GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUTversusGULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS

                 (2013) 17 S.C.R. 1025


   GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT                     A
                        v.
  GULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR &
                     OTHERS
         (Civil Appeal No. 9866 of 2013)
                                                             B
                  NOVEMBER 01, 2013
         [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND
               KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Service Law - Appointment - Eligibility criteria - C
Qualification - Post of University Lecturer in Masters' of
Computer Application course (MCA) - Advertisement
stipulated minimum qualification of post-graduate degree in
the 'relevant subject' - Various persons including respondent
no.3 and appellant offered their candidature - Respondent D
no.3 possessed post-graduate degree in Computer
Applications (MCA) - Appellant was M.Sc. in Mathematics but
did not have degree in MCA - University constituted 'Board
of appointment' consisting of experts for selecting suitable
candidates - The Board made recommendation for E
appointment of appellant - Recommendation approved by
the Syndicate of the University - Writ petition filed by
respondent no.3 - Single Judge of High Court upheld the
appointment -o( appellant - Division Bench of High Court,
however, quashed the appointment of appellant, and also F
 issued mandamus for appointment of respondent no.3 - On
 appeal, held: Language of the advertisement being clear and
explicit, it has to pe given effect to - The advertisement
 required Masters' degree in 'relevant subject', which, in
 context of appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA, would G
 mean post-graduate degree in MCA - 'Relevant subject' would
 not mean 'such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA
 course' - Consequently, plea of appellant that Mathematics
 is one of the subjects in MCA, therefore, appellant possessing
                           1025                              H
    1026   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A Masters' degree in Mathematics was eligible, is not tenable
  - Since appellant did not have a Masters' degree in
  Computer Application, he was not entitled to be considered
  for appointment as Lecturer in MCA - Division Bench of High
  Court rightly held appellant ineligible and quashed his
B appointment - However, it erred in issuing mandamus for
  appointment of respondent no.3 - Kamataka Universities Act
  - s.53.

        Service Law - Appointment - To post of University
C Lecturer - Decision of Expert body - Scope for judicial review
  - Held: Broadly, academic issues must be left to be decided
  by the expert body and the court cannot act as an appellate
  authority in such matters - When two views are possible and
  the expert body has taken a view, the same deserves
  acceptance - However, to say that expert body's opinion
D deserves acceptance in all circumstances and is not subject
  to judicial review does not appeal - On facts, a 'Board of
  appointment' was constituted by the University concerned for
  selecting suitable candidates for the post of Lecturer in MCA
  course - When a candidate possessing the minimum
E requisite qualification i.e. Masters' degree in MCA was
  available, the 'Board of appointment' could not have chosen
  an unqualified and ineligible person such as the appellant for
  appointment - Its recommendations were, therefore, illegal
  and invalid - The University erred in acting on such
F recommendations and in appointing appellant as Lecturer in
  MCA course.

      The Gulbarga University issued notification inviting
  applications for appointment to various posts in different
  subjects including the post of Lecturer in Masters' in
G Computer Application (MCA). The minimum qualification,
  for appointment to the said post of Lecturer was good
  academic record with at least 55% of marks or an
  equivalent grade at the Masters' Degree level in the

H
 GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT v. GUU3ARGA    1027
             UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REG

relevant subject from an Indian University or an             A
equivalent degree from a foreign University.

     Respondent no.3 and appellant besides other
persons offered their candidature for appointment to the
post of Lecturer in MCA. While Respondent no.3               8
possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA, the appellant
claimed to have passed the M.Sc. examination in
Mathematics. The University, in terms of Section 53 of the
Karnataka Universities Act constituted a 'Board of
appointment' for selecting suitable candidates. The          C
'Board of appointment' interviewed the candidates and
ultimately made recommendation for appointment of the
appellant, who admittedly did not have a post-graduate
degree in MCA, but had a Masters' Degree in Mathematics.
The recommendation so made was approved by the
Syndicate of the University.                                 D

    Respondent no.3 filed writ petition, inter alia,
contending that Masters' Degree in Mathematics did not
make the appellant eligible in terms of the advertisement
and, therefore, his selection and appointment to the post    E
of Lecturer in MCA was illegal. Respondent no.3 further
pointed out that since he possessed a post-graduate
degree in MCA and fulfilled all other conditions, he ought
to have been selected for appointment.

