apart

from the marks secured in the interview, the Academic Performance Indicator

has also been taken into account. The Selection Committee Report has also

been placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate has approved the

Selection Committee Report and only thereafter, they finalised the name of

the third respondent as a selected candidate and also placed the appellant

herein in the waiting list.

24. The learned counsel appearing for the University also questioned

the locus standi of the petitioner in challenging the selection process. The law

with regard to the question of eligibility to challenge the selection process by

the petitioner, who had participated consciously and willingly in the selection

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

process is also well settled. Further, the power of judicial review in the

selection process has also been considered by the Apex Court in Madras

Institute of Development Studies and Ors. vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and

Ors. [(2016) 1 SCC 454] wherein, it has been observed in paragraph Nos.

20,21,22,23 and 24 as follows:

"20. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.

21. In Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors. MANU/SC/0067/1976 :(1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the Petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the Petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:

15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the Appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case where in more or less similar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

circumstances, it was held that the failure of the Appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting:

It seems clear that the Appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.

22. In Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors.

MANU/SC/0208/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:

9 . Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the Petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being Respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The Petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents concerned. Thus the Petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench ofthree learned Judges of this Court that when the Petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

have granted any relief to such a Petitioner.

23. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/1265/2010 : (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:

We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.

24 . In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0317/2013 : (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under:

In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the Respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the Respondents."

25. In Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs. The State of Jammu and

Kashmir and others [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253], the scope and extent of the

judicial review of a selection process and results thereof is observed in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

paragraph No.12 as follows:

"Selection Process for Public Employment: Interference by Courts:

12. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law:

i) In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434, this Court clarified the scope of judicial review of a selection process, in the following words:

"9...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc…..”

ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282, this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

"9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation…….”

iii) This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119, in the following words:

“21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion...

xxx

30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions…..”

iv) Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117, was a case where an appeal was filed before this Court challenging the selection of members to the Delhi Stock Exchange on the ground that the Selection Committee formed for the aforesaid purpose, arbitrarily favoured some candidates and was thus, against Article 14. This Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by holding as under:

“5. …the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of an objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. In the present cases, we find that certain percentage of marks were allocated for each of these factors, namely, educational qualifications, experience, financial background and knowledge of the relevant laws and procedures pertaining to public issues etc. Of the total marks allocated only 20 per cent were reserved for interviews. Therefore, the process of selection by the Expert Committee was not left entirely to the sweet-will of the members of the Committee. The area of play was limited to 20 per cent and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion…...”

12.1. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their post-graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water."

26. In the case on hand, even though the petitioner claims that there

is a violation of statutory rules, this Court does not find violation of any rule

or instructions in the Notification. Further, the claim of giving preference to

him over the third respondent on the ground that he is having better

qualifications is not sustainable. The Rule prescribed herein is that the person

having Doctoral Degree in concerned/ allied/ relevant is eligible to be

appointed for the post of Professor. The third respondent herein, who has

obtained Ph.D. in Lexicography has been considered to be a person, who is

having relevant/ allied Degree and the Syndicate of the University has also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

approved his academic qualifications, marks obtained in the interview, API

and found that he is more suitable to the post. Thereby, the petitioner is not