R.D.Sharma vs University of Jammu and others

Permod Kohli, J.—Selection of respondents 4 and 5 for the post of Professors of Management Studies in the University of Jammu has been

called in question by the petitioner allegedly being violative of Section 36 of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969.

Brief resume of the facts brought on record is noticed. The petitioner herein was working as a Professor in the Department of Commerce,

University of Jammu, Jammu One post of Professor in the Department of Management Studies, University of Jammu was advertised vide its

Advertisement Notice dated 25.4.1996. Before process could be completed another Advertisement Notice dated 23.10.1998 came to be issued,

whereby two posts of Professors in the Department of Management Studies were notified for selection, of which one post was in open field and

other in Diversified area, i.e., Material Management/Bank Management/Industrial Relation/Advertising Management/Entrepreneurship

Development. The petitioner as also respondents 4 and 5 were the candidates for the said selection. At the time of selection, respondent No. 4 Dr.

Ashok Aima was already working as Head of the Department in the Department of the Management Studies since 3rd October, 1997. Interview

for the posts in questions were held on 31.5.1999 by the Selection Committee constituted in terms of Section 36 of the Kashmir and Jammu

Universities Act, 1969. Respondents 3, 6 and one Dr. S.P. Suri were the Expert members on the Selection Committee, which interviewed the

petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. Vide order dated 30th July, 1999, respondents 4 and 5 came to be selected and consequently appointed as

Professors in the Department. The petitioner claims to have made certain representations to the Vice Chancellor and Chancellor of the University

on 15.12.1997 and somewhere in June, 1999 requesting for fair selection.

On being declared unsuccessful in the selection, petitioner filed writ petition SWP No. 1880/99 challenging the appointment of the respondents

4 and 5, which petition was, however, withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh one vide order dated 16.12.1999. The order of the court is

reproduced as under :

CMP (SW) No. 2943/1999 in SWP No. 1880/99

Mr. D.C. Raina, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A. Tikoo, Advocate vice Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objections to the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.

The application is allowed and the writ petition (SWP No. 1880/99) is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same

cause of action.

CMP stands disposed of.

Challenge to selection of respondents 4 and 5 is two fold, one that the Expert members on the selection committee were disqualified for making

selection, two that respondent No. 5 was ineligible for appointment in the field of Diversified area as stipulated in the Advertisement Notice. There

are three experts on the selection committee and I will deal with the allegations against each one of them separately.

Dr. M.S. Bedi : He is a professor in the Punjabi University, Patiala. It is alleged that he was debarred from being member of the selection

committee by the Punjabi University, Patiala vide its decision No. 5315651/Ref/S4 dated 7.4.1999. Reliance is placed on the averments made in

Para No. 3 of the writ petition and `AnnexureA' to the writ petition, a communication from the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala to the Heads

of various Wings and Branches of Punjabi University, Patiala. This document reads as under :

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

No. 55315651/Ref/S4

Dated : 7.4.1999

Heads,

Teaching Wing/Research/NonTeaching

Wings/Branches

Punjabi University, Patiala.

Sir/Madam Ji,

In accordance with the para 24 of minutes of Syndicate meeting held on March 24, 1999 and decision taken thereon as per recommendations of

the Syndicate's sub committee, this is to inform you that in future Professor M.S. Bedi and Professor Gurdip Singh of Business Management

Department should not be associated with any selection process/selection (committee) for filling up any position of any cadre for the period of

three years and these two teachers should not be selected for any such positions by virtue of which these position holders ought to be associated

statutorily with selection process/selection related matter.

Prof. Lalan Parasad : He is stated to be visiting Faculty member of the University of Jammu and is connected with the affairs of the University

from the years 1992 to 1999. Reference is made to the Information Brochure, issued by the University of Jammu for the campus recruitment for

the years 1992 to 1999. This expert is shown to be the member of the visiting faculty. He is otherwise Professor in Delhi University, Jammu.

Prof. Mr. S.P. Suri. : This expert has not been impleaded as party respondent in the petition. However, some allegations have been made in

ground (a) to the affect that the conduct of this expert is being inquired into by the University through a committee constituted for the purpose.

Further the case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 in his capacity as Head of the Department of Management Studies was instrumental in

nominating the Experts and the Experts on the selection committee were nominated by him for his own advantage. It is also stated that the quality

of the research work of respondents 4 and 5 is not better then the research work of the petitioner.

The respondents University has filed its Disclaimer through its Registrar denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated that the

petitioner having participated in the selection process and taken chance is estopped from questioning the selection process after being unsuccessful.

