Holding

Qualifications for university appointments must be judged as of the last date for applications (or a date expressly mentioned), and any relaxation of qualifications not expressly authorized in the advertisement is illegal.

Summary

The University of Rajasthan advertised ten Assistant Professor posts requiring a doctorate or equivalent research and a second‑class master's degree. Six candidates were appointed from the general category, but most lacked a doctorate at the application deadline, and the university relaxed qualifications without explicit authority. The petitioner challenged the appointments, arguing that qualifications should be judged as of the last date for applications, not the selection date. The Supreme Court held that, absent a specific date in the advertisement, the last date for applications is the only definitive reference point for assessing qualifications, and any relaxation not expressly stipulated is illegal. Although the Court found the selection process patently illegal, it declined to set aside the appointments due to the passage of eight years, instead issuing detailed guidelines for future university selections. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the requisite qualifications for university appointments should be assessed as of the last date for submitting applications or as of the date of selection.
Whether the university could lawfully relax the minimum qualifications without explicit provision in the advertisement/notification.
Whether the appointments made in violation of the qualification assessment rule could be set aside.
What procedural safeguards should govern future university selection processes.

Subjects

service lawuniversity appointmentsassistant professorqualification assessmentrelaxation of requirementsselection processadministrative lawguidelines

Judgment

A MRS. REKHA CHATURVEDI
v.
UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JANUARY 13, 1993 .
B [P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.)

Service Law:

University-Appointment of Assistant Professors-Requisite qualifica-
C lions-Whether to be considered as on the last date for submission of
applications or as on the date of selection-<1uidelines for future selection
process-Laid down.

The Respondent University invited applications for appointment to ~,.I.,
10 posts of Assistant Professors. Out of 112 applications received, the
D Screening Committee recommended 106 candidates for being interviewed
and found the remaining 6 applicants ineligible. However, only 65 can·
didates appeared for the interview. 6 candidates were selected from the
general category; and 2 from the Reserved Category. 5 candidates lnclud·
ing the petitioner were placed on the waiting list.
E
As per the advertisement, a candidate should have a doctorate
degree or research work of equally high standard, and good academic
record with atleast a Second Class Master's Degree. The lack of doctorate
degree could be made up by either research work of equally high standard
or M.Pbil with two years research work. Except in the case of Respondent
F No.10, who bad a doctorate degree as on the last date for submission. of
applications, the qpalifications of other selected candidates had to be
relaxed by the Scrutiny Committee.

The petitioner challenged the appointment of the six selected can·
G didates from the general category, before the High Court, but was not
successful. Being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the petitioner
preferred the present Special Leave Petition.

On behalf of the Respondent-University it was contended that since
at the time of selection Respondent Nos. 5 and 4 bad obtained their
H doctorate degrees they could be said to have fulfilled the qualifications;
186
REKHA CHATURVEDI v. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN 187

that since respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were registered for Ph. D. in 1982, by A
the time of the selection they had put in research work connected with
their thesis and on the date of selection, they had about 3 years' experience
in research work; that l'P.spondent No.8 had good academic record both in
M.A. and B.A. and the Scrutiny Committee could under the Ordinance
relax the qualifications as admittedly sufficient number of candidates with
doctorate degre.;s were not available; and that even the petitioner did not
B
. have the doctorate degree; that the candidates had already been appointed
in February 1985 and they have been working since then and some of them
were also due for promotion to the higher posts in the near future; and .
that their record of teaching so far has been excellent and unblemished
and so their selection need not be interfered with at this late stage. c
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition and laying down the
guidelines for future selection process, this Court,

HELD : 1. In the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertise· D
ment/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisi·
te qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of
the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. There·
fore, when the Selection Committee took into consideration the requisite
qualifications as on the date of selection rather than o.i the last date for
prefering applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground E
itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. However, the
selected candidates have been working in the respective posts since
February 1985. Almost eight years have elapsed. There is also no record
to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the
respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualifica· F
lions in favour of some candidates in exercise of the discretionary powers
vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the considerations which
weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were
valid, it would result in injustice to those who have been selected. For
these reasons, this Court is not inclined to set aside the selections made
by the Screening Committee. [195H, 196A-E] G

.>-' . A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarai
Chandra & Ors., (1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District Collector & Chainnan,
Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram &
Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237, relied on. H
,
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A 2. It Is necessary to emphasise and bring to the notice of the Respon-
dent-University that the illegal practices in the selection of candidates )-
which have come to light and which seem to be followed usually at its end
must stop forthwith. For this purpose the following guidelines are laid
down for the future selection process:

B (i) The University must note that the qualifications it adver-
tises for the posts should not be at variance with those
prescribed by its Ordinance/Statutes. [196F]

