Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sakshi Khurana vs Lala Lajpat Rai University Of ... on 24 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:010089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219
*****
CWP No.18272 of 2018
Date of Decision :24.1.2024
Dr. Sakshi Khurana ..... Petitioner
versus
Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Hisar and
others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate, for respondents no.1 and 2
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate and
Mr. Gaurav Gogna, Advocate, for respondents no.3 and 5
Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for respondent no.4
---
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):
The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of
certiorari quashing the selection/merit list of Assistant Professor in Dairy
Technology prepared by the respondent-University vide proceedings
dated 31.7.2017, Annexure P-32, and the consequent appointment letters
dated 1.8.2017, Annexures P-36, P-38 and P-40, issued to private
respondents no.3 to 5. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought
directing the University to revise the selection/merit list, and appoint the
petitioner on the post. At the outset, learned senior counsel contends that
the petitioner withdraws her challenge to the appointment of fifth
respondent.
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:010089
2. The facts of the case in brief are, the University vide
advertisement no.1 of 2016, advertised, among others, four posts of
Assistant Professor (Dairy Technology), of which one each was reserved
for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Persons with Disability (PWD) categories.
2.1. The petitioner, who belongs to general category and claims to
have outstanding academic and professional record, applied for the post.
She has passed Masters of Science (Food Technology) in first division, in
May 2009, testimonials are appended as Annexure P-3 (colly); and
National Eligibility Test (NET) in 2010 in the major/broad discipline of
Food Science and Technology, Annexure P-4. She was awarded Senior
Research Fellowship (PGS) by the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, Annexure P-5, and also earned Ph.D. degree in the discipline of
Dairy Technology from National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed
University), Karnal, Annexure P-6 (colly). Besides, she has teaching
experience of over two years on the post of Assistant Professor from
different colleges from 1.8.2012 to 20.5.2016, certificates are appended as
Annexure P-12 (colly).
2.2. Her application was duly considered and, finding her eligible
for the post, was interviewed by the Selection Committee. However, she
could not be selected being lower in merit as compared to the private
respondents.
2.3. It is claimed that the petitioner could not be selected only
because the selection committee/second respondent wrongly did not give
her due marks as per the criteria under three heads - the Master's degree,
experience and publications in the relevant field; under the first two heads
she was given zero marks, and only one mark under the third head.
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:010089
2.4. It is further claimed that the wrong committed by the selection
committee is apparent from the fact that in an earlier selection for the post
of Assistant Professor (Dairy Chemistry) in the University, the then
selection committee in its meeting, dated 30.5.2016, Annexure P-29, gave
more marks to the petitioner under these heads for the same qualifications
and experience, i.e., fifteen point ninety six marks for her Master's
degree, two marks each for the experience and publications in the relevant
field; criteria for both the selections were the same. The marks awarded in
the instant selection, therefore, could not have been lower. This is
arbitrary, and contrary to the University's own assessment in the earlier
selection.
2.5. Still further, it has been claimed that the private respondents
have been wrongly given marks based upon the criteria leading to their
appointment, though they do not have the requisite qualifications.
2.6. With these facts, the instant petition was filed seeking award of
marks to the petitioner as per the criteria, and setting aside the selection of
private respondents no.3 and 4.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner was not given marks as per the criteria despite being entitled to
on the basis of her Master's degree, experience and publications in the
relevant field. Being M.Sc. in Food Technology, she fulfills the requisite
qualifications. It is also contended that the petitioner has wrongly been
given zero marks for experience, though she has more than three years
and four months experience, which entitles her to three marks. She has
four publications in the relevant field, details whereof and the research
papers, were duly submitted to the University along with the application
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:010089
form. This entitles her to eight marks, which have also been denied.
Further, the private respondents are not qualified, as their M.Sc. degrees,
experience and publications have been wrongly considered valid for
giving marks under the criteria. In case the petitioner is correctly given
marks for selection, she would score sixty four point seventy marks, and
would be placed at number one in the order of merit, and the private
respondents would be at number two and three. Lastly, it is contended that
as the University has already considered the petitioner's experience,
qualifications and publications and given marks to her as per the criteria
for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Dairy Chemistry), it
cannot be permitted to take a stand to the contrary while considering her
candidature for the post in question. Therefore, not awarding marks to her
is arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. Learned counsel for the University as well as the private
respondents, on the contrary, contest the petitioner's claim to be eligible
on the basis of her qualifications. It is contended that she does not have
essential qualifications for the post, since her M.Sc. degree is without
research work in Dairy Technology. And her teaching experience has
rightly not been counted for giving of marks, as it was not in continuity
which is the requirement. For publications, the Selection Committee
examined her research papers and gave marks only for the ones which
were in the relevant field. Therefore, the petitioner has been given marks
strictly as per the criteria, in a bona fide and fair manner. Her candidature
was duly considered by the Selection Committee consisting of experts,
who examined her Master's degree, experience as well as the publications
before awarding marks, and the expert's opinion cannot be questioned or
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:010089
substituted by this Court. The private respondents fulfill the requisite
qualifications for the post. Accordingly, they have been considered
eligible and given marks only as per their entitlement in the process of
selection which is in accordance with law.
