Orissa High Court

Krupasindhu Mohanta vs Vice Chancellor on 4 April, 2023

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                 W.P.(C) No.6476 OF 2014

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India)

  Krupasindhu Mohanta                                ... Petitioner

                                -versus-

 Vice Chancellor,
 Utkal University of Culture,
 Bhubaneswar & others                               ... Opposite Parties


 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

    For Petitioner                    : Mr.M.K.Mohanty,
                                        Advocate
                               -versus-

    For Opposite Party
    No.1                                  : Mr.S.K.Pattnaik,
                                            Sr. Advocate
                                            Mr.P.K.Pattnaik,
                                            Advocate

    For Opposite Party
    Nos.2 and 3                          : Mr. B.P.Tripathy,
                                           A.G.A.

    For Opposite Party
    No.4                                 : Mr.Gourisankar Pani,
                                            Advocate
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                                               Page 1 of 14
                CORAM:

                          JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                          JUDGMENT

04.4.2023.

Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Utkal University of Culture (in short

8the University9) issued an advertisement on 13th

February, 2012 inviting applications from eligible

candidates for recruitment to several teaching posts

including the post of Reader in Drama (Acting). It was

stipulated that the qualification of the candidates shall

be as per University Grants Commission (UGC)

Notification No.F.3-1/HE dated 14th December, 2000.

The Petitioner is working as Lecturer in Sambalpur

University at Jyoti Bihar, Burla. He is a Ph.D. Degree

Holder in Music (Performing Arts), Doctor of

Philosophy, Master Degree holder in Drama (Acting)

and Master Degree holder in Physical Education

having teaching experience. Since he fulfilled the

eligibility criteria as per the advertisement, he applied

for the post of Reader in Drama (Acting). After

scrutinizing the applications received from the

intending candidates, the University short listed 8

candidates including the Petitioner to appear in the

interview. The interview was conducted on 7th October,

2013 by a Selection Committee comprising the Vice-

  Chancellor,     four     Professors,     a        nominee     of   the

  Government       and      a     member       of    the    Board     of

Management. Out of the 8 candidates so called,

five, including the Petitioner and the present Opposite

Party No.4 appeared in the interview. While the

Petitioner secured a total of 56 marks, the Opposite

Party No.4 secured 74 marks and was thus, placed in

the first position. The names of both the Petitioner and

Opposite Party No.4 in order of merit was

recommended by the Selection Committee, which was

accepted on 10th October, 2013. On the same day,

order of appointment as Reader in Drama was issued

in favour of Opposite Party No.4.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the selection of

Opposite Party No.4 is bad inasmuch as he does not

possess the requisite qualification. It is stated that the

Opposite Party No.4 has a Master9s Degree from

Pondicherry University, which has not been notified as

equivalent to any degree of any University of Odisha.

Further, he has acquired Master9s Degree in Drama

and Theater Arts and not in Drama (Acting), which is

the prescribed qualification. It is also stated that he

has a Ph.D. in Philosophy, but not in Drama. Finally,

it is stated that Opposite Party No.4 being a resident of

the State of Andhra Pradesh has no knowledge about

the culture of Odisha.

3. Heard Mr. M.K.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing

for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K.Pattnaik, learned Senior

counsel with Mr. P.K.Pattnaik appearing for Opposite

Party No.1-University,Mr. B.P.Tripathy, learned Addl.

Government Advocate for the State and Mr.

Gourisankar Pani, learned counsel appearing for the

private Opposite Party No.4.

4. It is forcefully argued by Mr. M.K.Mohanty that the

Department of Drama consists of three separate

disciplines namely, (i) Drama (Acting), (ii) Drama

(Direction) and (iii) Drama (Stage Craft) having

difference courses of studies. The post advertised was

Reader in the subject of Drama (Acting). Therefore, the

candidate was required to possess a Master9s Degree in

Drama (Acting). The Petitioner passed the Higher

Secondary Vocational Examination in Drama and

Bachelor9s Degree and Master9s Degree in Music in

Drama. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.4 has no

Master9s Degree qualification in Drama (Acting) and

has also not secured 55% marks. He has acquired M.A.

degree in Drama and Theater Arts from Pondicherry

University, which has not been notified to be

equivalent to Master9s Degree in Drama (Acting) of

Utkal University of Culture. As regards teaching

experience also, the Petitioner has direct teaching

experience of 2 years 3 months while Opposite Party

No.4 has experience as Honorary Research Scholar of 4

years 8 months and Faculty Member of 2 years 10

months. Thus, he had never worked as Lecturer or

Senior Lecturer. On the above basis, it is contended by

Mr. Mohanty that the selection and appointment of

Opposite Party No.4 is entirely illegal being contrary to

the UGC Notification. It is also contended by Mr.

Mohanty that the Opposite party No.4 belongs to the

State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, possesses no

knowledge of the culture of Odisha and therefore, his

appointment would be adverse to the interests of the

State.

5. Mr. S.K.Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel has

submitted that as per the UGC guidelines the

qualification required is Master9s Degree in the relevant

subject. To such extent, therefore, the qualification of

Opposite Party No.4 being Post Graduate in Drama

and Theater Arts fully satisfies the requirement of UGC

Notification. Moreover, there is no specific course like

Drama (Acting). In fact, the Petitioner himself does not

possess any such qualification, but is a M.A. in Music.

The Petitioner was nevertheless called to attend

interview. The Selection Committee consists of domain

experts from different fields having vast experience in

their respective subjects. On an overall comparative

assessment, the Selection Committee found that

Opposite Party No.4 is more meritorious than the

Petitioner. As regards the lack of equivalence of the

Master9s Degree of Pondicherry University with the

corresponding degree of any University in Odisha, Mr.

