Mohammed Yamin vs Sambalpur University and Others

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J—The petitioner, who is a candidate for the post of lecturer in department of History under unreserved category pursuant to advertisement No. 8555 dated 23.09.2009 issued by the Sambalpur University, Jyoti Vihar, Sambalpur has filed this application seeking to quash the proceeding of meeting of the selection committee recommending the name of opposite party No. 5 for appointment against the said post and further seeking for a direction to give him necessary appointment order since he has secured more marks in accordance with the objective system of evaluation as provided under Schedule-A of the University 1st statute.

The skeletal facts outlining the factual conspectus would be briefly narrated so as to better comprehend the issues seeking adjudication:

Sambalpur University, Jyoti Vihar, Sambalpur issued advertisement No. 8555/ESTT-III dated 23.09.2009 inviting applications in prescribed form from the eligible candidates for appointment of Professor-8, Reader-11 and Lecturer-19 for its P.G. Department, Burla and L.R. Law College, Sambalpur indicating the details of posts including required qualifications, specialization, scale of pay, mode of obtaining application form and other general information both online and offline method. The last date of receipt of such application form was 10.11.2009. For the lecturer in History, the scale of pay had been fixed as Rs. 8000-275-13500 and it was directed that two post of lecturer in History shall be filled up, out of which one for ST and one for UR category and the specialization had been prescribed as "open". The essential qualification prescribed for the lecturer is (i) good academic record with at least 55% of marks or equivalent grade of B in 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Master''s Degree Level or an equivalent degree from a foreign University (ii) Besides, fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have either Ph.D. degree or should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) or equivalent examination by the UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by UGC. (iii) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Master''s Degree level for SC/ST candidates (iv) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Master''s degree level to the Ph.D. Degree holders who have passed their Master Degree prior to 19.09.91. In addition to the same, general information has been provided in clause-1 that the application form duly filled in by the candidate must be supported by attested copies of all certificates, mark sheets, evidence of teaching, research experience and production of Ph.D. scholar, copies of published articles, certificate containing the record of date of birth. Under clause-8 of general information, it has been specifically provided that inservice candidates should ensure that CCRs/Performance Appraisal Report of last five years are received by the undersigned confidentially before the date of interview. In addition to the same, other conditions were also mentioned therein.

The petitioner having satisfied the requirement submitted his application and in clause-20 of the said application form, he has indicated that he has eight publications in National Journals and one publication in International Journal and furnished the details of his academic achievement in shape of summary sheet. It is stated that opposite party No. 5 having not satisfied the requirement mentioned in the advertisement read with Schedule-A issued under statute 258 of University 1st Statutes 1990, her name could not have been recommended by the selection committee for appointment as a lecturer pursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-1. The selection committee acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in awarding marks in research publication so far as national and international journals as well as CCRs marks are concerned and selected opposite party No. 5 for the said post. Therefore, against the said arbitrary and unreasonable action, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for adjudication.

Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual way strenuously urged that the selection committee recommended the name of Opposite party No. 5 vide Annexure-7 by arbitrarily and unreasonably awarding marks in national and international journal publications and also in CCRs so as to favour her malafidely as her husband is a faculty in the very same department of the university. It is further urged that on the basis of information received under the RTI Act vide Annexure-8 to the rejoinder, it appears that opposite party No. 5 had only two articles published in "Excavation of Senudor" against a total publication of two which was subsequently manipulated as "4", therefore she could not have been awarded ''7'' marks out of ''10'' in international publication and ''4'' out of ''5'' in national publication and ''2'' marks in CCR, where she had only three months? experience in P.G. study and thereafter she joined as a TGT of French in CBSE School, Gurgaon, Haryana w.e.f. 2.4.2009 and continued till the date of interview pursuant to advertisement in Annexure-1. But she has been awarded two marks for teaching experience. The selection committee has thus shown undue favouritism to opposite party No. 5 so as to select her. Therefore, this Court should interfere with the said decision of the selection committee and quash the same to facilitate the petitioner as he is the 2nd highest marks awardee of the very same selection committee. It appears that the assessment chart for evaluation of candidates for Lecturer in History under unreserved category has been annexed as Annexure-5, which the petitioner received under RTI Act on 1.10.2010, which indicates that opposite party No. 5 has secured 48 marks and the petitioner has secured 45.5 marks. Had the publications and CCRs so far as it relates to opposite party No. 5 been evaluated in consonance with the statute 258 then she could not have been selected, but as against her selection the petitioner name could have been recommended and she could not have been appointed as lecturer in History of the Sambalpur University pursuant to advertisement under Annexure-1. In order to substantiate his case, reliance have been placed on the judgments in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2915 : (2012) 4 BC 177 : (2012) 7 JT 446 : (2013) 1 RCR(Civil) 202 : (2012) 7 SCALE 414 : (2012) 8 SCC 216 : (2012) AIRSCW 4727 , Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 : AIR 1994 SC 11 : (1994) 4 JT 532 : (1994) 6 SCC 651 : (1994) 2 SCR 122 Supp , Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Others Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1182 : (1983) 3 CompLJ 30 : (1983) 144 ITR 225 : (1983) 2 SCALE 222 : (1983) 4 SCC 392 : (1983) 3 SCR 773 , Union of India and Others Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Another etc., (2001) 7 AD 581 : AIR 2001 SC 3887 : (2001) 3 ARBLR 438 : (2001) 8 JT 84 : (2001) 6 SCALE 390 : (2001) 8 SCC 491 : (2001) AIRSCW 3847 : (2001) 7 Supreme 65 .

Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, raises preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition stating that though the petitioner has alleged malafides but he has not impleaded proper person as party to the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly the same should be dismissed. It is further urged that the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his argument to the award of improper marks to opposite party No. 5 on research publication and CCRs on the allegation of showing favouritism as she happens to be the wife of a Reader in History of Sambalpur University. Though there is allegation that favouritism has been shown to opposite party No. 5 malafidely but due to non-impleation of proper party, such allegation cannot be sustained. It is further urged that evaluation has been done as per the statute 258 read with Schedule-A of the University 1st statute so far as research publication is concerned in which 10 marks have been ear-marked for international publication and 5 five marks for national publication. Also, five marks have been provided for CCR/Performance Appraisal Report. It is admitted that there are ''4'' publications provided by opposite party No. 5 and the same were taken into consideration during the period from 1993 to 2004. In addition to that, it is stated that opposite party No. 5 had qualified at the National Education Test (NET) Master''s level in September, 1987 in the subject Indian Culture and because of high scoring in the said test she was admitted to a University to receive the Junior Research Fellowship of the University Grants Commission, therefore her selection by the selection committee to the post cannot be faulted with. It is stated that the selection committee considering the quality and standard of the publication and career performance of opposite party No. 5, awarded marks for international and national publication and for CCR/Performance Appraisal report respectively and duly recommended her name to the Syndicate for appointment vide Annexure-7. The selection committee constituted by the experts having applied their mind to the materials placed before them and having awarded marks, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the said decision of the selection committee comprising of experts in their respective field so as to interfere with the said decision and alter the award of marks in favour of opposite party No. 5. In order to support his contention, he has relied upon Dr. Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 127 FLR 888 : (2010) 7 JT 558 : (2010) 7 SCALE 529 : (2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 9 SCR 227 : (2011) 1 SLJ 170 : (2010) 5 SLR 105 : (2010) AIRSCW 5907 : (2010) 6 Supreme 18 , Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, AIR 1990 SC 434 : (1990) 60 FLR 172 : (1990) 2 LLJ 470 : (1990) 1 SCC 305 : (1990) 1 UJ 328 , K. Vinod Kumar Vs. S. Palanisamy and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3171 : (2004) 1 CTLJ 436 : (2003) 8 JT 100 : (2003) 6 SCALE 753 : (2003) 10 SCC 681 : (2003) 2 UJ 1480 : (2004) AIRSCW 4260 : (2003) AIRSCW 4519 : (2004) 2 Supreme 589 : (2003) 6 Supreme 471 , Kota Nagamani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & others 2014 AIR CC 2716 (Hyderabad), Federation of Railway Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 2003 SC 1344 : (2003) 5 JT 123 : (2003) 3 SCALE 251 : (2003) 4 SCC 289 : (2003) 2 SCR 1085 .

