AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.—First and fourth respondents have filed the writ appeals aggrieved by the order of the single Judge in allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein to declare the selection of the fourth respondent as Professor in Geophysics as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and to consequently direct the first respondent to conduct fresh selections as per rules. For the purpose'' of convenience, we will refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition.
The petitioner and the fourth respondents were working as Readers in the Department of Geophysics of Osmania University. The petitioner passed M.Sc. Tech. in Geophysics in 1968 and was appointed as Lecturer in Geophysics in Osmania University in the year 1973. He was conferred with the Doctorate Degree in Geophysics in the year 1977 and in 1979 he was appointed as Reader in Geophysics. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has passed only M.Sc., Geology and possessed the Doctorate Degree in Geology and was appointed as Lecturer in Geology in 1971. He was promoted as Reader in Geophysics on 7-3-1979, on the same day on which the petitioner was promoted. The contention of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent does not possess Doctorate Degree in Geophysics and so is ineligible for selection to the post of Professor in Geophysics.
The Registrar of Osmania University invited applications through advertisement No. 2/88 dated 11-2-1989 for filling up various posts by direct recruitment and in Group-II (Sciences) notified one post of Professor of Geophysics. We are not concerned with the advertisement in relation to other subjects. The requisite qualifications (or appointment of Professor are that one should possess a Doctorate degree in the concerned subject and should be an eminent scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research, ten years of experience of teaching and research at post Doctorate level. Six persons including the petitioner and the fourth respondent applied for the post of Professor in Geophysics. Fourth respondent was possessing Doctorate degree in Geology and others were possessing Doctorate degree in Geophysics. Five candidates were called for interview and the petitioner and fourth respondent were interviewed on 22-4-1989. On the basis of recommendation of the selection committee and approval of the Executive Council, fourth respondent was appointed as Professor in Geophysics by orders dated 6-6-1989. The petitioner filed the writ petition before issuance of appointment orders.
It is the contention of the petitioner that since the fourth respondent did not possess Doctorate degree in Geophysics and the Doctorate degree in Geology cannot be said to be the ''concerned subject'', he was ineligible to be called for interview to the post of Professor in Geophysics and his appointment is illegal. On the other hand, it is the contention of the fourth respondent that Geology and Geophysics are inter-disciplinary subjects, that Geology forms core in Geophysics and that therefore the fourth respondent is deemed to have possessed Doctorate degree in concerned subject and there is no impropriety in the selection.
The single Judge after considering the rival contentions and material on record held the process of selection of Professor of Geophysics to be illegal as it does not specify the qualifications required for the said post and directed the University to hold fresh selection within four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. He further observed that the authorities of the University have to take decision as to nature of Doctorate degree to be insisted upon and if they do not recognise the Doctorate degree in Geology to be considered to the post of Professor of Geophysics, the fourth respondent shall not be entitled to remain in office pursuant to the selection which is invalidated. Assailing that order, the present appeals are filed.
The learned counsel for the appellant-fourth respondent contended that the advertisement is quite legal and is as per the guidelines of the University Grants Commission that the words ''concerned subject'' mentioned in the advertisement are much known to the academicians of the University and Professors, that in the earlier selection also the writ petitioner appeared and was not selected but he did not challenge the selection, that though the required Doctorate degree is not stated in the advertisement the petitioner applied and so no prejudice is caused to him and that since there is no ambiguity in the advertisement the single Judge ought not to have set aside the selection made by the selection committee.
The learned counsel for the University contended that the writ petitioner was aware of the fact that the University treated the Geology, Geophysics, Mathematics and Physics as inter-disciplinary subjects for the purpose of Geophysics Department, that the University appointed Readers and Lecturers of Mathematics and Geology in the Department of Geophysics, that the single Judge ought not to have set aside the selection made by selection committee as the selection committee with technically qualified personnel has interviewed the candidates knowing well that Geology is one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics and that since the selection committee did not object to treating the Geology as one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics this Court ought not to have interfered with the selections made.
In view of the above contentions, the first question for consideration is whether Geology is the concerned subject of Geophysics Department.
The contention of the petitioner is that there are two departments in the University-Department of Geophysics and Department of Geology, and the posts of Professor in Geophysics and Geology were notified. Though Geology is taught to the candidates of Geophysics, both are not similar subjects. Geophysics Department was created in the year 1968 under Indo-USSR Bilateral Agreement and the same was designated as Centre for Exploration of Geophysics. The main objects of the Centre are teaching and research in Geophysics. The post of Professor in Geophysics is sanctioned treating Geophysics as main subject and for admission to M.Sc, (Geology) a candidate should have Geology as one of the subjects at B.Sc., level and for admission to M.Sc., (Tech.) Geophysics, Mathematics and Physics at B.Sc., level are essential. Further, the curricular of M.Sc. (Geology) and M.Sc. (Tech) Geophysics are substantially different. In the counter-affidavits filed by the fourth respondent and the University, it is stated that Geophysics is an inter-disciplinary subject comprised of Geology, Physics and Mathematics and the words ''concerned subject mentioned in the advertisement could be Geophysics, Geology, Physics or Mathematics and that Geology forms core of Geophysics course. It is further stated that the University has exercised its academic discretion to consider the subjects of Geology, Physics and Mathematics as ''concerned subjects'' for Geophysics based on similar patterns followed in certain other Central Government Organisations.