(ii) The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last
date for making applications for the posts in question or
c on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertise-
ment/notification for the purpose. The qualifications ac·
quired by the candidates after the said date should not he
taken into consideration, as that would be. arbitrary and
result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when
D the advertisement/notification represents that the can-
didates must have the qualifications in question, with ref-
erence to the last date for making the applications or with
reference to ti"' specific date mentioned for the purpose,
those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for
the posts even though they are likely to acquire such
E
qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In
the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled
to be considered and may even be better than those who
apply, can have a legitimate grievance since they are left
out of consideration. [196G,H, 197A-BJ
F
(iii) When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes
the minimum required qualifications, unless it is specifi-
cally stated in the advertisement/notification both that the
qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on
which they will be relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal.
G
[197C]

(iv) The University/Selection Committee must mention in its
proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxa-
tions, if any, in respect of each of the candidates in whose
H favour relaxation is made. [197D]
REKHA CHAWRVEDI v. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTIIAN 189

(v) The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee A
should be preserved for a suffidently long time, and if the
selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally
disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if
the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are
not available. [197E-F]
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 6324 of 1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.1991 of the Rajasthan
High Court in D.B. Civil Sp!. Appeal No. 226 of 1991. C
S.K. Jain for the Petitioner.

~ Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli (For Mis Manoj S\/arup & Co.) and
S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents.
D
The following Order of the Court was delivered:

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of six
respondents from General Category as Assistant Professors (Lecturers) in
the Department of History in the University of Rajasthan.
E
2. The University invited applications by its advertisement dated
12.10.1983 for appointment to 10 posts of Assistant Professors (Lecturers).
The last date for submitting applications was 14.11.1983. Out of 112 ap·
plications received, the Scrutiny Committee of the University on 25.4.1984
recommended 106 candidates for being interviewed, the remaining six F
being found ineligible for the posts. Out of the 106 candidates so recom·
mended, only 65 candidates appeared for interview, out of which the
Scrutiny Committee selected 8 candidates who are respondents 5 to 12
before us. Out of the 8, two were earmarked for the reserved posts. We
are not concerned with the selection of the said two candidates under the G
reserved category. The Scrutiny Committee also placed five other can-
didates including the present petitioner on the waiting list.

3. The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Assis-
tant Professor (Lecturer) as laid down by Ordinance 149-B of the Hand-
book of the University of Rajasthan, Part-II, Volume-I are as follows: H
l

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R.

A "141-B The following shall be the minimum qualifications for
University teachers in the Faculties of Arts. Fine Arts, Social
Sciences, Commerce and Science :-

A. Minimum qualifications for Lecturers/Research Associaces
in the Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences, Science and Com-
B merce:

(Except in the subjects of English, Modem European Lan-
guages, Physical Education, Health Education & Sports Jour-
nalism and Home Science];
c a. A Doctorate degree or research work of an equally high
standard; and

b. Good academic record with at least a second class (C in the
seven point scale) Master's degree in a relevant subject from
D an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign
University having regard to the need for developing inter-.
disciplinary programmes, the degree in (a) and (b) above may
be in relevant subjects. Provided that if the Selection Commit-
. tee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as
evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of
E a very high standard, it may relax any of the qualifications
prescribed in (b) above:

Provided further that if a candidate possessing a Doctorate
degree or equivalent research work is not available or is not
F considered suitable, a person possessing a good academic
record (weir,htage being given to M.Phil. or equivalent degree ~-

or research work .if quality) may be appointed provided he has
done research work for at least two years or has practical
experience in a research laboratory/organisation on the condi-
tion that he will have to obtain a Doctorate degree or give
G evidence of research of high standard within eight years of his
appointment, failing which he will not be able to earn future
increments until he fulfills these requirements.'

Although these were the qualifications required by the University
H Ordinance, the advertisement inviting applications stated the following
REKHA CHATURVEDI v. UNIVERSITY OF RAIASTHAN 191

qualifications as necessary for being eligible to the posts : A
'ASSISTANT PROFF,SSORS (LECTURERS) : (Except in the
subject of Drawing & Painting and Dramatics, Education,
Management studies and English).

(a) A Doctorate's degree or research work of an equally high B
standard and

(b) Good academic record with at least second class (C in the
seven point scale) Master's degree in a relevant subject from
an Indian University or/equivalent degree from a foreign C
University.

Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary
programmes, the degrees in (a) and (b) above, may be in
relevant subjects:
D
Provided that if the selection committee is of the view that
the research work of a candidate as -evident either from his
thesis or from his published work is of very high standard, it
may relax any of qualifications prescribed in (b) above:

Provided further that if a candidate prossessing a Doctor's E
degree of equivalent res!'arch work is not available or is not
considered suitable, a person possessing a good academic
record, (weightage being given to M.Phil. or equivalent degree
or research work of quality) may be appointed provided he has
done research work for at least two years or ·has practical
experience in a research laboratory/organisation on the condi-
F
tion that he will have to obtain· a Doctor's degree or give
evidence of research of high standard within eight years of his
appointment, failing which he will not be able to earn future
increment until he fulfils these reqnirements.
G
EXPLANATION

For d~termining "good academic record" the following criteria
shall be adopted :-

(i) A candidate holding a Ph.D. degree should possess at least H
1
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R.

