Holding

The expert Committee's opinion on counting teaching and research experience is valid, no requirement exists to record reasons, and the High Court's cancellation of the appointment was erroneous.

Summary

The appellant, Dr. B.C. MylarpPA, was appointed Professor of Sociology at Bangalore University after a Board of Appointment, comprising academic experts, counted his eight years of lecturing and five years of research assistant experience to satisfy the 10‑year post‑graduate teaching/research requirement. Respondents challenged the appointment, arguing that research‑assistant service could not be equated with teaching experience and that the Board should have recorded reasons for its decision. The High Court cancelled the appointment, holding the Board’s assessment improper. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the expert Board’s opinion is entitled to great weight, that teaching and research experience may be combined to meet the eligibility criterion, and that no rule obliges the Board to record reasons. Consequently, the High Court’s cancellation was erroneous and the appellant’s appointment was reinstated.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in cancelling the appointment of the appellant by rejecting the expert Committee's method of counting teaching and research experience.
Whether experience as a Research Assistant can be treated as equivalent to post‑graduate teaching experience for the purpose of the 10‑year eligibility requirement.
Whether the Board of Appointment was required to record reasons for its selection.
Whether the appointment decision is subject to judicial review in the absence of any allegation of mala fides.

Subjects

Professor appointmentUniversity selection boardTeaching experienceResearch experienceJudicial review of academic appointmentsAdministrative lawHigher education

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R 288

A B.C. MYLARAPPA @ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA 7"' ' .

v.
DR. R. VENKATASUBBAIAH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6045 of 2008)
OCTOBER 3, 2008
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Service Law:
r
Selection and appointment of Professor - Teaching and
c Research experience - Counting of - Held: Supreme Court
observed in the case of Dr Kumar Bar Oas vs. Utkal Univer-
sity & Ors. that opinion of the experts committee in counting
teaching and research experience of candidates could be
taken together to determine the minimum eligibility condition
D for appointment as Professor - Considering the teaching ex-
perience and the research experience possessed by the ap- ,..
pellant, the expert committee/Board found him satisfying the v
\

eligibility conditions for appointment as Professor- In absence
of any a/legation of ma/a tides, opinion of experts cannot be
E said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction - High Court
erred in cancelling appointment of appellant as. Professor -
University directed to reinstate the appellant - Precedent.
Selection of candidates by expert body/Board without
recording reasons - Propriety of
F I"

The question which arose for consideration in this \-
appeal was as to whether the High Court erred in cancel-
ling the appointment of the appellant by rejecting the opin-
ion of the expe_rt Committee/Board in counting the teach-
ing and research experience of the appellant in adjudg-
G
ing eligibility for the post of Professor in the University, in
the absence of any allegation of malafides against the :i_~·

members of expert Committee/Board. '
'

-H 288
B.C. MYLARAPPA@ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR. 289
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS.

"' Appellant contended that the High Court ought not A
) to have interfered with the decision of the Board of Ap-
pointment which comprised of experts for selection to the
post of Professor in the University, as in the absence of
any pleading that either the Expert Body of the University
or the University Authorities had acted mala fide in the B
matter of selection of the appellant, it was not for the court
__ , to go into the question whether such selection was proper
' or not; that both the periods of experience in teaching as
Lecturer for a period of 8 years 7 months and 2 days and
experience as Research Assistant for a period of 5 years c
5 months and 10 days possessed by him ought to have
been taken into account and after taking into account the
aforesaid period, the High Court ought to have held him
eligible for being selected as a Professor in the Univer-
sity; and that in view of the settled law and the law laid
0
down by this Court particularly in the case of Dr. Kumar
Bar Das, the judgments of the Division Bench as well as
of the Single Judge of the High Court are liable to be set
aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court E
HELD: 1.1 10 years experience in Post Graduate
teaching and/or experience in Research in the University
was necessary for selection to the post of Professor in
the University. It is not in dispute that the appellant had 9
i
years of service as Lecturer and had done Research work F
; for 5 years. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that
he had satisfied that he had got 10 years Post Graduate
teaching experience in Research in the University. It is
also not in dispute that the Board of Appointment of the
University consisted of the persons, who were experts G
academician, found the appellant eligible for such ap-
pointment, after scrutinizing the experience required for
appointment to the post of Professor in the Department
of Sociology. He was interviewed along with others by
the Board of Appointment, the Expert Body, and found to H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.

