BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ANR.versusDR. SAILABALA P ADHI

                                                                                       T


A                    BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ANR.
                                   v.
                          DR. SAILABALA PADHI

                                       APRIL 21, 1997

B                 [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

            Service Law :

            Universities Act, 1989 :
c          S. 21-Appointment-Post of Professor-Candidate interviewed-Sub-
    Committee of the Syndicate recommending her appointment-Expert Com-
    mittee giving opinion for re-advertisement of the post-High Court directing
    appointment of the candidate-On appeal, held, the Chancellor's direction
    for re-advertisement in accordance with Rules-High Court erred in directing
D   appointment of the candidate-Expert body having not selected her, no
    positive direction could be given for her continuance till the selection for the
    post is made.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3146 of
E   1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.96 of the Orissa High
    Court in O.J.C. No. 8420 of 1993.

            P.N. Misra, S. Misra and A. Mohapatra for the Appellants.
F        Ms. Indira Jaising, Manoj Misra, S. Das and Bharat Sangal for the
    Respondent.

            The following Order of the Court wad delivered :

G           Leave granted.

            We have learned counsel on both sides.

       This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
  Bench of the Orissa High Court, made on September 11, 1996 in O.J.C.
H No. 8420 of 1993.
                                             880
j
    '
           BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY v. SAILABALA PADHI                      881

      The admitted position is that the respondent had applied for selec-      A
tion to the post of Professor, Environmental Science. The Selection Com-
mittee on January 31, 1992 interviewed 13 candid;ites and found none to
be qualified for appointment to the post of Professor, Environmental
Science. The matter was referred to the Sub-Committee of the Syndicate
which by its proceedings dated June 22, 1992 opined that since the respon-
                                                                               B
dent had secured 44 out of 90 marks, she was eligible for appointment and
accordingly the matter wa~ referred to the Chancellor under first proviso
to Section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Acl')
The Chancellor (the Governor of Orissa) directed re-advertisement as per
opinion of the Expert Committee by its proceedings dated January 15,
1993. Pursuant thereto, another advertisement was issued on October 16,
                                                                               c
1993 for recruitment to the post of Professor in Environmental Science.
The qualification desired was Master's degree in Botany or Zoology or
Environmental Biology. The respondent questioned the re-advertisement
of the post in question. The High Court in the impugned judgment has
directed appointment of the respondent within four weeks from the date         D
of the judgment. We are informed that pursuant to the contempt proceed-
ings initiated by the respondent, appointment of the respondent came to
be made.

                                                                               E
        It is contended by Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the Expert body is the competent Committee to opine as
to who is qualified and fit to be selected as Profes~or in Environmental
Science which requires Environmental Biology and the respondent is not
possessed of Master's degree in Environmental Biology. The High Court
cannot evaluate the relative requisite qualifications and come to its own F
conclusion as to who would be fit for appointment. Ms. Indira Jaising,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that the
advertisement made does not relate to Environmental Biology; it requires
only Master's degree in Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology.
Since the respondent possessed Master's degree in Botany with requisite G
experience in the field, she, having secured 44 marks out of 90, is entitled
to be considered for the post and the competent authority has no power
to direct re-advertisement of the post. The High Court was, therefore, right
in giving direction to appoint the respondent as Professor in Environmental
Biology.                                                                     H
                                                                                   T
    882                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A         Having regard to the respective contentions the question that arises
    for consideration is whether the High Court is justified in evaluating
    whether the respondent is qualified to be appointed as Professor. Section
    21 reads as under :                                                                -
            "Appointment of officers, teachers and other employees of the
B           University.

                (1) All officers of the University excepting the Registrar, and
            the Comptroller of Finance shall be appointed by the concerned
            Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of a Selection Committee
            consisting of the Director, the registrar, one member to be selected
c           by the Syndicate of Such University from amongst the remaining
            members thereof and two experts appointed by the said Vice-
            Chancellor whether necessary.

                (2) The teachers of a University shall be appointed by the
D           Syndicate of that University on the recommendation of a Selection
            Committee consisting of the concerned Vice-Chancellor, the
            Director, an expert nominated by the Chancellor in the case of
            appointment of Professor, and three experts selected by the said
            Vice Chancellor from out of the list of six experts furnished by the
E           said Syndicate, which shall not include -

                (i) any teacher of such University or of any of its constituent
            or affiliated colleges; or

                (ii) any person who has been an examiner of such University
F           in the preceding or the relevant year.