    The Single Judge of the High Court upheld the
                                                             F
appointment of appellant as Lecturer in MCA. The
Division Bench of .the High Court, however, quashed the
appointment of appellant as Lecturer in MCA, and further
issued mandamus for appointment of respondent no.3 as
Lecturer in MCA.                                             G

   In the instant appeals, it was pleaded that as
Mathematics is one of the subjects in MCA, therefore,
appellant possessing Masters' degree in Mathematics
was eligible; and that when an expert body i.e. Board 'of    H
    1028   SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 17 S.C.R.


\ appointment found the appellant eligible and qualified
  and which was approved by the Syndicate, another
  expert body, the High Court ought not to have acted as
  a Court of appeal, and come to the conclusion that the
  appellant did not possess the requisite qualification. It
B was further pleaded that the High Court erred in issuing
  mandamus for appointment of respondent no.3.

       Disposing the appeals, the Court

       HELD:1. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad
C submission that academic issues must be left to be
   decided by the expert body and the court cannot act as
   an appellate authority in such matters. When two views
   are possible and the expert body has taken a view, the
   same deserves acceptance. However, to say that expert
f) body's opinion deserves acceptance in all circumstances
   and is not subject to judicial review does not appeal. In
   our constitutional scheme the decision of the Board of
   appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute.
   [Para 13] [1037-A-C]

       2. In the present case, the advertisement requires
  post-graduate degree in the 'relevant subject'. The
  relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of
  appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean post-graduate
  degree in MCA. For appointment to the post of Lecturer,
F Masters' degree in the Mathematics is not the relevant
  subject. The advertisement requires Masters' degree in
  'relevant subject' and not 'appropriate subject'. In the
  present case, the Board of appointment has not stated
  that post-graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant
G subject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent
  to a post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that
  Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This
  was beyond the power of the Board of appointment. It
  shall not make any difference even if Mathematics is
H taught in the Masters' of Computer Application course.
 GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT v. GULBARGA 1029
             UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REG

The Single Judge of the High Court gravely erred in             A
upholding the contention -of the appellant and the
University that 'relevant subject' would mean 'such of
those subjects as are offered in the MCA course'. If
Mathematics is taught in a post-graduate course in
Commerce, a Masters' degree in Commerce would not be            B
relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that matter
in MCA. There may be a situation in which Masters'
degree in MCA is differently christened and such a degree
may be considered relevant but it would be too much to
say that a candidate having post-graduate degree in any         c
of the subjects taught in MCA would make the holders
of a Masters' degree in those subjects as holder of
Masters' degree in Computer Application and, therefore,
eligible for appointment. The language of the
advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any
                                                                0
ambiguity and, hence">-.it has to be given effect to. Since
the appellant did not have a Masters' degree in Computer
Application,· he was not entitled to be considered for
appointment as Lecturer in MCA. When a candidate
possessin!J Masters' degree in MCA is available, the
                                                                E
Board of appointment could not have chosen an
unqualified and ineligible person for appointment in that
subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal and
invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the University
acting on such recommendation and appointing
 appellant as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that      F
the.Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting
 aside his appointment. An unqualified person cannot be
 appointed, whoever may be the recommendee. The
 Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that
appellant was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in       G
 Masters' of Computer Application. [Para 19] [1040-F-H;
 1041-A-G]

    Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University
(2008) 9 SCC 284: 2008 (11) SCR 992 - distinguished.            H
    1030   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A      B.C. My/arappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah (2008) 14
    SCC 306: 2008 (14) SCR 288 - referred to.