t~:;.
A be eligible for appointment as Professor. The Syndicate
of the University, which also consisted of Academic ex-
perts had passed a resolution approving the appointment
-"of the appellant as Professor. (Para - 19) [302,A-D]
1.2 It was the stand of the University before the High -
B Court as well that the appellant was duly qualified for ap-
pointment to the post of Professor. The Single Judge of
the High Court while allowing the writ petition of the re- ~
spondents, however, reckoned the service of the appel-
lant as Lecturer, but ignored to consider the experience
c of the appellant as Research Assistant. It cannot be dis-
puted that these two experiences, namely, experience as r
I
Lecturer and experience as Research Assistant, if
counted, the eligibility of the appellant for appointment to
the post of Professor could not be questioned. This Court,
D in the case of Dr. Kumar Bar Das on this aspect of the mat-
ter, had observed that the opinion of experts in the Selec-
tion Committee must be taken to be that the appellant's \!
teaching and Research experience satisfied the condi-
tions of 10 years experience for appointment to the post
E of Professor. In view of the said decision and also deci-
sion in the case of G.N.Nayak vs. Goa University & Ors.,
which extensively dealt with the requirement to the post
of Professor in the University, this Court need not dwell
in depth and in detail any further and hence, the appel-
F lant had satisfied the qualifications required for appoint- ~

ment to the post of Professor in the University. (Paras -
19 &'.22) [302,E-H; 303,F-G] '
Or. Kumar Bar Oas vs. Utkal University & Ors. (1999) 1
SCC 453 and GN.Nayak vs. Goa University & Ors. (2002) 2
G sec 712 - relied on.
.1.3 The Board of Appointment has considered not only ~~
the candidature of the appellant and his experience as a
Lecturer and Research Assistant along with others but
came to hold that it was the appellant who could satisfy
H
B.C. MYLARAPPA @ DR CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR 291
R VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS .
.. \ )
the conditions for appointment to the post of Professor. A
There is nothing on record to show any mala tides attrib-
uted against the members of the Expert Body of the Uni-
versity. The University Authorities had also before the High
Court in their objections to the writ petition taken a stand
that the appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for B
appointment. In this view of the matter and in the absence
- -1 of any mala tides either of the expert body of the Univer-
sity or of the University Authorities and in view of the dis-
cussions made as above, the orders of the High Court
cannot be sustained, as the opinion expressed by the c
Board and its recommendations cannot be said to be ille-
gal, invalid and without jurisdiction. (Paras - 22 & 23)
[304,A; 305,E-G]
University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. AIR
(1965) SC 491 and M. V Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. Union Public D
-'. Service Commission & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 119 - relied on.
---~--
2.1 There is no rule or regulation requiring the Board
to record reasons. Therefore, the High Court was not jus- ·
titied in making the observation that from the resolution
of the Board selecting the appellant for appointment, no E
reason was recorded by the Board. In the absence of any
rule or regulation requiring the Board to record reasons
and in the absence of mala tides attributed against the
members of the Board, the selection made by the Board
*j without recording reasons cannot be faulted with. (Para F
- 26) [307,E-G]
National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs.
Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. (1992) Supp 2 SCC 481 - re-
lied on.
G
2.2 The scrutiny report as submitted by the Chair-
.>,,J
man, Department of Sociology of the Univeristy, which
was extracted by the Single Judge of the High Court in
his order would clearly show that the Chairman found only
four persons eligible for the post and invited the appel- H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A lant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one more candi-
--· .
date for interview. After being satisfied and after verifying
T
the report of the eligibility and the requirements for ap-
pointment to the post of Professor, the scrutiny and veri-
fication report was filed by the Chairman and on the ba-
B sis of which the appellant was selected and appointed to
the post of Professor in the Univer~ity. That being the
position, this Court is of the view that the Division Bench f--
as well as the single judge of the High Court ought not to
have exercised the writ jurisdiction and interfered with the
c selection of the expert committee of the University for the
reasons made in the order and particularly when the se-
lection of the appellant was not challenged on the ground
of mala tides. (Para - 28) [308,B-E]
3. The University is directed to r~-instate the appel-
D lant. (Para - 29) [308,F]
;.
CASE LAW REFERENCE y
(1999) 1 sec 453 Relied on Para - 19
(2002) 2 sec 112 Relied on Para - 21
E
AIR (1965) SC 491 Relied on Para - 22
(2008) 2 sec 119 Relied on Para - 23
(1992) Supp 2 sec 481 Relied on Para - 25
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6045
F
of 2008
-~
"'
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.8.2007 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 1416
of 2007 (S-RES)
G M. Rama Jois, V.P. Seemanthini (for M/s. T.T.K. Deepak
& Co.) for the Appellant. ;....__-.(
Harishkesh Baruah, Shailesh Madiyal, Raka Phookan,
Arjun Bobde, Balvir Josangh and Jagjit Singh Chhabra and
H Rajesh Mahale for the Respondents.
B.C. MYLARAPPA@ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR. 293
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein along with two other persons was
appointed to the post of 'Research Assistant' in Sociology De-
partment, Bangalore University (In short, "the University") on or B
about 181h of October, 1988. The initial appointment was for a
period of three years provided however that the continuance of
the appointment will be on an year to year basis subject to the
report of the Head of the Department concerned testifying to
the satisfactory work and conduct of the research during the c
year of review.
3. In the appointment letter, it was also made clear that the
appointment may be extended by one year at a time for a fur-
ther period of two years, depending upon the progress of the
research work. The Clause 4 of the appointment letter states D
.,\ as under:-
"They will be required to do tutorial work for 3 to 4 hours
a week in addition to the research work approved by the