                 Provided that where the Committee fails to make any specific
             recommendation or where the Syndicate differs from the recom-
             mendation made by the Committee, the matter shall be referred
             to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final."
G
        It is not in dispute that an Expert Committee has been constituted
  to select the candidates. The Expert Body consists of Vice-Chancellor,
  Berhampur University; Director, Higher Education, Orissa; Professor,
  Anna University, Quindy; Professor, School of Environmental Science,
H Cochin University; and Professor, Environmental Science, Andhra Univer-
             BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY v. SAILABALA PADHI                       883,

    sity, Visakhapatnam. They have opined as under :                              A


-           "13 candidates were called for interview out of which 10 candidates
            appeared before the Selection Committee and they were inter-
            viewed. Taking into consideration the candidates; career, research
            publications, teaching experience, confidential character roll and
                                                                                  B
            performance at the Viva-voce test, the Selection Committee recom-
            mends no one for the Professor of Environmental Science."

         The Vice-Chancellor, after taking into consideration the op1mon
    expressed by the expert Selection Committee, has opined as under :
                                                                                  c
           "(2) For the post of Professor of Environmental Science, Dr. (Smt.)
           Sailabala Padhy, who has secured the highest marks in the inter-
           view, does not have specialisation in Environmental Science either
           at the P.G. stage or at the Doctoral stage. However, she passed
           M.Sc. in Botany with specialisation in Algology, securing a Isl class D
           and did Ph.D. in Algology. According to the proposal submitted
           to the U GC for the 8th Plan, it was indicated that the specialised
           course (Ph.DIM.Phil) in Environmental Science shall be started as
           an inter-disciplinary course of Botany/Zoology Departments, and
           for this purpose the Professor and the Reader should be from the .E
           Botany and Zoology streams. The Sub-Committee, therefore, sug-
           gested that the Syndicate might consider referring her case to the
           Chancellor for a decision under the 1st proviso of Section 21(2) of
           the Orissa Universities Act, 1989.
                                                                                  F
                The recommendations of the Selection Committee and the
            report of the Syndicate Sub-Committee thereon, alongwith the
            above observations of the Syndicate be referred to the Chancellor
            for consideration/decision."

         The Syndicate in its Resolution stated as under :                        G

           "The Chancellor has further been pleased to order that the Ber-
           hampur University should re-advertise the following vacancies as
           per the required stipulations viz., qualification, experience and
           specialisation etc."                                              H
    884                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A           (1)     xxx                xxx                xxx



                                                                                  -
            (ii) Professor of Environmental Science.

                  xxx               xxx                xxx"
B
         In the light of these factual and legal situation, the question that
  arises for consideration is : whether the High Court would be justified in
  directing appointment of the respondent? It is seen that, admittedly, the
  respondent possessed Master's degree in Botany with specialisation on the
  subject of Algology. Even among her articles published in various Journals
C we come across, only two articles are on Environmental Science but the
  experience referred therein relates to other subjects. Obvious, therefore,
  the Expert Body was to select a candidate for Professor in Environmental
  Science from amongst the candidates by adjudging whether a candidate is
                                                                                  -
  fit for appointment as Professor. ll is true that the Syndicate thought it
D justified that if respondent should have the qualifications in one of the
  subjects namely; Master's degree in Botany, she would be preferred as a
  candidate since Environmental Science shall be started as inter-disciplinary
  course of Botany/Zooloi,ry and for that purpose the Professor/Reader
  should be from the Botany and Zoology streams. Under the first proviso
  to sub-section (2) of Section 21, the order of the Chancellor shall be final
E and that therefore, the opinion expressed by the Sub-Committee of the
  Syndicate loses its sanctity. In the selection of Professor/Reader or any
  other teacher with specified qualifications, it is for the Expert Body to go
   into the merit and competency of the candidates for selection to the posts
  advertised for No doubt, in the advertisement, 'Environmental Science'
F was not specifically mentioned but it is not in dispute that Botany and
   Zoology being the integral part of Environmental Science, necessarily the
  Syndicate is enjoined to select candidates having the needed qualification
   and experience for the post of Professor in the Environmental Science with
   Master's degree in Botany, Zoology or Environmental Science. Thus, it
   could be seen that the authority was competent to evaluate the merit of the
G candidates and the Expert Body came to its own conclusion that the
   candidate securing 44 marks out of 90 should be passed for appointment
   to the post. The Chancellor having had the advantage of the Report of the
   Export Body, obviously was not inclined to agree with the sub-Committee
   of the Syndicate to appoint the respondent as Professor and accordingly,
H he has given direction in accordance with the rules for re-advertisement
               BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITYv. SAIIABALAPADHI                         885

    of the post of Professor in Environmental Science. The High Court was,          A
    therefore, manifestly in error in directing the appointment of the respon-
    dent. The re-advertisement is accordingly in accordance with the rules. Ms.

-   Indira Jaising has prayed that since the respondent has been appointed,
    she may be allowed to continue in the post of Professor, Environmental
    Science. Having noted that the Expert Body has not selected her, we
    cannot give any positive direction for her continuance till the selection for
                                                                                    B
    the post of Professor in Environmental Science is made.

           The appeal is according allowed. No costs.

    G.N.                                                        Appeal allowed.
                                                                                    c