Holding

The Supreme Court held that the university's promotion was valid and that courts should not interfere with academic selection decisions when the prescribed procedure has been duly followed.

Summary

The appellant, Osmania University, promoted G. Manohar Rao from Lecturer to Reader under the University Grants Commission's Merit Promotion Scheme, after evaluation by an external expert committee and a seven‑member selection committee. The respondents, Abdul Rayees Khan and G. Manohar Rao, challenged the promotion, alleging that the expert committee did not use any objective criteria or a scoring system, rendering the selection arbitrary. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the promotion, holding that the lack of a systematic marking scheme invalidated the decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the university had complied with the UGC‑prescribed procedure, and that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of academic bodies in matters of educational promotion. Consequently, the High Court's interference was deemed erroneous, the promotion stood, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the university's merit promotion process complied with the UGC guidelines requiring objective evaluation.
Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the academic selection of a university teacher.
Whether courts may intervene in promotion decisions of university staff where procedural requirements are satisfied.

Subjects

merit promotionuniversityacademic selectionjudicial interferenceobjective criteriapromotion from lecturer to readerUGC guidelinesservice law

Judgment

A OSMANIA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR, HYDERABAD, A.P.
v.
ABDUL RA YEES KHAN AND ANR. -·
OCTOBER 25, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

Service Law :

Pramotion-Lecturer to Reader-Merit Promotion Scheme-
C Implementation of-Promotion recommended by expert body-Court not
to interfere with the selection relating to education affairs-Academic
matters be left to the expert body to select the best of the talent on objective
criteria.

State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Mynuddin, (1987) 4 SCC 486
D & Dr. JP. Kulshrestha & Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors.,
[1980] 3 sec 418, distinguished.
I-

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14548 of
1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No.1183of1988. •

H.S. Gururaja Rao and T.V. Ratnam for the AppeUant.

F A.V. Rangam, A. Ranganadhan, S. Sadasiva Reddy and Ms. Usha
Reddy for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
H Bench of the Andhra Pradesh, made on October 11, I 995 in Writ Appeal
6
-
OSMANJA UNIVERSITY v. A.R. KHAN 7

No. 1183/88. A

The admitted position is that the first respondent and the second
respondent, G. Manohar Rao, Lecturers of Law in the Post Graduation
Department of the Faculty of Law ofOsmania University had staked their
claims for promotion as Reader in the said Department of the Osmania
University. The University Grants Commission had recommended the B
procedure for evaluation of the merits of the candidates for selection as
Readers and Professors as under:

"'Objectives"

I. The basic objectives of the scheme should be (I) to recognise C
outstanding work done by the university teachers in the areas of
teaching and research (2) subject such work to objective
evaluation by experts in the subject areas concerned and (3) to
provide for reasonable opportunities for professional
advancement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition D
on a competitive basis. The scheme should, therefore, be
appropriately named as "Merit Promotion Scheme for University
Teachers". This would be in the nature of a "flexible
complementing scheme" as prevailing in other services, wherein
no additional posts are created, and the existing person on the
basis of critical assessment are promoted to the next higher level E
and the position is held by such incumbents as personal to
them, and no resultant vacancy is required to be filled. Such a
Scheme would considerably encourage the teachers to
engage in advanced teaching and research and make
distinct contributions which would merit recognition and
promotion. F

The present scheme when compared to similar schemes operating
in other services, it is in fact rather conservative, keeping in
view the present pay scale structure and the time involved, for
persons to advance their profession. However, even this limited G
scheme will prevent, stagnation and promote a better climate of
teaching and research.