- University."
4. Clause 9 of the appointment letter states as under :-
E

"They should produce all the original certificates
pertaining to their qualifications, date of birth, experience
etc. at the time of reporting for duty to the Heads of the
Department concerned, for verification. F
They should apply for registration for the Ph.d. Degree
to the Registrar, Bangalore University, Bangalore within
two months after reporting for duty to do research work
on a selected subject and also abide by the regulations G
for the Ph. d Degree."
5. On or about 12th of February, 1987, some persons,
whose tenure appointment as Research Assistants was com-
ing to an end in 1986-87, made a representation on 12th of Feb-
ruary, 1987 to the Chancellor, Bangalore University to regular- H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

r~r
A ize them by promoting/upgrading the post of Research Assis- :

tants. In their representation, the said persons submitted that
during the tenure appointments (three years extended to five
years) have acquired sufficient experience.in the field of research
and also teaching and they would be rendered jobless and put
B to hardships if their appointments were terminated at the end of
their tenures. l
~
6. On 31st of October, 1988, the University framed a draft
statute then~by providing for absorption of Research.Assistants
as Lecturers as a one-time measure and submitted it to the
c State Government for approval. By an order dated 19th of Octa-
ber, 1991, the University directed that in regard to Research
Assistants who were appointed for three years and continued
,,
beyond that period, status quo would be maintained by continu-
ing their services until further orders or until the Government takes
D a decision in regard to proposals of their absorption as lectur-
/..
ers in the University. By a communication/order dated 3rd of No- \"!-",.......-
vember, 1992, the State of Karnataka returned the draft statute
to the University suggesting some changes. Again on 17th of
February, 1993, the University resubmitted the draft Statute af-
E ter making necessary changes as instructed by the State Gov-
ernment. On 4th of October, 1993, the Chancellor of the Univer-
sity gave his assent to the said Statute and the Statute was called
.as the "Conversion of certain posts of Research Assistants to
that of Lecturers and abolition of vacant posts of Research As-
F sistants in various Departments of Bangalore University (for short
"Statute")". \