The contentions of the parties are diverse. Therefore, we have to examine whether the University has treated Geology to be the concerned subject of Geophysics. In the counter filed on behalf of the University, it is found that Geo-physics is an inter-disciplinary subject comprising of Geology, Physics and Mathematics and ''the concerned subject'' mentioned in the advertisement could be Geo-physics, Geology, Physics or Mathematics. It is further stated that persons possessing M.Sc. degree in Geology/Physics were appointed as Lecturers in Geo-physics and some were promoted as Readers and Professors. So many instances were cited where persons possessing M.Sc. degree in Geology, Physics and Mathematics are appointed as Lecturers and Readers.
The above stated averments clearly show that the University has treated Geology, Physics and Mathematics as concerned subjects of Geo-physics. The writ petitioner himself appeared for interview along with others in 1979 and at that time the writ petitioner and the appellant were promoted as Readers in Geophysics and the writ petitioner has not raised any objection as he did know that Geology is one of the concerned subjects of Geo-physics. Again, the writ petitioner appeared for interview for the post of Professor in 1989 along with Dr. Sitaramayya, who was possessing M.Sc., Degree in Geology, and when said Sitaramaiah was selected, the writ petitioner did not raise any objection. The writ petitioner was not taken by surprise by the advertisement issued for the present admission.
It is also necessary to make a reference to the leading text books which show that Geophysics is broadly concerned with the Physics of earth and its surrounding atmosphere. In the book ''Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting" written by Milton B. Dobrin, it is stated "the distinction between the two branches of earth sciences is not clear-cut". The facts show that the University, the writ petitioner and the appellant have understood and treated Geology subject as one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics and the writ petitioner and the appellant are working in Geophysics Department since ten years. Thus, for all purposes, Geology was treated as one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics.
Turning to the case-law on the subject, the Supreme Court in Km. Nelima Misra Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, observed that when appointments are made based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance.
In J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. 1991 (3) SLR 86 the Supreme Court observed that it is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. Kuldip Singh, J., speaking for the The Chancellor and Another Vs. Dr Bijayananda Kar and Others, observed that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, the Supreme Court pointed out that the question of equivalence of the examinations is for the University to decide and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University.
In the other line of cases, a Division Bench of this Court in S.B. Dwarakanath v. R. Dilip Kumar 1993 (1) ALT 24 observed that unless there are compelling circumstances, the Court has no alternative except to exercise its power of judicial review even when the decisions of academic bodies are called in question, and the rule of prudence is that the Court shall exercise greater restraint in such matters than in case of purely judicial or administrative functions. In Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli 1973 (1) SLR 1234 the Supreme Court while interpreting the phrase-Post-graduate degree in the concerned speciality mentioned in Annexure-I to II Schedule of Central Health Service Rules, held that the qualification of F.R.C.S. cannot be deemed to be a post-graduate degree in Orthopaedics.
There is no doubt about the principle laid down in the above decisions. In the present case, the question is whether Geology is one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics. As stated supra, the University, the appellant and the writ petitioner treated Geology as one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics. In earlier selection, when the candidate possessing Doctorate in Geology was selected as Professor, the writ petitioner did not raise any objection. It shows that the writ petitioner was aware that Geology is one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics. In view of above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the writ petitioner, Respondent No. 4 and the University treated Geology as one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics. Therefore, the notification issued containing ''a Doctorate degree in concerned subject'' as one of the requirements for the post of Professor cannot be said to be vague or unintelligible and misleading to the extent of the petitioner. No outsider challenged the notification as vague or misleading. So, the question whether the notification is vague for outsiders need not be considered in the present case.
The second question is whether any prejudice is caused to the writ petitioner because of the advertisement.
In the advertisement issued by the University, it is mentioned that Doctorate degree in concerned subject is required for the post of Professor in Geophysics, we have already held that Geology is one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics. The writ petitioner was working in the Department of Geophysics since long time and a number of appointments of Lecturers, Readers and Professors were made in the Department of Geophysics appointing persons holding M.Sc. Degree in Geology, Physics and Mathematics and Doctorate in Geology, Physics and Mathematics. The writ petitioner also participated in interview earlier along with some other candidate and the candidate possessing M.Sc. Degree in Geology was appointed as Professor in the Department of Geophysics. Thus, the writ petitioner was aware that Geology has been treated as one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics by the University since long time from the inception of establishment of Department of Geophysics in the University. The writ petitioner has applied for the post of Professor in Geophysics and after his non-selection, he approached this Court by way of writ petition and that he did not challenge the advertisement prior to his non-selection. It, therefore, cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the writ petitioner because of the advertisement The observations of me Supreme Court in Umakant v. Bhikalal Jain (1992) 1 SCC 106, which is cited by the Standing Counsel for the University, are very relevant to be quoted here:
"It is well settled that the matters related to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the Courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities."
The interpretation that Geology is not the concerned subject to be considered for appointment to the post of Professor in Geophysics cannot be taken when the University, the appellant, the writ petitioner and the selection committee have treated Geology as one of the concerned subjects of Geophysics Department. It has to be noticed that the writ petitioner is promoted later as Professor under the merit promotion scheme.
In view of the above stated circumstance of the case, we hold:
(1) The Court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the decision, notification or orders issued by the academic bodies and Universities, unless their decisions are in violation of any rule or ordinance or any statute of the University or arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of any fundamental rights.
(2) The appointment made by the University following the procedure to the post of Professor cannot be set aside unless it is proved by the person, who challenged it, that the same is violative of fundamental rights and prejudice is caused to him by the action of the academic body or University.
In the present case, the writ petitioner has not been able to show that any prejudice is caused to him or there is any violation of any statute or Rule of the Universities or the decision of the University is arbitrary and discriminatory and vitiated by mala fides. We, therefore, do not see any ground to interfere with the appointment of the appellant-fourth respondent.
In the result, we set aside the judgment of the single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. The writ appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.