2. In the present context of implementation of the revised scales
of pay in the universities and colleges since January 1973 and
the provision for similar merit promotion schemes prevailing H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A in CSIR, old scheme, !CAR, DSRDO etc. and the opportunities
available in other services of the Government of India for y
professional advancement, it is imperative that the universities
be enabled to implement merit promotion scheme based upon
the evaluation of the work of the teacher from time to time.
The scheme may be made effective from 1st April, 1980.
B
Method of implementation:

3. (a) Teachers in the university departments engaged in advanced
teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements
are such as to merit recognition, may be considered for merit
c promotion, in the first instance, after completion six years of
continuous service in their respective cadre, of which at least
three years should be in the institution where he/she is being
considered for such assessment and merit promotion. (b) Any
teacher who has been considered and not selected for merit
promotion in the initial presentation could however submit his
D work again only after a lapse of three years, (c) Teachers
interested in such assessment and consideration of merit
promotions should present their work to the University, through
their department, latest by 31st December each year or a date
stipulated by the university (d) The university should generally
take a decision before the beginning of the next academic year,
E so that such promotions can become effective from the date of
the beginning of the next academic session, (e) While the final
selection of persons to be promoted can be made by the university
in accordance with its normal procedure, it would be necessary
to refer to the work (to include research publications, books,
reviews, curriculum development, teaching aids, innovation in
F teaching methods, equipment developed etc.) presented by the
individual teachers-at least two referees in the subject/discipline
concerned. The referees are to be selected by the Vice-Chancellor
out of a panel of names set up according to the procedure
prescribed yet the university for Selection Committee. The
G evaluation reports by these referees should be kept confidential,
and should be made available to the Selection Committee. The
final selection would be based upon the referee evaluation
comments and the unanimous opinion of the outside experts (at.
least two outside experts in the case of promotion to readers and
three outside experts for promotion to professors) on the Selection
H Committee. (f) The post of a reader given to a lecturer or the
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. A.R. KHAN 9

position of a professor given to a reader, through merits A
promotion, would be personal to the incumbent concerned (g)
the main criteria for promotion under this scheme would be the
merit of the academic contributions and not the seniority of the
teachers.

The primary step required to be taken is that the academic B
achievements of papers, monograms etc. are required to be referred to a
committee of two members of academic experts to evaluate the merits of
the teachers with the objective of finding out the meritorious candidates
for selection as a Reader or Professor, as the case may be. The members of
the Committee are required to consider outstanding work done by the
University Teachers in the area of teaching and research. The objective C
evaluation is done by the experts in the subject area engrafted as members.
They have to be outsiders to the University and evaluation has to be done
by these experts to find out the candidates for promotion on merits as per
the scheme. The method of implementation has been stated in· para 3 thus:

"Method of implementation:
D

3, (a) Teachers in the university departments engaged in advanced
teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements
are such as to merit recognition, may be considered for merit
promotion, in the first instance, after completing six years of E
continuous service in their respective cadre, of which at least
three years should be in the institution where he/she is being
considered for such assessment and merit promotion. (b) Any
teacher who has been considered and not selected for merit
promotion in the initial presentation could however submit his F
work again only after a lapse of three years, (c) Teachers
interested in such assessment and consideration of merit
promotions should present their work to the University, through
their department, latest by 31st December each year or a date
stipulated by the university ( d) The university should generally
take a decision before the beginning of the next academic year, G
so that such promotions can become effective from the date of
the beginning of the next academic session, (e) While the final
selection of persons to be promoted can be made by the university
in accordance with its normal procedure, it would be necessary
to refer to the work (to include research publications, books,
reviews, curriculum development, teaching aids, innovation in H
JO SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A teaching methods, equipment developed etc.) presented by the
individual teachers-- at least two referees in the subject/discipline
concerned. The referees are to be selected by the Vice-Chancellor
out of a panel of names set up according to the procedure
prescribed yet the university for Selection Committee. The
evaluation reports by these referees should be kept confidential,
B and should be made available to the Selection Committee. The
final selection would be based upon the referee evaluation
comments and the unanimous opinion of the outside experts (at
least two outside experts in the case of promotion to readers and
three outside experts for promotion to professors) on the Selection
Committee.
c
It is seen that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had nominated
out of the panel (i) Dr. P. Koteswara Rao, Professor and Head of the P.G.
Department of Law, Dean, Faculty of Law, Shri Venkateswara University
and (ii) Dr. T.S. Rama Rao, Professor and Head Department of Legal
Studies, University of Madras for evaluation of the works presented by
D the first respondent and G. Manohar Rao. After consideration of respective
papers placed before the Expert Committee, Dr. P. Koteswara Rao
recommended both G. Manohar Rao .as well as Abdul Rayees Khan for
consideration of merit promotion as Readers. While Dr. Rama Rao stated
that the first respondent was primafacie qualified for promotion, as regards
E G. Manohar Rao, stated that Selection Committee may go into the articles
and other material, research papers placed for consideration by G. Manohar
Rao; if they are found to be based on any substantial research, he may be
promoted. Thereafter, the Committee consisting of Vice-Chancellor, Justice
Sardar Ali Khan, Dean, Faculty of Law, Professor E. Gupteswar, Andhra
University, Professor T.S. Rama Rao, Madras University, Dr. K. Srinivas
F Rao, Head, Department of Law and Shri A. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman,
Board of Studies, Osmania University was constituted for selection. They
have stated as under:

"The candidates were summoned for the interview of the
candidates interviewed, the Committee recommend for
G
appointment to the post(s) in question in the following persons.
The order of the reference being (I) G. Manohar Rao (2) V.
Krishnamachary subject to the condition that they obtain their
Ph.D. within three years from the date of their joining as Reader."

H From this material, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. A.R. KHAN II

that evaluation committee of the two Professors had not adopted any A
objective criteria in evaluating the papers presented by the respective
f
candidates while giving their opinion for consideration by the Selection
Committee. The Selection Committee has not adopted any procedure in
awarding marks for considering the respective claims. Therefore, the
selection of G. Manohar Rao, the second respondent in the writ petition
was bad in law. That was upheld by the Division Bench. Thus, this appeal B
by special leave.

Shri H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned senior counsel for the appelant,
contends that as per the procedure prescribed by the University Grants
Commission, the University was required to refer to the respective papers
submitted by the intending candidates to the two member Expert Committee C
who has to evaluate the respective merits and make recommendations for
consideration for promotion. Thereafter, as per the statute, the Committee
consisting of 7 persons was required to consider their cases for promotion.
In this case, six members, out of seven members, of the Committee
participated in the selection, they unanimously, after interviewing the
candidates, consider and selected G. Manohar Rao, the Lecturer as a Reader D
for the Post Graduation Department of the Faculty of Law of Osmania
University. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that
evaluation committee had to adopt systematic set procedere of giving marks
and was also required to give marks forthe respective candidates in selecting
them. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the
view taken by the learned single Judge is correct in law. A reading of the E
expert panel's finding would disclose that they did not adopt any objective
criteria in recommending the candidates for considering of merit promotion.
Record, as placed before the court as regards, selection is not complete.
Even that report on record does not indicate any method by which the
selection came to be made by the Committee. Therefore, the selection is
obviously arbitrary being without any material. In support thereof, the F
learned counsel places reliance on State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohd.
Mynuddin, [J 987] 4 SCC 486 and Dr. JP. Ku/shrestha & Ors. v. Chancellor,
Allahabad University & Ors., [1980] 3 SCC 418.