In respect of the allegations made against Prof. M.S. Bedi of Punjabi University, Patiala, it is stated that at the time of nomination of this expert,

University of Jammu was not aware of any order passed by the Punjab University, Patiala debarring him from participating in the selection process.

Notwithstanding this plea, it is stated that the action against the said Professor was confined only to the Punjabi University, Patiala. Circular relied

upon by the petitioner is for internal circulation. It is further stated during the pendency of this petition, University of Jammu sought clarification from

the Punjabi University, Patiala and it was reported that the said Expert was debarred to associate with the process of selection for a period of

three years on account of his alleged uncalled for behaviour in the meeting of some selection committee. The Syndicate in its meeting held on

20.8.1997 authorized the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate action. Reference is made to the decision of Syndicate Punjab University, Patiala on

29th June, 2000, which is incorporated in AnnexureR6, placed on record through the medium of CMP No. 43E/03 of the present writ petition and

same is reproduced as under :

Syndicate : 346

Dated : 29.6.2000(3)

Agenda Item No. 44.32

To reverse the decision taken against Prof. Gurdeep Singh and Prof. M.S. Bedi of the Department of Punjab School of Management Studies, in

the light of the cordial atmosphere created in the University.

This case is an old case i.e. dated 24.2.1997 wherein Dr. Gurdeep Singh and Dr. M.S. Bedi, who were associated as members of the selection

committee member for the selection of lecturer in Business Management. Due to their uncalled for behaviour in the said selection committee the

Syndicate in its meeting held on 28.2.1997 authorised the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate action against them. In the light of the above

decision, their clarification was sought and on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, it was decided that in future both the teachers will not be

associated for filling up the vacancies/process of selection for a period of three years. Further they shall not be appointed on any position, which

shall involve process/selection pertaining to selection. On the request of the Panjab Government Dr. Gurdeep Singh has now been appointed and

sent on deputation as Head of the Department of Malout Institute of Management and Information Technology Malout. Because the government

has given him a greater responsibility to run a newly established institution and keeping in view the cordial atmosphere created in the University, the

Vice Chancellor after deep thought has taken back the aforesaid decision.

The action taken by the Vice Chancellor is submitted to the Syndicate for confirmation.

......................................

Decision/Resolution Syndicate

Agenda Item 44 29.6.2000

Item 44.1 to 44.33 action taken confirmed.

Translated from Punjabi to English by :

Sd/

(Prof. Devinder Singh)

Head of the Deptt. of Punjabi

In respect to Lalan Parasad, it is stated that the Jammu University has its visiting faculty like all other Universities in the country and some

teachers of repute are empanelled as visiting faculty. Prof. Lalan Parasad of Delhi University, Jammu is one of such members

nominated/empannelled as the visiting faculty member in the Jammu University. He is a man of national repute. It is further stated that in the years

1992 to 1999, this professor visited Jammu only twice in the year 1998 to deliver lectures to the students of the Management Studies.

As far Dr. S.P. Suri is concerned, admittedly he has not been impleaded as party. It is stated that till date no charge has been framed against

the said officer for any act of misconduct. Though some inquiry was constituted. Allegations of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 was

instrumental in nominating the Experts is vehemently denied and it is stated that it is the Vice Chancellor who nominated the Experts. In respect to

eligibility of respondent No. 5 for the post of Diversified Area, it is stated that said respondent has 27 years experience in the Diversified area. As

a matter of fact, he was a teacher of the petitioner at post graduation level. The selection committee found him suitable for the post in question and

the petitioner was found unfit on consideration.

The selection of teachers in the University is made by the selection committee composition whereof is provided under Section 36 of the

Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969. The relevant extract of the said section for the purpose of the present petition is reproduced as under :

Selection Committees. (A) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, there shall be Selection Committees in a University comprising the

following members for selection of teachers and officers for appointment in the University concerned :

(a) Committee for appointment of teachers :

(i) Vice Chancellor (Chairman);

(ii) Pro Vice Chancellor, if any;

(iii) Chairman, Public Service Commissioner, a member of the Public Service Commission nominated by him;

(iv) The Head of the University Department concerned (in case of selection of Readers and Lecturers only);

(v) One member nominated by the University Council of the University concerned in the case of appointment of Professors and Readers and one

member nominated by the Syndicate concerned in the case of appointment of Lecturers, as the case may be;

(vi) Two persons not connected with the University having special knowledge of the subject in which the appointment is to be made, nominated by

the Vice Chancellor from the panel of experts approved by the University Council in the case of Professors and Readers and the Syndicate in the

case of Lecturers :

Provided that the panels shall be reviewed after every two years.