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 5 referring to the counter affidavit filed by the very same opposite party in W.P. (C) No. 17699 of 2010 (Dr. Ratnakar Mohapatra v. Sambalpur University) states that the same should be taken into consideration as Dr. Ratnakar Mohapatra has also filed similar writ petition challenging his selection, who is one of the candidates for such selection. It is urged that the petitioner has made his self assessment by stating that opposite party No. 5 is of lower standard which is not the matter on the basis of the records available and the selection committee which has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of law after taking into consideration the materials placed before them adjudged the relative merits of the parties and found opposite party No. 5 more suitable who has satisfied all requisite eligibility criteria selected her for appointment as a lecturer in History under unreserved category. Accordingly, recommended her name to the Syndicate for such appointment. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed. It is stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision taken by the selection committee, which is an expert body in the process of decision making. It is stated that as per the career assessment the opposite party No. 5 was awarded highest marks being a topper in M.A. from Banaras Hindu University and the only Junior Research Fellow qualified person amongst the 23 candidates. The said JRF is given to those students, who get the highest marks in NET examination. The opposite party No. 5 having an excellent academic track record, the selection committee after due application of mind has recommended her case for appointment. So far as award of marks in respect of research publication is concerned, admittedly by the time the interview was conducted she has got ''4'' publications and considering the quality of articles the selection committee awarded the marks in international publication as well as national publications. Therefore, the action of the selection committee cannot be found fault with. In order to substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, AIR 1990 SC 434 : (1990) 60 FLR 172 : (1990) 2 LLJ 470 : (1990) 1 SCC 305 : (1990) 1 UJ 328 .

Apt, it would be before adverting to the pleaded assertions on behalf of the parties to take into consideration the relevant portion from the advertisement under Annexure-1 for selection/appointment of lecturer in history of the Sambalpur University, Jyoti Vihar, Sambalpur:

General Information

The application form duly filled in by the candidates must be supported by attested copies of all certificates, Mark sheets, Evidence of teaching, research experience and production of Ph.D. scholar, copies of published articles, certificate containing the record of date of birth.

Candidates are required to attend the interview on their own expense.

Candidates are required to produce their original certificates/testimonials for verification at the time of interview.

ST/ST/SEBC candidates must furnish the Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority.

Applications of the in-service candidates are liable to be rejected in not routed through the concerned employer.

The Reserved vacancy for S.T. shall be exchanged with S.C. in the event of non-availability of suitable S.T. candidates and vice-versa.

Incomplete forms shall summarily be rejected.

In-service candidates should ensure that CCRs/Performance Appraisal Report of last five years are received by the undersigned confidentially before the date of interview.

Issue of this advertisement does not make it binding on the part of the University to make appointment.

All correspondence relating to the appointment shall be made to the undersigned by designation and not by name.