7. The aforesaid Statute was notified by the Registrar of
the University on 8th of November, 1993. The clauses which are
relevant for the purpose of proper decision of this appeal are
G as follows:-
k~·
"3. 1. As from the date on which these Statutes shall come
into force the posts of Research Assistants as mentioned
in Annexure 'A' to these Statute shall stand converted to
the posts of Lecturer.
H
B.C. MYLARAPPA@ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR. 295
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

3. 2. As from the date on which these Statutes shall come A
into force all posts of Research Assistants, which are
vacant as on 13.11.1992, shall stand abolished and there
shall be no further appointment of Research Assistants
in any of the Departments of the University."
3.4. The Research Assistants holding the post as such 8
and as mentioned in Annexure ~'to these Statutes as
on the date on which these Statutes shall come into force
shall be eligible to be absorbed. and appointed as
Lecturers.
c
3.6. The Research Assistants absorbed and appointed
under the Statutes as Lecturers for the purpose of
seniority as Lecturers will rank below the Lecturer already
working in the University as on the date on which these
Statutes shall come into force."
D
8. In pursuance of the Statute, the Syndicate of the Univer-
sity passed a Resolution on 181h of March, 1994 thereby ab-
sorbing 22 Research Assistants.
9. In pursuance thereof, a common appointment order was
issued on 21st of March, 1994 from which the relevant condi- E
tions are as follows:-

"1. For the purpose of seniority as Lecturers, they will
rank below the lecturers already working in the University
and temporary lecturers now regularized. F
2. Such of the Research Assistants, who are absorbed
as lecturers not possessing Ph.D.!Net!M.Phi/I
qualification shall acquire Ph.D. !Net within a period of 3
years, failing which they shall not earn their future
increments, till they acquire above qualifications. G
_).._ -l 6. The services as Research Assistants will not be
counted for the purpose of granting senior scale and
selection scale of pay."
10. By an order dated 41h of August, 1994, the University H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A ordered that the date of appointment of the present appellant
as Lecturer in Sociology be read as 'effective from 21.3.1994'.
In the year 1995, the present appellant and some other Research
Assistants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka,
which were registered as Writ Petition Nos. 41710-41786 of
B 1995, in which the writ petitioners made the following prayer :-
"The petitioners therein interalia sought for a declaration
that Clause 3. 6 and 3. 8 of the Statute are illegal and
ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution; and a/so for a )
declaration that 'condition Nos. 1 & 6 of the appointment
c order dated 21.3.1994 are illegal and void.
The Petitioners therein also sought for a direction to the
University to give the benefits if their past services as
Research Assistants for the purpose of seniority in their
past services as Research Assistants for the purpose of
D
seniority in the cadre of lecturer and accord them
consequential benefits .... "
11. The aforesaid writ petitions were taken up for final dis-
posal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka,
E who by his Judgment and order dated 121h of April, 2000 al-
lowed the writ petitions in part inter a/ia upholding the validity of
Clauses 3.6 and 3.8 of the Statute as well as Condition No. 1 of
the appointment order dated 21st of March, 1994. Further, it
would be,evident from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge
F of the High Court that the Condition No. 1, as noted hereinearlier,
of the appointment order dated 21s1 of March, 1994 was can- ~
celled.
12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Or-
der passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners as
G well as the University and the State had preferred appeals be-
fore the Division Bench of the High Court. By a Judgment and i- .~
order dated 7th of March, 2002, the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the appeals preferred
by the State as well as by the University. While passing such
H Judgment, the Division Bench made the following conclusions:-
B.C. MYLARAPPA@ DR CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR 297
R VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
"(i) It has been amply demonstrated that the posts of A
Research Assistants are lower to the post of lecturers;
and
ii) A Research Assistant's post cannot be equated with
that of lecturers."
B
13. The University thereafter.issued a notification on 30th
of September, 2002, inviting various persons to apply for the
post of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in the University. In the
said notification, the University invited candidates for the post
of Professors in which the following qualifications were re- ~
quired:-
"An eminent scholar with published work of high quality,
actively engaged in Research with :
1O years of experience of Post-Graduate teaching, and!
0
or experience in research at the University/National Level
Institutions (including experience of guiding research at
Doctoral Level).
Or
An outstanding scholar with established reputation who E
has made significant contribution to knowledge."
14. In response to the said notification, various candidates
including the appellant and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ap-
plied for the said post. The last date of submission of applica- F
tion was 23rct of October, 2002 on which date, the appellant had
completed 8 years, 7 months and 2 days i.e. from 21 51 of March,
1994 to 23rct of October, 2002. The Chairman, Department of
Sociology, submitted a "Scrutiny and Verification Report". In the
said report, it was stated as under :-
G
" .... on my scrutiny, I am satisfied that the candidate under
reference fulfills all the requirements, as laid down in the
University Notification under reference and the candidate
may be invited for the interview.
H·
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