Subsection (vi) of the Section 36(A)(a) provides nomination of two Experts on the selection committee not connected with the University having

special knowledge of the subject. Nomination is to be made by the Vice Chancellor from the panel approved by the University Council. The

contention of the petitioner that the experts were nominated by the Head of the Department, i.e. respondent No. 4 who himself was a candidate

stands belied by reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section. It is only Vice Chancellor who has to nominate the experts that too from the panel

of the Experts approved by the University Council which is the highest decision making body of the University. There was no occasion for the

Head of the Department to nominate any Expert. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Experts were outside the panel approved by the

University Council. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations, which are otherwise rebutted by the counter filed by the Registrar of

the University. This contention of the petitioner is rejected.

Now coming to the question of the disqualification of the experts. From the reading of the decision of Syndicate dated 29th June, Punjabi

University, Patiala, it is revealed that Professor M.S. Bedi though disqualified for being associated with the selection for a period of three years but

the same was on account of his misbehaviour and not for any other reason. Even otherwise, the decision appears to have been confined to

University of Punjab only and there is nothing on record to show that he was debarred from associating himself in the selection process in other

Universities. Even letter dated 28.1.2000, the decision of the Syndicate, was circulated to various departments and wings of the Punjabi

University, Patiala and not to any other Universities, particularly, University of Jammu. Disqualification of Prof. Bedi of Punjabi University is of no

consequence.

Admittedly, Professor Lalan Parasad was empannelled as visiting faculty member for Jammu University. He visited the University for delivering

some lectures. The disqualification envisaged under subclause (vi) of Section 36(A)(a) cannot be attracted in the present case. The words

`connected with the University' cannot be given such narrow meaning as is sought to be placed by the petitioner. It is a fact that almost University

in the country has visiting faculty and various Experts and teachers of repute are invited to impart special knowledge to the students. Such

temporary and casual visits cannot attract disqualification. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted then a person can be brought on the select

committee as an Expert only once and thereafter he will earn disqualification on the plea of connected with the University. To my mind, phrase

`connected with the University' cannot encompass the meaning ""visiting members not associated with the affairs of the University on regular basis"".

This issue was considered by this court in SWP No. 484/99 wherein following observations were made :

.....For the purpose ascertaining whether a person like Smt. Swaranjit Mehta one of the expert is connected with the affairs of University or not it

has to be seen on what basis this plea is being raised. Only plea for invoking disability of her being connected with the affairs of University is that

she is on the approved panel of Examiners of the Jammu University for holding practical examination in the subject of Geography. In the absence

of there being any other material to show that she is connected with the University this is not enough. Panel is prepared by the University with a

view to keep it handy as to who are the persons who can possibly be called for holding practicals. It is again left to the University authority to see

as to who is to be called and who not. Whenever an approved Examiner is called he/she comes for conducting such practicals as may be required

by the University. In these circumstances, it will be too much to say that a person like Mrs. Swaranjit Mehta is connected with the University as

such disqualified...........

As observed above, there is no specific allegation against Dr. S.P. Suri and in any case he has not been impleaded as party respondent. Some

vague allegations deserve no attention.

Lastly the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 was not qualified to be appointed in the Diversified area. I am afraid that this court in

exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit over the judgment of the Expert selection committee that too in the field of research. Similarly argument of

Mr. D.C. Raina that the quality of research work of the respondents did not merit their selection is only to be noticed for rejection. Again it is for

the Experts to evaluate the research work and not the court. This court while examining the validity of selection has not to act as court of appeal

and to reevaluate and reassess the merit of the candidates. Issue is no more res integra having been considered by the Apex Court in various

judgments. The court in case titled Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, etc., AIR 1990 SC 434 held as under :

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. This 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 instant 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 materials before it. Therefore setting

aside the selection on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates, as assessed by the Court while sitting in appeal over

selection so made would not be permissible.

In another case titled National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalayana Raman and others, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 481, it

is held as :

We will first consider the second point. In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor

adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The High Court seems to be in error in stating that the Selection Committee ought to have given some

reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as against the other candidate. The selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival

candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required eligibility.....

As far the petitioner is concerned, he has participated in the selection process. The Experts have found him unfit. Besides this, he was student

of respondent No. 5 at PG level whose selection he has assailed in the present petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner having been considered

and rejected after participation in the selection process cannot be permitted to assail the selection of respondents 4 and 5. Apex Court in case

titled Om Parkash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1045 has held as under :

Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination

without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realized that he should not succeed in the examination....

In the totality of the circumstances and law on the subject, this petition is dismissed alongwith connected CMP(s).