5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been
considered and the documents placed on record have been perused with
their assistance.
6. The issue that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner
as well as the private respondents were awarded marks as per the criteria
of selection for their qualifications, experience and publications in the
relevant field.
6.1. The requisite essential qualifications for the post, relevant for
deciding the issue at hand, are the following:
(1) Assistant Professor (Dairy Technology)
Essential Qualifications
i) xxx xxx
ii) M.Sc./M.Tech. (Dairy Technology/Dairy Science &
Technology/Food Technology with research work in Dairy
Technology/Food Science and Technology with research
work in Dairy Technology/M.V.Sc. Animal Products
Technology/Livestock Products Technology with research
work in Dairy Technology with minimum 70% of marks
or equivalent grade in a point scale where grading system
is followed, a relaxation of 5% of marks will be given for
the SC/Differently able categories.
Apparently, as per the requisite qualifications, the candidates must
possess, among others, 'M.Sc. (Dairy Technology / Dairy Science &
Technology / Food Technology with research work in Dairy Technology'.
Undisputedly, the petitioner has done M.Sc. in Food Technology from
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -6- 2024:PHHC:010089
Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar. Her
detail marks and grade point certificates as well as the degree have been
placed on record; and none of these establish that she has done research
work in Dairy Technology. Nomenclature of the degree is 'Masters of
Food Technology', whereas the requisite qualification is 'Food
Technology with research work in Dairy Technology'. Learned senior
counsel has laid much stress on the 'Result-cum-Semester Grade Point
Card', dated 13.8.2009, wherein research project is mentioned as one of
the subjects for which the petitioner was given twelve credits with 'A'
Grade. He, however, has not been able to point out as to what was the
nature of her research project, and whether it was in Dairy Technology,
nor has any document to that effect been placed on record by the
petitioner. In this factual background, no exception can be taken to the
opinion of selection committee considering the degree not relevant for the
subject and giving no marks for the same to the petitioner.
6.2. Secondly, as per the criteria, a candidate is entitled to one mark
for each year of experience after Master's degree. It reads as under:
2. Experience: 05 marks
One mark shall be given for each year of experience (after
Master's degree) in teaching, research or extension in the cadre of
Instructor including temporary appointment as Research Associate/
Training Associate/Technical Assistant/Assistant Professor/STA/
Research Fellow etc.
As per the experience details given by the petitioner herself in the
application form, she did not have continuous experience of one year as
Assistant Professor/Guest Lecturer in any of the colleges; her experiences
were for small durations from two to four months. Whereas, as per the
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -7- 2024:PHHC:010089
criteria, the candidates are entitled to maximum five marks and one mark
for each year of experience. Since the petitioner did not have continuous
one year experience in any of the colleges, she was rightly not been given
any mark for it.
6.3. Thirdly, the criteria further requires that candidates are entitled
to maximum of ten marks for publications in the relevant field; which
reads as under:
4. Publication in relevant field: 10 marks
a) Full paper in International Journal/National Journal 2.00 marks per paper
with NAAS rating of 6.0 or more than 6.0.
b) Full paper in national Journal with NAAS rating of 1.00 mark per paper
less than 6.0/Short communication in International
Journal/National Journal with NAAS rating of 6.0 or
more than 6.0
c) Research note/Short communication/clinical case 0.50 marks each
report
d) Popular Articles 0.25 marks each
The petitioner has four publications in the National Journals with the
requisite 'NAAS' rating, on that basis she has claimed one mark for each
of them. The Selection Committee after examining the publications found
that only one of these was in the relevant field and, accordingly, gave one
mark for the same. The view taken that her other publications are not in
the relevant field vis-à-vis the post in question, cannot be differed with by
this Court, being an expert opinion.
