C. Ajithkumar vs State of Kerala and Others

Narayanakurup, J.—The petitioner in O.P. No. 13138/91 on the file of this Court is the appellant in this writ appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge declining to interfere with Ext. P9(b) proceedings of the fifth respondent University de-recognising the B.Ed. degree of the appellant from the Jammu University obtained through correspondence and dismissing the original petition as such. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant was working as a High School Teacher on the strength of a B.Ed. degree by correspondence awarded by the University of Jammu. When the question of retrenching one of the teachers having regard to the reduction of the sanctioned strength during the year 1989-90 had arisen, the axe fell on the 6th respondent herein who took up the matter before this Court in O.P. No. 10261/89 for a declaration that the appellant herein is not qualified and entitled to continue as H.S.A. (Mathematics) and for a direction commanding the respondents therein to cancel the approval of appointment of the appellant and to oust him from service there reinstating the 6th respondent in service with all consequential benefits treating her as having continued in service without break. The said original petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext. R6(a) judgment directing the State of Kerala to pass final orders on a representation made by the 6th respondent on 4-11-1989 requesting the Government to cancel appointment given to the appellant herein as the B.Ed. degree possessed by him from the University of Jammu is not recognised by the University of Kerala or the Govt. of Kerala and to reinstate the 6th respondent in service as H.S.A. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext. R6(a) judgment the Government passed Ext. P2 in the present original petition cancelling the approval of the appointment of the appellant and directing the Manager of the school to reappoint the 6th respondent as H.S.A. in the place of the appellant. Ext. P2 was challenged by the appellant before this Court in O.P. No. 2495/90 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge as per Ext. R6(b) judgment directing the Vice Chancellor to look into the matter as provided by Sec. 10(13) of the Kerala University Act and to take a decision thereon. Ext. R6(b) judgment was under challenge by the appellant before this Court in W.A. No. 588/90 on the ground that the appropriate authority to take a decision in the matter is the Academic Council. W.A. No. 588/90 was disposed of by a Division Bench by Ext. R6(c) judgment dated 28-11-1990 substituting the direction of the learned single Judge to the Vice Chancellor by a direction to the Academic Council of the University of Kerala. Immediately after the judgment of the Division Bench, the appellant submitted Ext. P7 representation to the Academic Council followed by another representation evidenced by Ext. P8 dated 10-8-1991. Pursuant to Ext. P8 there was no communication from the University. However, according to the appellant, as per Ext. P9 dated 3-12-1991 a decision is seen taken by the second respondent Deputy Director of Education, Kollam based on the proceedings of the meeting of the Academic Council held on 5-7-1991 cancelling the approval of appointment of the appellant and directing reappointment of the 6th respondent in his place. Ext. P9 as also the proceedings of the meeting of the Academic Council dated 5-7-1991 were under challenge in the original petition. Ext. P9 was stayed by this Court and on the strength of the stay order, the appellant was continuing in service, but without salary. The appellant had a case that the University had not complied with the direction issued by this Court in the writ appeal referred to above. Therefore, pending O.P. the appellant moved C.M.P. No. 25468/94 in which this Court directed the Academic Council to comply with the direction given by this Court in C.M.P. No. 7854/94 in the original petition and W.A. No. 588/90 after giving an opportunity of being heard to all parties including the 6th respondent in so far as the decision of the Academic Council was taken without giving an opportunity to the appellant. Thereafter Ext. P9(b) order dated 4-10-1995 was passed by the University considering the matter afresh after granting the appellant and 6th respondent an opportunity of being heard and came to the conclusion that the B.Ed. degree course passed by the appellant is a correspondence course which is not recognised by the Kerala University as equivalent to the B.Ed. degree of the University since the Kerala University recognise only regular and full time B.Ed. Degree course. It was Ext. P9(b) which was under challenge in the amended original petition which came to be dismissed as already noted.

Having heard Learned Counsel on both sides, we are not satisfied that any interference is called for with the judgment of the learned single Judge. It is by now well settled that the courts will be loathe to interfere with the decisions taken by academic bodies unless it is shown that the decision is perverse, arbitrary or patently illegal or mala fide. In the absence of any such allegation it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts and academic bodies who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. Unless it is established that there is clear violation of norms or rules governing the subject, it will not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in academic matters. The view we are taking is fortified by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Sugunan v. University of Kerala (1984 KLT 1086 DB) wherein it has been held that" except in cases where a clear violation of the norms, statutory or otherwise, is discernible, the courts will not interfere with the assessment made by expert academic bodies, if such assessment is bona fide." The petitioner has no case that the decision arrived at by the Academic Council is tainted by mala fides. Therefore, it will be proper to accept the decision taken by the Academic Council. In like vein was the observation made by the Apex Court in The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, wherein it has been held that in the absence of mala fides against the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to such experts. In Dr. M.C. Gupta and Others Vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta and Others, , the need for such a liberal approach was reiterated. The Supreme Court observed as follows:

...If the recommendations made by the body of experts, keeping the relevant rules and regulations, manifest due consideration of all the relevant factors, the court should be very slow to interfere with such recommendations.

The impropriety of interfering with the selection of expert bodies was stressed again by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

...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 a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the 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....

Therefore, it has to be concluded that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot arrogate to itself the function of expert bodies as if it were a court of appeal. In the absence of mala fides, etc. clearly alleged and proved, it would be safe to leave the decision to the experts themselves. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in the decision reported in Km. Nelima Misra Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, wherein the Supreme Court was of the view that in the matter of appointment of teachers, due regard has to be given to opinion expressed by experts constituting the Selection Committee and that no interference by the courts is called for in absence of proof of mala fides or contravention of statutory or binding rule or ordinance.

Apart from the aforesaid legal position militating against the appellant, there is yet another legal hurdle that stares at his face, viz. the decision of the learned single Judge (Ext. R6(b) and the decision of the Division Bench Ext. R6(c) which, according to us, concludes the issue between the parties. In Ext. R6(b) the learned Single Judge observed as follows:

If the B.Ed. degree held by the petitioner evidenced by Ext. P2 is not one recognised by the University of Kerala, petitioner will have to surrender his post in favour of 6th respondent.....In case the decision is against the petitioner he will vacate the post and 6th respondent will be treated as the legitimate claimant of the post as ordered by the Government in Ext. P6.

In Ext. R6(c) the Division Bench observed as follows:

In the event of Academic Council holding that the qualification is not recognised, the services of the appellant would stand retrenched....and the 6th respondent would be entitled to be in service.

The Academic Council has taken a decision that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not recognised by the University. Ext. P9 order was issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam in the light of the decision of the Academic Council and in the light of the decision and observation of this Court. Therefore, the position is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the original petition. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellant based on violation of rules of natural justice no longer survives in as much as the impugned order in question has been passed strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances brought to our notice, we are satisfied that the appellant has not made out a case for interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we confirm the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss this writ appeal.