In view of the respective contentions, the question that arises for G
consideration is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in
law? It is not necessary to reiterate what we have already stated with
regard to the merit procedure prescribed by the UGC and the steps taken
by the Osmania University in nominating two external experts on the
subject to evaluate the respective papers presented by G. Manohar Rao,
the second respondent and the first respondent for consideration of their H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A claim for merit promotion as Reader and the subsequent selection. It would
be self-evident to show that the appellant had followed the procedure in
accordance with the guidelines laid down by the UGC in referring the
respective claims of the first respondent and G. Manohar Rao, the second
respondent for evaluating their papers. As seen, both Dr. P. Koteswara
Rao and Dr. T.S. Rama Rao are Professors of outside University. Dr. P.
B Koteswara Rao recommended the cases of G. Manohar Rao as well as the
first respondent for consideration for merit promotion as Reader. Similarly,
while Dr. T.S. Rama Rao prima facie found the first respondent to be
qualified for consideration for promotion, he did not make any specific
recommendation as regards G. Manohar Rao leaving it to the Selection
Committee to consider the research papers submitted by G. Manohar Rao.
C It is not in dispute that the said Dr. T.S. Rama Rao was also a member of
the Selection Committee as an outside expert. As stated earlier, he and
Professor E. Gupteswar, an eminent Professor from Andhra University
Law College, were outside Professors for selection of the candidates. It is
seen that the Committee including two outside professors unanimously
recommended promotion of G. Manohar Rao as Reader. In other words,
D the outside experts were unanimous in recommending promotion of G.
Manohar Rao as Reader. The procedure for promotion from the post of
Lecturer to Reader as enjoined in the statute and the guidelines laid down
by the University Grants Commission, was scrupulously followed and
was strictly complied with. After interviewing the candidates, the
Committee unanimously found G. Manohar Rao to be eligible for
E promotion as Reader. In view of the above facts, the learned single Judge
was not right in concluding that there was no objective evaluation by the
two experts on the subject, namely, Dr. K. Koteswara Rao and Dr. T.S.
Rama Rao. Equally, the learned Judge was not right in concluding that the
Committee should have adopted the procedure of awarding marks for
selection of the candidates. When a Lecturer is selected for promotion as
F a Reader, respective academic preferences and performance, teaching
experience and capacity to teach and other teaching material relevant to
the subject in that behalf were considered by the Co1n1nittee. It is not
necessary, like in selection of Class II and Class Ill officers, to award
marks to each candidate for their selection. What is required to be done is
G dispassionate and objective selection but not arbitrary or colourable
selection. When the University nominated seven members including a High '-
Court Judge and it selected the Readers or Professors on objective test,
there emerges no arbitrary selection. As held by this Court in J.P.
Kulshrestha 's case, ultimately, this Court has to leave it to the academic
body to select the best candidates suitable and fit to teach the subject. As
H held by this Court," Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY v. A.R. KHAN 13

home the point that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of A
academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there
· is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to
dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But University ongans, for that
matter any authority in our system, is bound by the rule of law and cannot
be a law into itself. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level
decides an academic matter, or an educational question, the Court keeps it B
hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it
is not fair to keep the court out." In view of the above statement of law,
with which we are in respectful agreement we hold that generally the
Court may not interfere with the selection, relating to educational affairs,
and academic matters may be left to the expert body to select best of the
talent on objective criteria. What is the objective criteria is a question of C
fuct in each case. Each case depends upon its own facts and the circumstances
in which the respective claims of competing candidates has come up for
consideration. No absolute rule in that behalf could be laid. Each case
requires to be considered on its own merit and in its own setting, giving
due consideration to the views expressed by the educational experts in the
affairs of their administration or selection of the candidates. D

The two decisions relied on by the learned counsel are ofno assistance
to the facts of this case, In the first case, the. Court had considered that the
High Court has no power to give direction to the appointing authority to
promote the candidates, Instead the Court is required to direct the authority
to consider the claims in accordance with law, that is settled legal position. E
It does not require reiteration. That is not the situation having arisen in
this case. Even the second case, which was relied upon, is not of any
assistance. On the facts in that case, the finding which was questioned in
this Court was upheld by this Court, as it was for the University to prescribe
the grading in awarding the Post Graduation degrees. Considered from F
this perspective, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified
in interfering with the selection. The order of the learned single Judge and
of the Division Bench stand set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances without
~ G
G .N. Appeal allowed.