A a second class Master's degree; or

(ii) A candidate without a Ph.D. degree should possess a high
second class Master's degree and second class in the Bachelor's
degree; or

B (iii) a candidate not. possessing Ph. D. degree but possessing
second class Master's degree should have obtained first class
in the Bachelor's degree.

2. Persons having secured marks more than the mid point of
the prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in
c the second division and the prescribed minimum marks for
passing an examination in the first division by a university shall
be deemed to have passed that examination in the high second
class".

D It will be ·apparent that there was a divergence in the qualifications
as per the University Ordinance (as quoted in the written submissions on
behalf of respondent No. 5) and the qualifications as per the advertisement
as stated in the rejoinder of the petitioner since in particular the Explana-
tion does not find place in the Ordinance. The University itself has
produced before us neither the Ordinance nor the advertisement issued.
E In the absence of a copy of the relev&nt Ordinance, however, it is not
possible to say as to whether the qualifications mentioned in the advertise-
ment were at variance with those mentioned in the advertisement. Be that
as it may.

F 4. It will thus be obvious from the requirement of the aforesaid
qualifications, that on the last date for submitting the applications, a can-
didate applying for the said posts should have had (a) doctorate Degree (in
the relevant subject), or research work of an equally high standard (in the
relevant subject), and (b) good academic record with at least a second class
G Master's Degree (in the relevant subject). However, if the Selection Commit-
tee was of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either
from his thesis or from his published work was of a very high standard, the
Scrutiny Committee could relax the qualification that the candidate should . J.
have had at least a doctorate Degree or research work of an equally high
standard and good academic record with at least a second class Master's
H Degree. Secondly, if the candidate possessing a doctorate degree or
REKHA CHATIJRVEDI v. UNNERSITY OF RATASTIIAN 193

equivalent research work was not available or even if available, was not A
suitable, the candidate possessing a good academic record (preferably
M.Phil or equivalent Degree or research work of quality) could also be
appointed provied he had done research work for at least two years or had
practical experience in a research Laboratory/Organisation. However, this
relaxation could be given on the condition that the candidate would obtain a
B
doctorate Degree or give evidence of research of high standard within eight
years of his appointment. If he did not satisfy the second requirement, all that
he could be visited with was a handicap that he would not be able to earn
future increments until he fulfilled the said requirement. It is, therefore,
obvious that a doctorate Degree was not a must and the lack of doctorate
Degree could be made up by either of the qualifications laid down above. c
None of the candidates except respondent No.10 who had applied and
appeared for interview (including the petitioner) possessed the doctorate
Degree by the last date of submitting the applications for the posts.

The six candidates from the general category whose appointment is D
challenged before us and who are respondents 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 before
us had on the relevant date the following qualifications according to the
Scrutiny Committee:
SI. Name Rcspon- Doctorate Published Good Good 2 Year
No. dent No. Degree works of record in Record Research
high M.A. inB.A. E
standard
!. Dr. (Miss) II No No Yes Yes No
Santosh Sharma (Awarded
on 4.1.85)
2. Shri Krishna 6 No No Yes Yes No
Gopal Sharma F
3. Dr. (Mrs.) Vibha 10 Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Upadhyay-•
4. (Miss) Saroj 7 No No Yes Yes No
Sharma ·
5. Dr. Shyam Singh 5 No Yes Yes No Yes
R.atnawat (Awarded G
on
14.12.84)
6. (Miss) Pramila 8 No No Yes Yes No
Sharma (Passed
M.A. in
1982)
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.
..
A It is apparent that respondent No. 5 had no doctorate Degree. He
had good academic record in M.A. but did not have good record in B.A.
He had published work of high standard and also two years' research work
to his credit. Respondent No.6 had no doctorate Degree. He had, however,
good academic record both in M.A. and B.A.; but had neither any pub-
B lished work of high standard nor two years research experience, to his
credit. Respondent No.7 had no doctorate Degree. She had, however, good
academic record both in M.A. and B.A. She had not published work of
high standard nor had she two years' research work to her credit. Respon-
dent No. 8 had no doctorate Degree. She had, however, good academic
record both in M.A. and B.A. though she did not have to her credit
C published work of high standard nor two years' research work. Respondent
No.10 had doctorate Degree and also a good academic record both in M.A.
and B.A. She had also experience of two years research work though there
was no published work of high standard to her credit. Respondent No.11
had no doctorate Degree. She had, however, good academic record both
D in M.A. and B.A. She had no published work of high standard or two years'
research work to her credit.