y-t...'
A ·.ff the candidate is not eligible, please furnish the details." \

15. From this Scrutiny and Verification Report, it appears that
the Chairman found only four persons eligible for the post and invited
the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one other person for
interview. A Board of Appointment in Sociology Department of
B University was constituted by a notification dated 30th of September,
2002 and the Board assembled for selection of candidates for the
post of Professor in Sociology. The Board of Appointment selected
the following persons in the order of merit:-
c. 1. Dr. Chikkamylarappa (appellant herein)
2. Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah (respondent No.1 herein)
3. Dr. C. Somashekar (respondent No.2 herein)
4. Dr. I. Maruthi
D
16. Challenging this selection, the respondent Nos. 1 and
2 filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking for a writ
declaring the selection and appointment of appellant to the post
of Professor in the Department of Sociology. In the said writ
E petition, the appellant filed its written objection and University J
also had filed its objection. On or about 18th of June, 2003, the
appellant was appointed by an appointment order as a Profes-
sor in the Department of Sociology. It would be pertinent to men-
tion that although during the pendency of the writ petition, the
appointment order of the appellant was issued by the Univer-
F sity, but such appointment order was, however, never challenged
in the writ application even by way of an amendment to the writ
petition in which the only challenge was against the selection of
the appellant. By a Judgment and orderdated31 51 of July, 2007,
the learned Single Judge of the High Court had. allowed the writ
G petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and '2 herein and thereby
directed the University to readvertise the post and fill the va-
cancy in accordance with law within a period of three months
from the date of reply of the order. While setting aside these-
lection of the appellant, the learned Single Judge, inter alia, con-
H eluded as follow:-

~,
B.C. MYLARAPPA@ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR. 299
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~
(1) The writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 a.nd 2 confined A
their challenge only to one aspect i.e. whether the
appellant possessed the minimum qualification as
required.

(2) The appellant could claim to be a Lecturer only with
effect from 21st of March, 1994 and not prior to it. B

... (3) In view of the Judgment and order dated 7th of March,
2002, it would not be permissible to reckon the
services/experience rendered by the appellant as
Research Assistant in the University as a Lecturer in c
the same.

(4) Taking the said dates into account, the appellant did
not possess the stipulated qualification set out in the
notification i.e. 10 years of experience in post-
graduate teaching or the alternative. The appellant D
was selected with reference to :the number of years
• of teaching and not with reference to the qualification
that he was an eminent scholar with research
experience and publications etc.
(5) The appellant was ineligible for appointment to the E
post of Professor in the Sociology Department of
the University and hence could not have been
appointed. His selection and appointment, therefore,
was arbitrary and illegal.
"-I F
(6) The writ petition survived for consideration despite
the superannuation of the respondent No. 1 herein
and non-short listing of respondent No. 2.