Patnaik submits that the University recognizes the

corresponding degrees from any Indian University and

therefore, no equivalence is required. As regards the

ground that the Opposite party No.4 does not possess

the ground knowledge of the culture of Odisha, Mr.

Patnaik, submits that the same is not essentially

required for the post as per the UGC Notification.

6. Mr. Gourisankar Pani, learned counsel appearing

for private Opposite Party No.4 while adopting all the

contentions advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr.

Pattnaik as mentioned above, submits that both the

Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 had attended the

interview. Basing on their performance and on

comparative assessment of their qualification and

experience etc. the Selection Committee awarded more

marks to Opposite Party No.4. The Petitioner, having

attended the interview is therefore estopped to

challenge the result thereof only because he was

unsuccessful.

7. The facts being undisputed, this Court would, at

the outset like to consider the scope of interference in

such a matter. Admittedly, the Petitioner and Opposite

Party No.4 were shortlisted for interview basing on the

testimonials submitted by them. Statute 58 (1) of the

Utkal University of Culture 1st Statute, 2001 reads as

under:

<58(1). Subject to the provisions of the Statutes, the qualification and experience, if any, prescribed by the University Grants Commission or the State Government or the University as the case may be the appointing authority of the respective posts shall be competent to make recruitment to the various posts and to lay down the methods of recruitment, by way of such tests and examinations as it may deem expedient, so far as teaching posts are concerned.=

8. Accordingly, a selection criteria was formulated in

conformity with UGC Regulation, 2010 and the

provisions of the First Statute, 2001. The said criteria

was prepared by Vice Chancellor of the University and

6 experts namely, (1) Prof. Kirti Jain, (2) Prof.

Anuradha Kapoor, (3) Prof. Ananth Krishnan (4) Prof.

Duttatreya Datta, (5) Sushil Ku. Das and (6) Satakadi

Hota. The candidates were called upon to attend

interview held on 7th October, 2013. After assessing the

comparative merit of the candidates as per the

selection criteria formulated, the Selection Committee

recommended two candidates in order of merit for

appointment to the post of Reader of whom the

Opposite Party No.4 was the Ist and the Petitioner was

the 2nd. This Court therefore, finds that the experts

comprising the Selection Committee have assessed the

relative merit of all the candidates and submitted their

recommendation accordingly. This Court finds no

reason to interfere with such expert9s opinion. In fact,

law is well settled that Courts should be slow to

interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts as

was held by the Apex Court in the case of the

University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and

another; reported in AIR 1965 SC 491. When it is not

shown that there was violation of any statutory rule or

the UGC Notification or the decision of the Selection

Committee was actuated with malafides, there is

hardly any scope for this Court exercising writ

jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of experts

of the field and to substitute the same with its own

findings. In the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke,

etc. etc. vs. Dr. B.S.Mahajan Etc. Etc.; reported in

(1990) 1 SCC 305, the Apex Court reiterated the above

principle.

9. Having held so, this Court would examine whether

there was any violation of the UGC Notification

regarding qualification. The University Grants

Commission (UGC), by Notification dated 30th June,

2010 issued Regulations on Minimum Qualifications

for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff

in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the

Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010.

Clause-4.4.2.2. refers to Drama Discipline. The

requirement is 55% marks at the Master9s Degree level

in the relevant subject besides teaching and research

experience, publication etc. The Petitioner has Master9s

Degree in Music. The certificate enclosed to the

rejoinder filed by the Petitioner in response to the

counter of the Opposite Party No.4 reveals that the

degree is for Master of Music and that the Petitioner

was placed in the 2nd Class in <Drama= with Special

Paper (Acting). The said Certificate was issued by the

Utkal University. The Opposite Party No.4 acquired a

Post Graduate Degree, i.e. M.A. in Drama and Theater

Arts from Pondicherry University. The statement of

marks (enclosed to the Writ Petition under Annexure-6

series) reveals that Acting was a subject in each of the

four semesters. Therefore, the contention that the

Opposite Party No.4 did not possess Master9s

qualification in Acting seems to be factually incorrect.

As regards the contention that M.A. Degree of

Pondicherry University has not been notified to be

equivalent to corresponding degree of the Utkal

University of Culture, this Court is unable to accept

the same in view of the fact that there is nothing in

the advertisement, which mandates that the P.G.

qualification ought to have been obtained from the

Utkal University of Culture alone. In any event such a

contention would militate against the fundamental

principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14, 15

and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. This Court

further finds that the Selection Committee compared

the relative merit of all the candidates and awarded

marks under each of the following heads;

(i) General Career - 30

(ii) Research Degree-10

(iii) Teaching Experience - 10

(iv) Research Publication - 10

(v) Domain knowledge - 20

(vi) Interview/viva voce - 20

The Selection Committee awarded 56 marks to

the Petitioner and 74 to the Opposite Party No.4. The

Petitioner claims that as compared to Opposite Party

No.4, he is to be treated as more qualified since he had

Diploma qualification in Acting followed by Bachelor9s

Degree in Drama. On the other hand, Opposite Party

No.4 was a purely Science student in both

Intermediate and Graduate levels. This is also not an

acceptable argument in view of the UGC requirement

that the relevant qualification for consideration is

Masters Degree in which the candidates should have

secured 55% marks. Thus, this Court finds that even

on merits, the Petitioner has not made out any case for

interference by this Court.