Manipur High Court
Shri Rajkumar Kishor vs The Manipur University Through ... on 24 May, 2022
SHOUGRAK Digitally signed by [1]
SHOUGRAKPAM
PAM DEVANANDA
DEVANAND SINGH
Date: 2022.05.24
A SINGH 09:50:58 +01'00'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP (C) No. 1079 of 2019
Shri Rajkumar Kishor, aged about 47 years, S/o Late R.K.
Nokulsana Singh of Sagolband Bijoy Govinda, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Manipur University through its Vice-Chancellor/
Administrator, Canchipur, P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur -795008.
2. The Registrar, Manipur University, Canchipur, P.O. Canchipur,
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795008.
3. Shri Thangjam Robert Singh, aged about 46 years, S/o Thangjam
Jilla Singh, a resident of Wangkhei Thangjam leikai, P.O.
Porompat & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-
795005, presently at T-11, Teachers Quarters, Mizoram
University, Aizawl, Mizoram - 796004.
(....impleaded vide order dated 10-03-2021
passed in MC(WP(C)) No. 180 of 2020)
4. The Union of India, Ministry of Education, represented by the
Secretary (HE), Department of Higher Education, Shastri
Bhavan, New Delhi
(... amended vide order dated 10-11- 2021
in MC(WP(C)) No. 245 of 2021)
(....impleaded vide order dated 06-10-2021
passed in MC(WP(C)) No. 211 of 2020)
... Respondents
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[2]
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. T. Rajendra, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. B.P. Sahu, Senior Advocate;
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, ASG &
Mr. I. Denning, Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 18-04-2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 24-05-2022
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and
2, Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr.
Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG appearing for the respondent No. 4.
[2] The present writ petition had been filed with the prayer for directing the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to face the Interview for the post
of Associate Professor in the Department of Life Sciences, Manipur University
and for considering the petitioner for appointment to the said post.
The brief fact of the case is that the Manipur University issued an
advertisement dated 27-05-2019 inviting applications from the Indian Nationals
for filling up a number of posts, including two posts of Professor and five posts of
Associate Professor in the Department of Life Sciences. Pursuant to the said
advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application form for the post of
Professor and Associate Professor in Life Sciences. Subsequently, the Registrar
of the Manipur University published the list of eligible candidates for Personal
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[3]
Interview for the aforesaid posts of Professor and Associate Professor in the
Department of Life Sciences. In the said list, the name of three persons were
notified for the posts of Professor and the name of sixteen persons were notified
initially and later on, the name of fourteen persons were notified as eligible
candidates for the posts of Associate Professor. In the said two lists, the name of
the petitioner was not included. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner
approached this court by filing the present writ petition for redressing his
grievances. As the petitioner's prayer in the present writ petition confines to the
post of Associate Professor only, this Court will confine the consideration of the
eligibility of the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor only.
[3] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that in the said advertisement dated 27-05-2019, it has been clearly mentioned
that the eligibility of the candidates will be determined as per the essential
qualifications prescribed in the UGC Regulation, 2018. The eligibility of a
candidate for the post of Associate Professor as prescribed in the said UGC
Regulation, 2018 are as under -
"Associate Professor:
Eligibility:
(i) A good academic record, with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/
allied /relevant disciplines.
(ii) A Master's degree with atleast 55 percent marks (or an
equivalent grade in a point-scale, wherever, the grading system
is followed).
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[4]
(iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and /or
research in an academic/ research position equivalent to that of
Assistant Professor in a University/ College or Accredited
Research Institution/ Industry with a minimum of seven
publications in the peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a
total research score of Seventy Five (75) as per the criteria given
in Appendix II, Table 2".
[4] According to the learned counsel, the petitioner possessed all the
essential qualifications and is well qualified and eligible for the post of
Associate Professor in Life Sciences and that the petitioner is entitled to be
considered for appointment to the said post, however the respondents No. 1
and 2 did not include the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates
notified by the Manipur University. The reasons given by the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 in their counter affidavit for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner
in the list of eligible candidates is that his case was considered by the
University Recruitment Screening Grievance Redressal Cell of Manipur
University and rejected his candidature due to non-fulfilment of the UGC
Guidelines as the total period he had worked in a position equivalent to that
of an Assistant Professor is less than eight years as he was drawing total
gross emolument less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed
Assistant Professor and that his application form was forwarded by himself,
which was ethically not proper as it should have been forwarded by another
authority of the firm he was heading.