17. It is in this view, the learned Single Judge came to the
conclusion that the selection was improper, arbitrary and illegal G
__,, and, therefore, his appointment ought to be cancelled. Being
aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 31 51 of July, 2007,
the appellant preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench
of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by its
Judgment and final order dated 6th of August, 2007 dismissed H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A the appeal preferred by the appellant inter alia on tpe following
findings:-
"(i). The question whether the appellant's experience can
be treated as research experience was not considered
by the Board of Appointment. It was not clear how the
B Board of Appointment found the appellant eligible.
(ii) The question was whether the experience of the
appellant as Research Assistant can bf! treated as
equivalent to post-graduate teaching experience.
C (iii) The High Court in its Judgment and order dated
7.3.2002 had taken the view that the post of Research
Assistants was not equal to the post of Lecturer. Therefore,
the experience as Research Assistants could not be
treated as equivalent to post-graduate teaching
D experience."
\
18. Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds, the Division

E
Bench, by the aforesaid order, dismissed the appeal of the ap-
pellant against which, the appellant filed this Special Leave
Petition in respect of which leave has already been granted and
the appeal was heard in presence of the learned counsel for
'
the parties.
19. We have heard Mr.Rama Jois, lea~ned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr.Hrishikesh Baruah, learned
F. counsel appearing for the respondents and also examined the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the
learned Single Judge passed in the writ application in depth
and in detail. Before us, Mr. Rama Jois, learned senior counsel
at the first instance· submitted that the High Court ought not to
G have interfered with the decision of the Board of Appointment
which comprised of experts for selection to the post of Profes-
sor in the University as it was not for the court to go into the
question whether such selection was proper or not in the ab-
sence of any pleading that either the Expert Body of the Univer-
H sity or the University Authorities had acted mala fide in the mat-
B.C. MYl..ARAPPA@ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR. 301
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
.>---....
I ter of selection of the appellant. Secondly it was argued by A
Mr.Rama Jois, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the
High Court also erred in allowing the writ petition of the respon-
dents by holding that having regard to the wording of the pre-
scription both the periods of experience in teaching as Lee-
turer for a period of 8 years 7 months and 2 days and experi- B
_, ___ ence as Research Assistant for a period of 5 years 5 months
and 10 days ought to have been taken into account and after
taking into account the aforesaid period, the High Court ought
to have held that the appellant was eligible for being selected
as a Professor in the Sociology Department of the University c
and by not doing so, the High Court erred in setting aside the
appointment of the appellant. In support of this contention,
learned senior counsel for the appellant had drawn our atten-
tion to a decision of this Court in the case of Dr.Kumar Bar Das
vs. Utkal University & Ors. [1999 (1) SCC 453] and argued
D
_.,, that this case squarely covered the case of the appellant which
'( was also relied on by the appellant before the High Court, but
the High Court had failed to take notice of that decision. Reli-
ance was also placed by the learned senior counsel for the ap-
pellant in the case of The University of Mysore vs. G.D. Govinda
Rao & Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491] and National Institute of Mental E
Health & Neuro Sciences vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors.
[1992 Supp (2) SCC 481]. Accordingly, learned senior counsel
for the appellant concluded that in view of the settled law and
..,.
the law laid down by this Court particularly in Dr.Kumar Bar Das
(supra), the judgments of the Division Bench as well as of the F
...-
learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, however, refuted the
submissions so made on behalf of the appellant. According to
. the learned counsel for the respondent, the Division Bench as
well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court were per- G
. . ->
fectly justified in holding that the experience of the appellant as
Research Assistant could not be treated as equivalent to Post
Graduate teaching experience and the question whether the
experience of the appellant could be treated as Research ex-
~
It perience was not considered by the Board of Appointment of H
. -
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A the University. Let us now deal with the question raised by the
r ~~

learned counsel for the parties. As quoted herein earlier that
requirement for selection in the post of Professor in the Social-
ogy Department of the University, 10 years experience in Post
Graduate teaching and/or experience in Research in the Uni-
B versity was necessary. It is not in dispute that the appellant had
. 9 years of service as Lecturer and had done Research work for
5 years. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that he had sat- I