It is on record that respondent Nos. 5 and 11 were awarc!ed doc-
torate Degree on 14.12.1984 and 4.1.1985 respectively which is of course
irrelevant since the qualifications had to be judged with reference to the
E last date for submitting the applications for the posts.

Thus except in the case of respondent No.10, the qualifications of
the other selected candidates had to be relaxed by the scrutiny Committee.
However, there is no record of the minutes of the meetings of the Scrutiny
F Committee to show whether and in what manner the Scrutiny Committee
had applied its mind and relaxed their qualifications. The affidavit filed on
behalf of the University shows that the minutes, !f kept, were destroyed. >- -

It was sought to be argued by Shri Manoj Swarup on behalf of the
G University that since at the time of the selection, respondent Nos. 5 and 11
bad obtained their doctorate Degrees they could be said to have fulfilled
the qualifications. He also argued that since respondent Nos. 6 an~ 7 were
registered for Ph.D. on 22.1.1982 and 26.5.1982 respectively, by the time of . 1
the selection they had put in research work connected with their thesis and
in February 1985, viz., the date of selection, they had about 3 years'
H experience in research work. As regards respondent No. 8, she had good
REKHA CHATURVEDI v. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN 195

acadamic record both in M.A. and BA. and the Scrutiny Committee could A
under the Ordinance relax the qualifications as admittedly sufficient num-
ber of candidates with the doctorate Degree were not available. He also
urged in this connection that even the petitioner did not have the doctorate
Degree. He further submitted that it was open to the Scrutiny Committee
to weigh the over-all qualifications of the candidates and relax the required
B
qualifications in favour of the deserving and suitable candidates which the
Scrutiny Committee did or should be deemed to have done. The Scrutiny
Committee was a high power Committee and after interviewing 65 can-
didates, it had selected only 8 candidates and had placed them in the order
of merit. The Court should not, therefore, interfere with the said selection.
He further pointed out that the candidates had already been appointed in c
February 1985 and they have been working eversince till date. Some of
them are also due for promotion to the higher posts in the near future.
Their record of teaching so far has been excellent and unblemished.
Whatever may be the defects in the selections, this Court may not interfere
with the said process of selection at this late stage.
D
5. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates
should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with
reference to the-last date for making applications has only to be stated to
be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of
knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be E
unable to state whether they .are qualif.ed for the posts in question or not,
if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement
mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be
judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be
possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications F
in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the
date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates
who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire
them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus ·swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that G
it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be
so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others,
I arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertise-
,i.
ment/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite
qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of
the qualifications will be the la.St date for making the applications. We have, H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R. -
A therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the selection Committee in
the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration ~~
the requisite qualifications as ou the date of selection rather than on the
last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on
this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed.
B Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of
this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarai
Chandra & Ors., {1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram &
Anr. v. M Tripura Sundari Dev~ (1990) 4 SLR 237,

c 6. However, for the reasons which follow, we are not inclined to set
aside the selections in spite of the said illegality. The selected candidates
have been working in the respective posts since February 1985. We are now
-
in January 1993. Almost eight years have elapsed. There is also no record
before us to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to
weigh the. respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum
.... D
qualifications in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary p0wers
vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the considerations which
weighed with th6 Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were
valid, it would result in injustice to those who have been selected. We,
however, feel it necessary to emphasise and bring to the notice of the
E U Diversity that the illegal practices in the selection of candidates which
have come to light and which seem to be followed usually at its end must
stop forthwith. It is for this purpose that we lay down the following
guidelines for the future selection process:

F A. The University must note that the qualifications.it advertises
for the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed
by its ordinance/Statutes.

B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date ·
for making applications for the posts in question, or on the date
G to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification
for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates
after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as
that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be
remembered that when the advertisement/notification repre-
H sents that the candidates must have the qualifications in ques-
REKHA CHATURVEDI v. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN 197

tion, with reference to the last date for making the applications A
or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the pur-
pose, those who do not have such qualifications do not apply
for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such
qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the
circumstaµces, many who would otherwise be entitled to be
B
considered and may even be better then those who apply, can
have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of considera-
tion.

C. When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the
minimum required qualifir.ations, unless it is specifically stated C
in the advertisement/notification both that the qualifications
will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be
relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal.

D. The University/Selection Committee must mention in its D
proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations, if
any, in respect of each of the candidates in whose favour
relaxation is made.

E. The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee E
should be preserved for a sufficiently long time, and if the
selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally
disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the
minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not
available.
F

7. Although, therefore, for reasons stated above, we deem it inad-
visable to interfere in the selections made in the present case, we direct
that the University and its Selection Committee should observe the above
norms in all future selections.
G

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed subject to the above direc-
tions.

G.N. Petition dismissed.