[5] The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the reasons given by
the Manipur University by stating that the petitioner was enjoying the monthly
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[5]
salary of Rs. 75,000/- while he was working as the Managing Director and
Chief Scientist of K & K Orchids Pvt. Ltd., which is more than the monthly
salary of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- of an Assistant Professor in the Government
Colleges of Manipur and accordingly, the rejection of the candidature of the
petitioner on the ground that he was drawing total gross emolument less than
the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor is
unjustified and without any basis and the same is not sustainable in the eyes
of law. So far as the stand of the respondent No. 2 about the petitioner's
application form being forwarded by himself is concerned, it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application
form was forwarded in the name of the Managing Director, M/S K & K Orchids
Pvt. Ltd., who is the competent authority, and as the petitioner happens to be
the incumbent holding the said post, the application form was forwarded in the
said manner and that the University Recruitment Screening Grievance
Redressal Cell of Manipur University had already considered the matter and
had opined that the said issue cannot stand as a ground for rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner.
The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable, unjustified and arbitrary and
deserves interference from this court by directing the respondent Nos. 1 and
2 to allow the petitioner to appear in the Personal Interview for selection and
appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Life Sciences, Manipur
University.
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[6]
[6] Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
No. 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the decision of the
University Recruitment Screening Grievance Redressal Cell of Manipur
University for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and as such, the
present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected outright.
It has also been stated that as the selection process had already been
completed, there is no room or possibility for allowing the petitioner to face the
Interview at this point of time and as no effective relief as sought for by the
petitioner in the present writ petition can be granted now, the present writ
petition has become infructuous and the same deserves to be dismissed.
The learned senior counsel further submitted that as the expert
bodies of the Manipur University constituted at various levels have considered
the case of the petitioner and hold that the petitioner is not eligible for the post
of Associate Professor in the Life Sciences and as such, the information of
the expert is to be taken as final unless malafide or bias is made out in arriving
to such decision and that this Court should not act as an appellate court and
interfere with the decisions of the expert body. In support of his contention,
the learned senior counsel cite the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L.. Ramesh & ors., reported in (2010)
8 SCC 372 wherein it has been held as under:-
"20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the University that
the Expert Committee had carefully examined and scrutinised the
qualification, experience and published work of the appellants
before selecting them for the posts of Readers in Sericulture. In our
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[7]
considered opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in sitting
in appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert
Committee consisting of five experts. The Expert Committee had
in fact scrutinised the merits and demerits of each candidate
including qualification and the equivalent published work and its
recommendations were sent to the University for appointment which
were accepted by the University".
"21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference
and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee
consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant
case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and
published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations
for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High
Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the
recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field
of Sericulture.
"25. The teaching experience of foreign teaching institutions can be
taken into consideration if it is from a recognised institution of
repute. It cannot be said that State University of New York at Buffalo,
where Appellant 2 served as an Assistant Professor would not be
an institution of repute. The experts aiding and advising the
Commission must be quite aware of institutions in which the
teaching experience was acquired by him and this one is a reputed
University. According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the
appellants had requisite qualification and were eligible for
appointment. If they were selected by the Commission and
appointed by the Government, no fault can be found with the same.
The High Court interfered and set aside the selections made by the
Expert committee. This court while setting aside the judgment of the
High Court reminded the High Court that it would normally be
prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic
matters to experts. The Court observed as under: [M.C. Gupta (Dr.)
case, SCC pp. 344-45, para 7]
"7. ... When selection is made by the Commission aided and
advised by experts having technical experience and high
academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing
teaching/ research experience in technical subjects, the
courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[8]
expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala
fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe
for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to
experts who are more familiar with the problems they face
than the courts generally can be."
"26. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University, the Court observed
that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of
academicians: (SCC p. 426, para 17)
"17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home
the point that the court should not substitute its judgment
for that of academicians when the dispute relates to
educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a
rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge
decisions of academic bodies."
"27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, the court observed
thus: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29)
"29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the
Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to
academic matters in preference to those formulated by
professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of educational
institutions and the departments controlling them."
"28. In. Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, the Court relied on the
judgment in University of Mysore and observed that in the matter of
appointments in the academic field, the court generally does not
interfere. The court further observed that the High Court should show
due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the
Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the
Chancellor had acted.
"29. In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. B.J. Medical College, the Court placed
reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of Mysore
and reiterated the same legal position and observed as under:
(Bhushan Uttam case, SCC p. 223, para 8)
"8. ... the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its
jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[9]
educational authorities should normally be left to their
decision and the Court should interfere with them only when
it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice."
"30. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, the Court in
somewhat similar matter observed thus: (SCC pp. 309-10, para 12)
"12. .... 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 scrutinize the relative merits of the
candidates. Whether a 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 mala fides affecting the selection etc. It
is not disputed that in the present case the University had
constituted the Committee in due compliance with the
relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it
selected the candidates after going through all the relevant
material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so
made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called
comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the
court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its
jurisdiction."
"31. In Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayanda Kar, the court observed thus: (SCC pp.
174-75, para 9)
"9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the
academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by
the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite
qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to
be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned
selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the
subjects relevant to the selection."