6.4. Further, so far as the award of marks to the private respondents
is concerned, it is established on record that the third respondent possesses
M.Sc. degree in Food Science and Technology, with minor field- Agro-
Food Product Technology, and research work/thesis on 'Preparation of
sweetened fruit yoghurt'. This was considered valid research in Dairy
Technology by the selection committee. Further, she had continuous
teaching experience from January 2008 to October 2009, January 2013 to
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -8- 2024:PHHC:010089
January 2014 and August 2010 to March 2012, and was given one mark
each for these continuous stretches of more than one year. It is further
established on record that she has claimed marks for seven publications,
out of which only three were considered relevant by the selection
committee. One of those was in an international journal, for which she
was given two marks, and one each for the rest two publications.
6.5. Similarly, the fourth respondent had done M.Sc. in Food
Science and Technology with minor field-Microbiology, and research
work/thesis on 'Development of whey based cold coffee', which was
considered valid research in Dairy Technology by the Selection
Committee. Further, she has claimed experience from 22.9.2008 to
30.5.2009, 19.8.2013 to 30.5.2014, 13.8.2014 to 30.5.2015, for which no
marks were given to her by the selection committee, since the stretches
were of less than a year duration. Only for more than one year experience
without break from 10.8.2015 to 18.7.2017, she was given marks.
Besides, only two of her publications were considered relevant to the field
and was given one mark for each of them.
6.6. The Selection Committee, which examined the petitioner's as
well as the private respondents' degrees and research publications,
consisted of senior academics and subject experts. Its composition is
provided in Statute 6 of the University Statutes, which reads as under:
6. Appointment of Associate Professors, Assistant
Professors and other teachers of equivalent rank.
xxx xxx xxx
Ordinarily, the Selection Committee for recommending suitable
persons for different posts shall be constituted as follows:
(1). xxx xxx xxx
(2). For appointment of Assistant Professors/equivalents:
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -9- 2024:PHHC:010089
(i) Vice-Chancellor - Chairman
(ii) Dean of the College concerned
(iii) Director of Research
(iv) Director of Extension Education
(v) Dean, Post-Graduate Studies
(vi) Head of Department concerned
(vii) Two outside experts nominated by the Vice-Chancellor
(viii) An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/
Women/Differently-abled categories, in case any of candidate(s)
representing these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the
Vice-Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection
committee do not belong to that category.
At least five members, including two outside experts, shall constitute
the quorum.
These experts, after examining the candidates' certificates and related material,
awarded marks as per the criteria by deciding, among other things, as to
whether (i) the Masters' degrees were with 'research work in Dairy
Technology', and (ii) the research papers were 'publication in the relevant
field'. There is no material on record nor any has been referred to by the
learned senior counsel which could in any manner indicate that the
opinion formed by the experts was contrary to any rule or regulation.
Besides, there is no mala fide alleged against any of the selection
committee members, nor has any one of them been impleaded as a party
to the petition. Additionally, the award of marks for qualifications,
experience and publications were in line with the criteria, as discussed
hereinabove. Therefore, it cannot be said that the selection committee
committed any wrong in giving marks to the petitioner or the private
respondents. The petitioner's candidature was duly considered by giving
marks as per her entitlement, but she could not be selected being lower in
merit.
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -10- 2024:PHHC:010089
6.7. It is settled preposition of law that opinion of subject experts is
to be shown due deference by the Courts and not to be lightly interfered
with, unless the experts' opinion is mala fide and/or in violation of any
rule or regulation. A reference in that regard can be made to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L.Ramesh and
others, (2010) 8 SCC 372, its relevant paragraph 38 reads as under:
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 fides have
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
realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic
matters.
7. The last submission by the learned senior counsel claiming
wrongdoing in giving marks to the petitioner on the basis of an earlier
selection for the post of Assistant Professor in Dairy Chemistry, is also
without merit. As apparent on record, the requisite qualifications for that
post and the post in question are different. There was no requirement of
M.Sc. in Food Science and Technology with research work in Dairy
Technology, which is the requisite qualification for the post in question,
for the earlier advertised post. The degree and publications which were
considered relevant for the post of Dairy Chemistry, may not be relevant
for the post of Dairy Technology, and the experts have also opined thus.
Therefore, if the University considered the petitioner's qualifications and
experience relevant for the earlier post, the same cannot be a ground to
claim marks for the post in question also.
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
CWP No.18272 of 2018 -11- 2024:PHHC:010089
8. Accordingly, the issue stands answered in the affirmative.
9. In view of the discussion, the writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of merit.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
24.1.2024
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010089
11 of 11
