Ram Paul Sandhu vs H.P. University and Another

Bhawani Singh, J.—This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against the selection of certain Lecturers in the Department of Law by f-he University. Petitioner was one of the applicants for the post of Lecturer advertised by the University in ''the Tribune'' dated November 24, 1988 (Annexure P-l).

The Petitioner was called for interview. However, he was not selected whereas Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 were selected and ultimately appointed against four vacancies which became available to the Department by that time.

The Petitioner submits that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and the University has specifically mentioned in the advertisement that other things being equal, preference would be given to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. It is also the complaint of the Petitioner that the selection of Respondents 4 to 7 is actuated by ulterior motive and the selected candidates have just been accommodated despite the fact that the Petitioner had better merit than some of the selected candidates. Finally, it has been stated that the University should have selected at least one candidate from the category of Scheduled Castes to which the Petitioner belongs.

The University has, in its reply-affidavit, admitted that preference was to be given to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in case the merit of candidates was equal, but. in the present case this was not so. It has also been stated that there is no clear-cut reservation in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.

Shri D.C. fist, learned Counsel for the University, also submitted that for the selection of Lecturers in the University, many factors are to be taken into consideration in addition to the academic qualifications of the candidates. Elaborating his argument, the learned Counsel submitted that factors like research work, contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the subject, publication, initiative, alertness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, resourcefulness etc. etc. are also to be taken into consideration. In order to support this submission, strong reliance was placed on Dr. Keshav Ram Pal, Reader and Head of Sanskrit Department and Offg. Principal, Lajpat Rai Post-graduate College, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P. Vs. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad and others,

We have examined the matter with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. The selection proceedings were also perused to see whether the complaint of the Petitioner has any substance. We are of the considered opinion that there is no substance in the allegation of the Petitioner that the impugned selections are actuated by ulterior considerations. The Petitioner has also failed to support this allegation by any tangible evidence. We also found that in the selection, the place of the selected candidates is higher than (hat of the Petitioner.

The Selection Committee consisted of the following Members:

Prof. K.C. Malhotra, Vice-Chancellor, Chairman. H.P. University. Prol. K.S. Chhabra, Guru Nanak Dev Member. University, Amritsar. Prof. Tehir Mahmood, Delhi University, Delhi Member Prof. I.P. Massey, Chairman, Deptt. Of Member Laws, H.P. University, Shimla.

Shri D.C. Jishtu also submitted that this Court may not, in the absence of clear evidence of mala fides, interfere in the selections made by an expert body of the University. Reliance in this connection was placed on Km. Nelima Misra Vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, . It is relevant to quote para-32 of this judgment:

It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic field the Court generally does not interefere. In the The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, this Court observed that the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointments 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. The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which Chancellor has acted. See also the decisions in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Others, and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, at p. 438) : (1990) 1 SCR 305.

Next case, on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, wherein the apex Court said (p. 309 Para 12) as under:

It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. 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 malafides 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.

Finally, reference to The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, was also made and it is relevant to quote para 13 as under:

We are unable to see the point of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters. Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about malafides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.

The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

g