"32. In J & K, State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik, the Court
while stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert body
observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[10]
different walks of life who were engaged in or interested in the field of
education and had wide experience and were entrusted with the duty
of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of such
an expert body should be given due weightage by courts.
"33. In Dental Counsel of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust, the
Court reminded the High Courts that the court's jurisdiction to interfere
with the discretion exercised by the expert body is extremely limited.
"34. In Medical Council of India v. Sarang, the Court again reiterated the
legal principle that the court should not normally interfere or interpret
the rules and should instead leave the matter to the experts in the
field.
"35. In In B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah, the Court again
reiterated legal principles and observed regarding importance of the
recommendations made by the expert committees.
"36. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chauhari Devi Lal University, the Court
reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in
appeal over the opinion of the experts.
"37. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar
Dhawan again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic bodies.
"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm
the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very
limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against
the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be
prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to
the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts
should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions
of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints
and limitations in academic matters."
[7] Mr. Kh. Samarjt, learned ASG appearing for the respondent No. 4
and Mr. I. Deninig, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3
endorsed the submission made by Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. However, Mr. I. Denning, learned
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[11]
counsel further submitted that under para Nos. 16 and 27 of the terms and
conditions of the advertisement dated 27-05-2019, it has been clearly laid
down that mere fulfilling the essential qualifications does not entail the
candidate to be called for Interview and that in case of any dispute/ ambiguity
that may occur in the process of selection, the decision of the authority shall
be final.
In view of the above terms and conditions, the petitioner is barred
from questioning the decisions of the Manipur University and the present writ
petitioner deserves to be rejected outright.
[8] After careful consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the
record of the present case, this Court finds that the only reason for rejecting
the candidature of the petitioner is that he does not possess the requisite
experience of a minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and /or
research in an academic/ research position equivalent to that of Assistant
Professor in a University/ College or Accredited Research Institution/ Industry
as laid down in the UGCs notification dated 18-07-2018 prescribing the
eligibility qualification of an Associate Professor. The specific reason given by
the authorities of the Manipur University in rejecting the candidature of the
petitioner is that he was working in a position where his emolument was seen
to be lower than that of an Assistant Professor and that the total period he had
worked in a position equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor is less than
eight years. In order to verify the correctness of the stand of the authorities of
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[12]
the Manipur University, this Court carefully examined the application form
submitted by the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor, which has
been enclosed by the petitioner in his additional affidavit dated 11-04-2022.
Entries in para 13 of the said application form is relevant for the purpose of
deciding the present issue which are reproduced herein for ready reference -
13. Teaching/ Research/ Industrial experience (Add separate sheets in the same format, if required)
Designatio Scale of pay & Name & Period of experience S. No. of
n present Basic address of proof of
& AGP employers enclosure
From date To date No. of years/
months (As on
date of
advertisement)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (h)
Managing Rs. 75,000.00 K&K 20-4-2016 Till date 3.2 yrs 10
Director & p.m. Orchids approx..
Chief (consolidate) Pvt. Ltd.
Scientist
Senior Rs. 21,000 + CSIR, 17-4-2013 16-4-2016 3 yrs 11, 12,
Research DA & HRA working at 13, 14
Associate LSD, MU
Scientist D Rs. 15,600 - SERB, 1-9-2010 7-12-2012 2 yrs 2 months 15, 16
39100+7600 DST,
(GP) working at
COGCEHR
Guest Rs. 10,000/- Manipur 23-9-2009 30-8-2010 11 months 17, 18
Faculty p.m. University
(Genetics) (consolidated)
Research Rs. 11,500/- + Dept. of 11-7-2003 17-1-2005 1 yr. 7 months 19, 20
Associate 10% HRA p.m. Hort., COA,
CAU,
Imphal
[9] On careful examination of the above entries made by the petitioner
in para 13 of his application form, it can be clearly seen that while the petitioner
was working as Senior Research Associate in the CSIR, working at LSD,
Manipur University between 17-04-2013 to 16-04-2016 and while working as
Guest Faculty (Genetics) in Manipur University between 23-09-2009 to
30-08-2010 and while working as Research Associate in the Department of
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
[13]
Horticulture, COA, CAU, Imphal between 11-07-2003 to 17-01-2005, the
petitioner's monthly emolument was less than the monthly emolument of an
Assistant Professor and accordingly, such periods cannot be taken into
consideration as having experience which is equivalent to that of an Assistant
Professor.
In my considered view, if such period are not counted, the petitioner
did not possess the minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and /
or research in an academic research position equivalent to that of Assistant
Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/ Industry
as prescribed by the UGC in its notification dated 18-07-2018 for being eligible
for appointment to the post of Associate Professor.
In view of the above, this court do not find any error in the reason
given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in rejecting the candidature of the
petitioner and there is no ground for interfering with such decisions. In the
result the present writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 1079 of 2019 Contd.../-