       3. However, the case in hand is not one of those
  cases where the High Court ought to have issued
s mandamus for appointment of respondent no.3 as
  Lecturer in MCA. Ordinarily, in a case where the person
  appointed is found ineligible, this Court after setting aside
  such appointment, directs for consideration of cases of
  such of the candidates, who have been found eligible. It
C is only in exceptional cases that this Court issues
  mandamus for appointment. The High Court rightly held
  appellant ineligible and quashed his appointment.
  However, it erred in issuing mandamus for appointment
  of respondent no.3. Accordingly, while upholding the
  impugned order of the High Court whereby it had set
D aside t~e appointment of the appellant, it is directed that
  the case of respondent no.3 and all other candidates be
  considered in accordance with law. However, it is made
  clear that the selection already made shall be taken to its
  logical conclusion. [Para 21] [1042-C-F]
E
                       Case Law Reference:
        2008 (14) SCR 288          referred to           Para 9
        2008 (11) SCR 992          distinguished         Para 10
F
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    9866 of 2013.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 19/24.11.2009 of the
  High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in W.A. No.
G 3216 of 2004 (S-RES).

                               WITH

    C.A. No. 9867 of 2013
H
  GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJ PUT      v. GULBARGA 1031
              UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REG

    Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith, S.N. Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit        A
Mohini Bhat, Darpan K.M., for the appearing parties ..

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. Ganpath Singh
                                                                    B
Gangaram Singh Rajput as also the Gulbarga University,
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19/24th of
November, 2009 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal
No. 3216 of 2004 quashing the appointment of aforesaid
Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as Lecturer in MCA
in the Post-graduate Department of the University, have             C
preferred these special leave petitions.

    2. Leave granted.

     3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are as       D
follows:

      4. The appellant, Gulbarga University, hereinafter referred
to as 'the University', issued notification dated May 22, 1998
inviting applications for appointment to various posts including
the post of Lecturer in Masters' in Computer Application, for       E
short, MCA. The minimum qualification, for appointment to the
post of Lecturer and with which we are concerned in these
appeals, is good academic record with at least 55% of marks
or an equivalent grade at the Masters' Degree level in the
relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent         F
degree from a foreign University.

     E. Shivanand, respondent no. 3 herein, and Ganpath Singh
Gangaram Singh Rajput, respondent no. 3 of the writ petition
(appellant herein}, besides other persons offered their             G
candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA.
The appellant claims to have passed the M.Sc. examination in
Mathematics with First Class with .distinction. It is an admitted
position that Shivanand possessed a post-graduate degree in
MCA and was eligible in terms of the advertisement. The
                                                                    H
    1032     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A University, in terms of Section 53 of the Karnataka Universities
  Act constituted a 'Board of appointment' for selecting suitable
  candidates. It consisted of experts holding high positions in
  academic field including a Professor each from University of
  Pune. Bombay University and Kuvempu University. The Board
B of appointment interviewed the candidates and ultimately made
  a recommendation for the appointment of the appellant,
  hereinafter referred to as 'Ganpat', who admittedly did not have
  a post-graduate degree in MCA, but had a Masters' Degree
  in Mathematics. The recommendation so made was placed for
c consideration before the Syndicate which approved his
  appointment.

          6. Shivanand challenged the aforesaid selection and
    appointment in a writ petition filed before the High Court, inter
    alia, contending that Masters' Degree in Mathematics will not
D   make Ganpat eligible in terms of the advertisement and,
    therefore, his selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer
    in MCA is illegal. Shivanand further pointed out that since he
    possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA and fulfils all other
    conditions, he ought to have been selected for appointment.
E   Ganpat as also the University resisted the prayer of Shivanand
    and contended that the expression 'relevant subject' used in the
    notification would mean any subject which is relevant for the
    purpose of holding the post of Lecturer in MCA. It was
    contended that Masters' degree in Mathematics is a degree
f   in a relevant subject and thus Ganpat possessed the basic
    qualification. While defending the appointment it was further
    contended that in the syllabus for MCA, Mathematics is the core
    subject and, therefore. a candidate having a post-graduate
    degree in Mathematics is eligible for appointment as Lecturer
G   in MCA. It was also pointed out that when an expert body like
    the Board of appointment had found that a post-graduate
    degree in Mathematics is a relevant subject for the purpose of
    adjudging the eligibility and the same having been approved
     by the Syndicate of the University, a body consisting of experts,
H   the same was not fit to be interfered with by the High Court in
 GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT v. GULBARGA 1 033
UNIVERSl1Y REPBY ITS REG [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J]

exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge         A
considered the submission, dismissed the writ petition and
upheld the appointment of Ganpat, inter alia, observing as
follows:

           "8 ....... The use of the word 'relevant subject' in     B
    relation to the qualification for Lecturers' post is the bone
    of contention between the parties. It is also Sri.
    Chandrashekar's assertion that it should relate only to a
    Master degree in Computer Applications and nothing else,
    while, the University would contend that it could also mean
    such of those who have secured a Masters degree in
                                                                    c
    Mathematics. It is not in dispute. that the Head of the
    Department, M.C.A. is. held by a person who is also a
    Ph.D. holder in Math~matics. It is not in dispute that
    Mathematics is also subject which is taught in the Masters
    degree in Computer Applications course. What ohe can            D
    reasonably infer from the pleadings of the parties is that
    'relevant subject' could mean candidates who possessed
    Masters Degree in such of those subjects as are offered
    in the M.C.A. course. Mathematics being one of the
    subjects, it cannot be said that Masters Degree in              E
    Mathematics was not a "relevant subject" and it was only
    a. Masters in Computer Applications.

           It would be very unreasonable to hold "relevant
     subject" to mean only a Masters in Computer Applications.      F
     It would also be irrational to conclude that the non mention
     of the specific educational qualification for the post of
     Lecturer in M.C.A. could lead to only one conclusion that
     a candidate with a Masters degree in Computer
     Applications, alone, would meet the requirement."
                                                                    G
                    I

     7. Shivanand, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal
and both the parties reiterated the same contentions. The
submission made by Shivanand found favour with the Division
Bench of the High Court and while doing so it observed as
follows:                              '                             H
    1034     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 17 S.C.R.


A              "28. This is nothing sort of trickery and fraud on
        persons applying to the post. The University had perhaps
        deliberately or with a design to achieve this result of
        selecting a person with post-graduate qualification in
        Mathematics, though it had called for applications to fill up
B       the post of Lecturer in MCA course. That is why the action
        of the University falls short of the constitutional mandate
        of the State being in conformity with Articles 14 and 16(1)
        of the Constitution of India, affording equal opportunity to
        all eligible candidates. In fact the method of selection
c       made by adopting this procedure, is so flawed that it can
        never pass the test before a Court, more so while in
        exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative
        action. We say so far the reason that the post notified for
        being filled up by the University in MCA course should be
D       one with reference to the vacancy and the vacancy can only
        be in a particular subject of the department and cannot be
        generally with reference to the course."

       8. Accordingly, the Division Bench of the High Court
  allowed the appeal and quashed the appointment of Ganpat
E as Lecturer in MCA.

        9. Ms. Kiran Suri, advocate appears on behalf of the
   appellant Ganpat whereas the Unive"rsity is represented by Mr.
   S.N. Bhat, advocate. They contend that Mathematics is a
F relevant subject for MCA course and, therefore, a person
   holding post-graduate degree in Mathematics is eligible for
   appointment as Lecturer in MCA. It is further pointed out that
   in Gulbarga University, different Mathematics subjects are
   taught in MCA and, therefore, it cannot be said that a person
   possessing Masters' degree in Mathematics is not eligible for
G, appointment as Lecturer in MCA. It has also been pointed out
   that as to whether a particular qualification is relevant or not for
   holding a post is best decided by the experts concerned and,
   in the present case, Mathematics, having been recognized as
   a relevant subject for MCA course not only by the University but
H
  GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT v. GULBARGA 1035
 UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REG [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

  by the Board of appointment consisting of eminent                      A
  academicians from various Universities, the Division Bench of
· the High Court ought not to have substituted their opinion. In
  support of the submission reliance has been placed on a
  decision of this Court in the case of B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R.
  Venkatasubbaiah, (2008) 14 SCC 306 and our attention has               B
  been drawn to Paragraph 26 of the said judgment which reads
  as follows:

      "26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any
      mala fides attributed against the members of the expert            C
      body of the University. The University Authorities had also
      before the High Court in their objections to the writ i:>etition
      taken a stand that 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     D·
      of the discussions made hereinabove, it would be difficult
      to sustain the orders· of the High Court as the opinion
      expressed by the Board and lt~- recommendations cannot
      be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction."
                                                                         E
      10. Yet another decision on which reliance is placed is the
 decision of this Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.)
 v. Chaudhari Devi Lal ,University, (2008) 9 SCC 284 and our
 attention has been drawn to Paragraph 29 of the judgment
 which reads as follows:                                                 F
      "29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from
      UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Masters
      degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of
      Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote
      a letter dated 5-3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University,         G
      Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and
      Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated,
      and a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public
      Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science
                                                                         H
    1036     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A        and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an
         expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit
         in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view."

          11. Mr. Naveen R. Nath, advocate appearing on behalf of
B   respondent Shivanand, however, contends that a person
    holding the post-graduate degree in Mathematics is not eligible
    for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. It is pointed out that the
    advertisement was composite and related to appointment of
    various posts in different subjects and, hence, the expression
    'relevant subject' has to be understood in that context. It has
C   been pointed out that the applications were invited for filling the
    posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in the Department of
    English, Urdu, Persian, Chemistry, Bio-Chemistry, Applied
    Electronics, Geology, Law etc., including MCA. According to
    the learned counsel, the relevant subject in the advertisement
D   here would mean the subjects for which applications were
    invited. According to him, the Board of appointment misdirected
    itself in going into the question as to whether Mathematics is a
    relevant subject or not in MCA. Accordingly, he submits that the
    opinion of the Board of appointment as approved by the
E   Syndicate is not that sacrosanct so as to deprive High Court
    the power of judicial review.

      12. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
  submissions and we do not find any substance in the
F submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the
  authorities relied on are clearly distinguishable.
      13. Main thrust in the appellant's contention is that when
  an expert body i.e. Board of appointment consisting of high
  academicians, has found Ganpat eligible and qualified and
G which has been approved by the Syndicate, another expert
  body, the High Court ought not to have acted as a Court of
  appe~ examined the pros and cons and come to the
  conclusion that Ganpat did not possess the requisite
  qualification. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad
H
 GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT v. GULBARGA 1037
UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REG [CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD, J.]

submission that academic issues must be'1eft to be decided          A
by the expert body and the court cannot act as an appellate
authority in such matters. It deserves great respect. When two
views are possible and the expei:t body has taken a view, the
same deserves acceptance. However, to say that expert body's
opinion deserves acceptance in all circumstances and is not         B
subject to judicial review does not appeal to us. In our
constitutional scheme the decision of the Board of appointment
cannot be said to be final and absolute. Any other view will have
a very dangerous consequence and one must remind itself of
the famous words of Lord Acton "power corrupts and absolute         c
power corrupts absolutely".

     14. Now we revert to the authorities of this Court-relied on
by the appellants. B.C. Mylarappa (supra) deals with the
appointment to the post of Professor, in which one of the
eligibility condition for appointment was '1 O years' of            D
experience of post-graduate teaching'. The Board of
appointment considered the selected candidate eligible by
taking into consideration his experience as Lecturer and
Research Assistant and in the absence of any mala fide, this
Court observed that its opinion is not fit to be rejected. This     E
would be evident from Paragraph 24 of the judgment, which
reads as follows:

     "24. There is another aspect of this matter which is also
     relevant for proper decision of this appeal.· We have          F
     already indicated earlier that ttie Board of Appointment
     was co.nstituted with experts in this line by the University
     Authorilies. They have considered not only the candidature
     of the appellant and his experience as a Lecturer and
     Research Assistant along with others came to hold that it      G
     was the appellant who was the candidate who could satisfy
     the conditions for appointment to the post of Professor.
     Such 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 fides attributed to
                                                                    H
    1038    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A       the members of the expert body in selecting the appellant
        to the said post."