~
isfied that he had got the experience of 10 years in Post Gradu-· ·
ate teaching experience in Research in th~ University. It is also
not in dispute that the Board of Appointment of the University
c consisted of the persons,· who were experts academician as
Head, found the appellant eligible for such appointment, after
scrutinizing the experience required for appointment to the post
of Professor in the said Department. He was interviewed along
with others by the Board of appointment of the Expert Body and
D found to be eligible for appointment. The Syndicate of the Uni-
versity, which also consisted of Academic experts had passed f
a resolution approving the appointment of the appellant as Pro- ~
fessor. This appointment of the appellant was challenged on
two grounds. Before we go into the two grounds, we may keep
E it on record that it was the stand of the University before the ·.. 1--
High Court as well that the appellant was duly qualified for ap-
pointment to the post of Professor. The learned Single Judge
while allowing the writ petition of the respondents, however, reek-
.oned the service of the appellant as Lecturer, but ignore to con-
sider the experience of the appellant as Research Assistant. It
F cannot be disputed that these two experiences, namely, experi- "
ence as Lecturer and experience as Research Assistant, if ~
counted, .the eligibility of the appellant for appointment to the
post of Professor could not be questioned. In Dr. Kumar Bar
Das (supra), this court in detail had considered this aspect of
G the matter and in the said decision, this Court observed that the
opinion of experts in the Selection Committee must be taken to
be that the appellant's teaching and Research experience sat-
l_ .....
isfied the above conditions of 10 years as mentioned for ap-
pointment to the post of Professor. In that case, this Court at
H para 27 at page 462 observed as follows :
••
)
)

B.C. MY~RAPPA@ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR. 303
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
.. -, -
" In our view, having regard to the high qualifications of A
the experts and the reasons furnished by the Syndicate
as being the obvious basis of the experts' opinion, the
Chancellor ought not to have interfered with the view of
the experts. The expert's views are entitled to great weight
as stated in University of Mysore's case." B
20. In Para 28 of the said decision, this Court also ob-
- .. J
served:
"In our opinion, the Chancellor cannot normally interfere
with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates c
made by an expert body unless mala tides or other
collateral reasons are shown. In Neelima Misra case
above-referred to, this Court observed, referring to the
powers of the Chancellors in matters of appointment of
Professors/Readers as being purely administrative and
D
....._ not quasi-judicial."
21. Following the principles laid down in Kumar Bar Das
vs. Utkal University (supra), this Court also in the case of
GN.Nayak vs. Goa University & Ors. [2002 (2) SCC 712] con-
sidered this aspect of the matter and held at para 27 which are E
as follows:
"A candidate can club together his qualification of
teaching and research to cover the 10 years' period as
has been held in Kumar Bar Das (Dr.) vs. Utka/
... F
University"
;
22. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, as
noted herein earlier, which extensively dealt with the require-
ment to the post of Professor in the University, we need not dwell
in depth and in detail any further and therefore, we must hold
G
that the appellant had satisfied the qualifications required for
• __..;,
appointment to the post of Professor in the University. There is
another aspect of this matter which is also relevant for proper
decision of this appeal. We have already indicated earlier that
the Board of Appointment was constituted with experts in this
.. H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A line by the University Authorities. They have considered not only
the candidature of the appellant and his experience as a Lec-
turer and Research Assistant along with others came to hold
that it was the appellant who was the candidate who could sat-
isfy the conditions for appointment to the post of Professor. Such
B being the selection made by the expert body, it is difficult for us
to accept the judgments of the High Court when we have failed .
to notice any mala tides attributed to the members of the expert
· body in selecting the appellant to the said post. In University of
Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491], this
c Court while dealing with the selection of candidates for aca-
demic matters by a Board of Experts appointed by the Univer-
sity for the post of Reader and the recommendation of the Board,
this Court at Para 13 of the aforesaid decision observed:-
"Boards of Appointments are nominated by the
D Universities and when recommendations made by them
and the appointments following on them, are challenged
before courts, normally the court should be .slow to
interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts.
There is no allegation about ma/a tides against the
E experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we
think, it would normally be wise and safe for the court to
leave the decisions of academic matter to experts who
are more familiar with the problems they face that the
courts generally can be. The criticism made by the High
F Court against the report made by the Board seems to
suggest that the High Court thought that the Board was
in the position of an executive authority, issuing an
executive fiat, or was acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal,
deciding disputes referred to it for its decision. In dealing
with complaints made by citizens in regard to
G
appointments made by academic bodies, like the
Universities, such an approach would not be reasonable
or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ, the High Court
has made certain observations which show that the High
Court applied tests which would legitimately be applied
H
B.C. MYLA.RAPPA @ DR. CHIKKAMYLA.RAPPA v. DR. 305
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