The legislature of the State of Orissa in the Fortieth year of the Republic of India enacted an act called "The Orissa Universities Act, 1989" (hereinafter referred to as ''The 1989 Act''). Sub-section-(p) of Section-2 defines ''University'' to mean a University established or deemed to have been established under the Act. In the Explanation, it is stated that reference to the University in this Act shall be construed as references to each of the Universities. Section-3 of 1989 Act states about establishment and incorporation. Accordingly, the Sambalpur University established under Samalpur University Act 1966 has become the ''University'' under the provisions of 1989 Act. Section-4 of the 1989 Act states about the Officers, Teachers and authorities of University. Sub-Section (2) of Section-4 states that the following shall be the teachers of the University, namely, (i) Professors, (ii) Readers, (iii) Lecturers and (iv) such other teachers as may be prescribed to be teachers of the University. Section-21 of the 1989 Act states about the appointment of officers, teachers and other employees of the University. Section-21 reads as follows:-

The said Section-21 has undergone an amendment vide Law Department Notification dated 4.12.2002 by Orissa Act 14 of 2002 called "The Orissa Universities (Amendment) Act, 2002 an Act further to amend the Orissa Universities Act, 1989. Section-2 of the amended Act amending Section-21 states as follows:-

In view of the provisions contained in Section-21 of the 1989 Act and subsequent amendment made in 2002, the Selection committee was constituted for carrying out the purpose of selection pursuant to advertisement made in Annexure-1 in respect of selection of lecturer in History under unreserved category comprising of the Vice Chancellor of Sambalpur University, Chancellor''s nominee i.e. Prof. D. Gaikwad, Department of History, University of Pune, two subject experts i.e. Prof. V.H. Sonawane, Department of Archeology and Ancient History, MS. University of Baroda, Prof. Venkata Raghotham, Prof. & Head of Department of History, Pondicherry University, Director of Higher Education nominee Prof. S. Mohanty, Principal G.M. (Auto.) College, Sambalpur. As it appears from the pleadings, the petitioner has not raised the question of constitutionality of formation of the selection committee, rather he has accepted the selection committee duly constituted in conformity with the provisions of law.

In pursuance to power conferred by sub-section-(3) of Section-24 of Orissa University Act 1989, the State Government framed a statute called "The Orissa Universities 1st Statute 1990" (hereinafter referred to as "1990 1st Statute"). Chapter-II of the said statute deals with general conditions of service. Statute-258 states about evaluation of candidates for the post which reads as follows:

Note to the Statute-258 as mentioned above lays down a system of evaluation of candidates for various teaching posts which may be adopted mutatis mutandis for other posts given in schedule-A, of Statute-258, which reads as follows:-

SCHEDULE ''A'' (STATUTE-258) Evaluation of candidates for different teaching posts in the University (Professor, reader, Lecturer)

General Career (30 Marks)

(b) Marks for Matriculation and Intermediate may be redistributed as follows in the case of candidates passing Higher Secondary/Pre University/Pre-Professional etc. in case where Higher Secondary Examination is initial assessable Examination H.S.C. mark (of 4.2.1) be added to it making 6, 3 and 1, 5 for I, ii and iii divisions.

(c) In case of candidates from Universities/Institutions which follow the system of grades, their grades shall be converted to marks as under.

(d) In the case of candidates with more than one Bachelor''s Degree, only the Degree in the concerned subject shall be awarded marks and the Division obtained will be treated at par with the Honours.

RESEARCH DEGREE (20 MARKS)

(3) TEACHING EXPERIENCE (10 MARKS)

(For each completed year one mark in case of P.G. Teaching 0.75 marks for Honours teaching and 0.5 marks for Graduate level teaching subject to a maximum of 10 marks over and above the minimum prescribed year)

(4) Ph.D. GUIDANCE (5 MARKS)

One marks shall be awarded for each Ph.D. awarded under the guidance of the candidate subject to a maximum of 5 marks.

(5) RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS (15 MARKS)

(10 MARKS FOR PUBLICATION International Journals and 5 marks for publication in the National Journals)

(6) Viva-Voce (15 MARKS)

(7) C.C. Rs/Performance Appraisal Report - (5 Marks)

(8) GENERAL GUIDELINES

(A) There shall be no dilution, at the University Level of eligible qualifications prescribed by the U.G.C/state Government and concerned by the Chancellor No alteration of the prescribed qualification of a particular post shall be permitted under any circumstances except with the concurrence of the Chancellor.