       15. However, this judgment canr1ot be read to mean that
  the courts are denuded of the power to scrutinize the experience
  in a given case and come to a contrary conclusion. As stated
8
  earlier, when the view taken by the expert body is one of the
  possible views, the same is fit to be accepted. Further, the
  yardstick would be different when ii concerns eligibility
  conditions pertaining to 'qualification' and 'experience'. In case
  of experience ii is besi known to the expert body in the field in
C regard to the actual work done and, therefore, its opinion is of
  higher degree deserving acceptance ordinarily. Hence, in our
  opinion, this judgment did not fetter the power of the High Court.

        16. As regards the decision of this Court in the case of
D Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra), the same is clearly distinguishable.
   In the said case the controversy which fell for consideration was
  as to whether public administration is one of the branches of
  Political Science and in the face of the opinion of the expert
  body that they are interchangeable, the conclusion of the High
E Court that they are distinct and separate was not approved. This
  would be evident from the following passage from the said
  judgment.

              "45. As has been pointed out by my learned Brother,
        the University has in its counter-affidavit taken a stand that
F       Public Administration is one of the branches of Political
        Science and the Selection Committee comprised of
        eminent scholars had rightly choserl the appellant for the
        post of Reader after considering his academic
        achievements and also relying upon the view of the
G       University Grants Commission in its letter dated 5-3-1992
        staling that the subjects of Political Science and Public
        Administration are interchangeable and interrelated and
        that a candidate who possesses a Masters degree in
         Public Administration is eligible to be appointed as
H        Lecturer in Political Science. Similarly, a candidate
 GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT v. GULBARGA 1039
UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REG [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

    possessing a Masters degree in Political Science is                 A
    eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Public
    Administration.

    46. Despite the aforesaid views expressed by the expert
    bodies such as the University ·and the University Grants            8
    Commission, the High Court has. held Public
    Administration and Political Science to be distinct and
    separate disciplines .... ."

      17. In the present case, there is no such plea. Here, the
plea is that as Mathematics is one of the subjects in MCA and,          C
therefore, Ganpat possessing Masters' degree in Mathematics
is eligible. It is not the plea of the University that Masters'
degree in Mathematics is interchangeable with MCA. Not only
this, in the aforesaid case, this Court came to the aforesaid
conclusion due to different eligibility criteria prescribed for         D
appointment to the post of Reader and Lecturer. It was pointed
out by this Court that in the case of Reader the requirement was
Masters' degree in an 'appropriate subject', whereas for
appointment as Lecturer it was 'relevant subject'. Said case
related to the appointment of Reader. On account of the1.Jse            E
of different expressions, this Court came to the conclusion that
post-graduate degree holder in Political Science is eligible to
be appointed to the post of Reader in Public Administration.
This would be evident from paragraphs 48 and 49 of the
judgment, which read as follows:                                        F

     "48. The recruitment rules followed by the University clearly
     indicate that in order to be appointed as Lecturer in a
     particular discipline a candidate must have a postgraduate
     degree ·in the relevant subject. On the other hand, for
     appointment to the post of Reader such a condition has             G
     not been specified. In fact, in Regulation 2 it has been
     generally indicated that no person shall be appointed to a
     teaching post in the University or in any institution, including
     constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under the UGC
                                                                        H
    1040    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A       Act, 1956, or any institution deemed to be a university
        under Section 3 of the said Act, in a subject, if he/she does
        not fulfil the requirement as to the qualifications for the
        appropriate subject.