in the case of writ of certiorari. In the judgment, it has A
been observed that the error in this case is undoubtedly
a manifest error. That is a consideration which is more
germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari.
What the High Court should have considered is whether
the appointment made by the Chancellor had B
contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance,
and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due
regard to the opinion expressed by the Board & its
recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted.
In this connection, the High Court has ·failed to notice c
one significant fact that when the Board considered the
claims of the respective applicants, it examined them
very carefully and actually came to the conclusion that
none of them deserved to be appointed a Professor.
These recommendations made by the Board clearly
0
show that they considered the relevant factors carefully
and ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant
No. 2 should be recommended for the post of Reader.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the criticism made by the
High Court against'the Board and its deliberations is not
;ustified." E
23. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any mala
tides attributed against the members of the Expert Body of the
University. The University Authorities had also before the High
Court in their objections to the writ petition taken a stand that F
I the appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for appointment.
In this view of the matter and in the absence of any mala tides
either of the expert body of the University or of the University
Authorities and in view of the discussions made herein above,
it would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High Court as the G
opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations can-
not be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction.
24. Again in M. V Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. Union Public Ser-
vice Commission & Ors. [2008 (2) SCC 119], this Court clearly
held that in the absence of any mala tides attributed to the ex- H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A pert body, such plea is usually raised by an interested party (in
this case the unsuccessful candidate) and, therefore, court
should not draw any conclusion on the recommendation of the
expert body unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt.
That apart, the challenge to the selection made by the expert
B body and approved by he Univers.ity Authorities was made by
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were unsuccessful candidates ·
and were not selected for appointment to the post of Professor
in the Department of Sociology.
25. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sci.:.
C ences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC
4-81], this Court considered in detail the role of an expert body
in deciding the candidature for selection to a particular post.
While doing so, this Court at Para 7 at P. 484 of the said deci-
sion observed as follows:
D
"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
E 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 There is
no rule or regulation brought to our notice requiring the ·
F Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence
of any such legal requirement the selection made without
recording reasons cannot be found fault with. The High
r:;ourt if) support of its reasoning has, however, referred
to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan
G Lai Capoor. That decision proceeded on a statutory
requirement. Regulation 5(5) which was considered in
that case required the Selection Committee to record its
reasons for superseding a senior member in the State
Civil service. The decision in Capoor case was rendered
H on 26 September, 1973. In June, 1977, Regulation 5(5)
B.C. MYLARAPPA@ DR CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR 307
R VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~ ~!
was amended deleting the requirement of recording A
reasons for the supersession of senior officers of the
State Civil services. The Capoor case cannot, therefore,
be construed as an authority for the proposition that there
should be reason formulation for administrative decision.
Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to B
.-4-_J record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even
the principles of natural justice do not require an
administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an
examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-
selection of a person in the absence of statutory c
requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court
in R. S. Dass v. Union of India in which Capoor case was
also distinguished."
26. Keeping this observation in our mind and considering
the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that D
~_) there was no dispute in this case that the selection was made
by the assessment of relative merit of rival candidates deter-
mined 'in the course of the interview of the candidates and after
thoroughly verifying the experience and service of the respec-
tive candidates selected the appellant to the post of the Profes- E
sor in the said Department. It is not in dispute that there is no
rule or regulation requiring the Board to record reasons. There-
fore, in our view, the High Court was not justified in making the
'( observation that from the resolution of the Board selecting the
J appellant for appointment, no reason was recorded by the F
Board. In our view, in the absence of any rule or regulation re-
quiring the Board to record reasons and in the absence of mala
tides attributed against the members of the Board, the selec-
tion made by the Board without recording reasons cannot be
faulted with . G
. . _J
27. Before we conclude, at the risk of repetition, we may
reiterate that the Chairman, Department of Sociology, Univer-
sity of Bangalore submitted his scrutiny and verification report
in which it was stated as under:
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.