(b) Candidates with Doctoral Degree or with equivalent publication are eligible for the post of Reader. The published work to be considered equivalent to a doctoral degree shall be rigorously assessed.

(c) The panel of experts shall be selected by he Syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor shall not invoke his emergency power under sub-selection (15) of section - 6 of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 in selection of experts. Only after due authorization by the syndicate the Vice-Chancellor may select experts."

On the basis of the above mentioned statutory provisions, the selection committee appointed in conformity with the provisions of law evaluated the relative merits of 23 candidates who had applied for the post of lecturers in history under unreserved category of the Sambalpur University and recommended the name of opposite party No. 5 to the Syndicate for such appointment pursuant to Annexure-7 stating that opposite party No. 5 having stood first in the process of selection, she should be given appointment against the post advertised.

Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in course of hearing referring to Annexure-5, the information received under RTI Act on 1.10.2010 confines his argument relying upon the assessment chart for evaluation of candidates of the petitioner vis-�-vis opposite party No. 5 to the extent of awarding marks in research publications and CCRs. It is urged that as per the scheduled-A under statute-258 of the 1st statute, 1990, ten marks is to be awarded by publication in international journal, five marks for publication in national journal and five marks for CCR. On the basis of information received in Annexure-8 to the rejoinder though opposite party No. 5 has indicated about publication of two articles in Excavation Report of Senudor, she has indicated to have got total four research publications. It is stated that "two" have been manipulated to "four" and she has been awarded with seven marks for international publication out of ten marks and four marks in national publication out of five and awarded two marks out of five in CCR though she had only rendered three months service as a lecturer from 1.1.2009 to 30.03.2009 under Raipur University and thereafter from 2.4.2009 she has been working as a TGT of French in CBSE School in Gurgaon, Haryana till the date of interview as per the information received under RTI Act vide Annexure-8 filed with the rejoinder, whereas the petitioner has got experience as lecturer in history from 1.6.1994 till May, 1998 and thereafter in-charge Principal from May, 1998 to July, 2000. Thereafter, Lecturer in History from July, 2000 to 12.08.2009 and was continuing as Principal In-charge in C.J. Degree Mahavidyalaya, Borda, Kalahandi. Therefore, by the time the petitioner made application for recruitment to the post of lecturer in history pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 he has got more than 15 years of experience as a lecturer and for that he has been awarded only two marks in CCR out of five marks. So far as research publication is concerned, out of eight research publication, one has been published in international journal and others in national journal and the petitioner has only been awarded one mark for international publication and one mark for national publication. Therefore, the petitioner assails the rationality of awarding marks by the selection committee both in international and national publications so far as petitioner vis-�-vis opposite party No. 5 is concerned.

In CCR, the petitioner who has got 15 years of service as lecturer to his credit has been awarded two marks whereas opposite party No. 5 has been awarded two marks for the little experience of three months in post graduate studies and thereafter TGT in a school. This should be construed to be an arbitrary exercise of power by the selection committee and therefore such awarding of marks has to be scrutinized by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The Selection Committee awarded marks on national and international publications made by the respective candidates in consonance with the statute 258 read with Schedule-A of First Statute, 1990. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to make any observation with regard to such awarding of marks by the selection committee in the research publication.

Similarly, in CCRs the petitioner who has got 15 years of service as a lecturer has been awarded two marks out of total of five whereas two marks has been awarded to opposite party No. 5 for little experience of three months in PG studies and thereafter as a TGT in a CBSE school. The fifteen years experience as a lecturer according to the petitioner has not been assessed properly by the selection committee. But this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the selection committee which has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to make any observation on the same.