              49. In my view, the omission in the Regulations
B
        cannot be said to be unintentional or a case of casus
        omissus. In my view, the expression "appropriate subject"
        was intended to cover the. p.ost of Reader and once the
        expert bodies had indicated that the appellant who held a
        postgraduate .degree in Political Science was eligible to
c       be appointed to the ·post of Reader in Public
        Administration and had been rightly appointed to such
        post, it is normally not for the courts to question such
        opinion, unless it has specialised knowledge of the
        subject."             . ,.,
D
                                                  (underlining ours)

      18. This Court did not say that Political Science is the
  relevant subject for appointment as Lecturer in Public
E Administration.

         19. Having set the legal position in the right perspective,
  we now proceed to consider the facts of the present case. As
  is evident from the advertisement, applications were invited for
  filling up various posts in different subjects including the post
F of Lecturer in MCA. The advertisement requires post-graduate
  degree in the 'relevant subject'. The relevant subject would,
  therefore, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer,
  mean post-graduate degree in MCA. In our opinion, for
  appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters' degree in the
G Mathematics is not the relevant subject. The advertlsement
  requires Masters' degree in .'rel~vant subject' and not
  'appropriate subject'. In the present case, the Board of
  appointment has not stated that post-graduate degree in
  Mathematics is the relevant subject for MCA but in sum and
H substance it is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA
 GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT v. GULBARGA 1041
UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REG [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

for the reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught            A
in MCA. This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the
Board of appointment. It shall not make any difference even if
Mathematics is taught in the Masters' of Computer Application
course. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely erred
 in upholding the contention of Ganpat and the University that           B
 'relevant subject' would mean 'such of those subjects as are
offered in the MCA course'. If Mathematics is taught in a post-
graduate course in Commerce, a Masters' degree in
Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in
 Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. There may be a situation         c
 in which Masters' degree in MCA is differently christened and
such a degree may be considered relevant but it would be too
 much to say that a candidate having post-graduate degree in
 any of the subjects taught in MCA would make the holders of a
 Masters' degree in those subjects as holder of Masters' degree          D
 in Computer Application and, therefore, eligible for
 appointment. The language of the advertisement is clear and
 explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and, hence, it has to
 be given effect to. Since the appellant Ganpat did not have a
 Masters' degree in Computer Application, in our opinion, he
                                                                         E
was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer
 in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a candidate
 possessing Masters' degree in MCA is available, the Board
 of appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person
 for appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are,
 therefore, illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the   F
  University acting on such recommendation and appointing
 Ganpat as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the
 Division Bench of the High Court was right in. setting aside his
 appointment. In our opinion, an unqualified person cannot be
 appointed, whoever may be the recommendee. We are of the                G
 opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in
 holding that Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer
  :n Masters'
           :
               of Computer Application.

   · 20. Mr.Bhat and Ms. Suri lastly assail the order of the High        H
    1042     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A Court issuing mandamus for appointment of Shivanand as
  Lecturer in MCA. It is contended that after setting aside the
  appointment of Ganpat, the High Court should have directed
  for consideration of the case of Shivanand and such other
  candidates who were found eligible for consideration. It is also
B contended that Shivanand may have the right of consideration
  but certainly not the right of appointment.

        21. We find substance in this submission. Ordinarily, in a
  case where the person appointed is found ineligible, this Court
  after setting aside such appointment, directs for consideration
C of cases of such of the candidates, who have been found
  eligible. It is only in exceptional cases that this Court issues
  mandamus for appointment. The case in hand is not one of
  those cases where the High Court ought to have issued
  mandamus for appointment of Shivanand as Lecturer in MCA.
D Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court rightly held
  Ganpat ineligible and quashed his appointment. However, it
  erred in issuing mandamus for appointment of Shivanand.
  Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the High Court
  Whereby it had set aside the appointment of the appellant herein
E and direct that the case of the writ petitioner Shivanand and all
  other candidates be considered in accordance with law.
  However, we make it clear that the selection already made shall
  be taken to its logical conclusion.

F       22. In the result, we dismiss these appeals with
    modification in the direction as aforesaid with cost, which we
    assess at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only in both the
    cases, payable by the appellants in both the appeals equally.

    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                        Appeals disposed of.
G