Allegation of mala fide has been made by the petitioner against the selection committee stating that opposite party No. 5 is the wife of one Reader working in the same department i.e. Department of History of the Sambalpur University and the selection committee being influenced by him has favoured opposite party No. 5 by recommending her name for selection as lecturer in history in the same department. In paragraph-8 of the writ petition, it is stated as follows:-

"8. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. It would not be out of place to mention here that the opposite party No. 5 happens to be the wife of one of the readers working in the same Department, Sambalpur University and, therefore, on being influenced by the husband of the opposite party No. 5, such incorrect and wrong marks awarded in favour of the opposite party No. 5 so as to get the recommendation for appointment to the post of lecturer. ... ... ... ... xxx xxxx ".

The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have given an evasive reply in paragraph-7 of their counter affidavit, which reads as follows:-

"It is further respectfully submitted that the selection committee comprising of the Vice Chancellor of Sambalpur University, Chancellor''s nominee i.e. Prof. D. Gaikwad, Department of History, University of Pune, two subject experts i.e. Prof. V.H. Sonawane, Department of Archeology and Ancient History, MS. University of Baroda, Prof. Venkata Raghotham, Prof. & Head Department of History, Pondicherry University, Director of Higher Education nominee Prof. S. Mohanty, Principal G.M. (A) College, Sambalpur. ... ... ... ... ... ... .."

Opposite party No. 5 has also stated in paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 17699 of 2010 to the following effect:-

"14. That the petitioners have been making false accusation and allegation that husband of the deponent is also continuing in the University and, thus, the same may be a reason to favour her, but the same is not correct. Because, her husband has absolutely no nexus or say in the selection process undertook by the experts committee constituted as per the procedure. Such experts being of much higher category, dignity and standard, it cannot be conceived that her husband could be able to get any access to them and influence. There is no bar for appointment of husband and wife in the same institution, who are selected on the basis of their own individual capacity and merit. Hence, such contention made by the petitioners is not correct."

From the above mentioned pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has raised allegation of mala fide against the husband of opposite party No. 5, who is stated to have been instrumental in her selection. The husband of opposite party No. 5 having not been impleaded as party to the proceeding, this Court is not inclined to entertain such allegation against the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, the ground taken that at the behest of the husband of opposite party No. 5, her name has been recommended for appointment as lecturer cannot sustain and such plea is hereby negatived.

The reliance placed on Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (supra) by learned counsel for the petitioner arose out of a contract. The apex Court held that the Government and their undertakings shall have free hand in setting terms of tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, then Court shall interfere. As it appears no materials have been placed before this Court to establish the factum of mala fide, save and except making allegation that opposite party No. 5 is wife of a Reader, who is working in the same department under the same university and without impleading the person against whom the mala fide is alleged, the allegation of such mala fide has not been accepted in view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, the judgment so referred may not be applicable in the present context. So far as applicability of Tata Cellular mentioned (supra) is concerned, the same also arose out of a tender process and the apex Court laid down that the principle of judicial review applies to exercise of contractual power by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. The apex Court having come to a conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision taken by the authority in exercise of power under judicial review. The Court can interfere with the decision making process. So far as the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and others as well as Union of India and others (supra) referred to have decided on their own facts and circumstances while adjudicating contractual matters, which has no application to the present context.

Referring to Dr. Basavaiah (supra), learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, it is vehemently urged that so far as power of this Court to interfere with the academic matters is concerned, the Court plays a very limited role and cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the experts for appointment to the post of lecturer in the university pursuant to the recommendation made by the expert committee. In absence of any allegation of mala fide, interference of the Court with the decision of the experts is improper. The apex Court in Dr. Basavaiah (supra) dealt with catena of decisions. Paragraph-32 to 45 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

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 in the same. The High Court interfered and set aside the selections made by the experts 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:

"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 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..."

In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Others, AIR 1980 SC 2141 : (1980) 41 FLR 318 : (1980) LabIC 692 : (1980) 2 LLJ 175 : (1980) 3 SCC 418 : (1980) 3 SCR 902 , the court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians:

"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.......... "

In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1543 : (1984) 2 SCALE 30 : (1984) 4 SCC 27 : (1985) 1 SCR 29 : (1984) 16 UJ 1107 , the court observed thus:

"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......... "

In Km. Nelima Misra Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, AIR 1990 SC 1402 : (1990) 2 JT 103 : (1990) 2 SCC 746 : (1990) 2 UJ 90 , the court relied on the judgment in The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC 491 : (1964) 4 SCR 575 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.

In Bhushan Uttam Khare Vs. The Dean, B.J. Medical College and others, AIR 1992 SC 917 : (1992) 1 JT 583 : (1992) 1 SCALE 191 : (1992) 2 SCC 220 : (1992) 1 SCR 386 : (1992) 1 UJ 734 , the court placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of Mysore (supra) and reiterated the same legal position and observed as under:

"8. ... the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of 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.......... "

In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, AIR 1990 SC 434 : (1990) 60 FLR 172 : (1990) 2 LLJ 470 : (1990) 1 SCC 305 : (1990) 1 UJ 328 , the court in some what similar matter observed thus:

" ......... 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."

The Chancellor and Another Vs. Dr Bijayananda Kar and Others, AIR 1994 SC 579 : (1994) 68 FLR 69 : (1993) 6 JT 473 : (1994) 1 LLJ 364 : (1993) 4 SCALE 349 : (1994) 1 SCC 169 : (1993) 3 SCR 599 Supp : (1994) 1 UJ 131 , the court observed thus:

"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...."

In Chairman, J and K State Board of Education Vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1039 : (2000) 1 JT 398 : (2000) 1 SCALE 311 : (2000) 3 SCC 59 : (2000) 1 SCR 402 : (2000) AIRSCW 535 : (2000) 1 Supreme 330 , the court while stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert body observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from 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.

In The Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another, AIR 2001 SC 2151 : (2001) 1 JT 435 Supp : (2001) 3 SCALE 492 : (2001) 5 SCC 486 : (2001) 3 SCR 149 : (2001) 2 SCT 1110 : (2001) 2 UJ 898 : (2001) AIRSCW 1883 : (2001) 3 Supreme 529 , the court reminded the High Courts that the court''s jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the expert body is extremely limited.

In Medical Council of India Vs. Sarang and Others, (2001) 7 AD 93 : (2001) 7 JT 103 : (2001) 5 SCALE 542 : (2001) 8 SCC 427 : (2001) 4 SCT 332 : (2002) 1 UJ 50 : (2001) AIRSCW 3350 : (2001) 6 Supreme 521 , 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.

In B.C. Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa Vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Others, (2008) 11 JT 73 : (2008) 13 SCALE 191 : (2008) 14 SCC 306 : (2009) 2 SCC(L&S) 148 : (2009) 2 SLR 129 : (2008) AIRSCW 2678 : (2008) AIRSCW 3499 : (2009) AIRSCW 1720 : (2008) 4 Supreme 294 , the court again reiterated legal principles and observed regarding importance of the recommendations made by the expert committees.

In Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal Vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Another, (2008) 8 JT 621 : (2008) 11 SCALE 211 : (2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 887 : (2009) 1 SLJ 109 : (2009) 8 SLR 640 , the court reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.

In All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2322 : (2009) 5 JT 216 : (2009) 11 SCC 726 : (2009) 3 SCR 859 : (2009) 4 SLR 520 , again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.

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.

Considering the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of law laid down by the apex Court mentioned supra, in academic matters the Courts have very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts consisting the Selection Committee and in this application no allegation of mala fide having been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee and considering its limited jurisdiction this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the selection committee in recommending the name of opposite party No. 5 for appointment as lecturer in History of the Sambalpur University.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view on the basis of factual and legal analysis made above, the Court having limited jurisdiction to interfere with the decision taken by the expert committee in academic matters is not inclined to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order to costs.