THE CHANCELLOR AND ANR.versusDR. BIJYANANDA KAR AND ORS.

I,,




                 THE CHANCELLOR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.                                   A
                                v.
                DR. BUAYANANDA KAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                                NOVEMBER 4, 1993
                                                                                     B
                    [KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.)

            Ori~a Universities Act, 1989: Section 21(2). ·


             University-Professor-Appointment of-Selection Committee-Unani-
      mous recommendation by-Subsequent to selections letters by members of C
      Selection Committee reneging their recommendation-{fniversity Syndicate
      not taking notice of letters-Accepting the recommendation of Selection Com-
      mittee-Appointment of Professor-Validity of-Held sanctity of selection
      process should be maintained- Members of Selection Committee should not
      renege their own recommendation.                                            D

           Service Law-Academic bodies-Selection Committee-Decision of-
      Power of Court to inteifere with.

            Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226-Writ Petition challenging
      appointment of University Professor-Full facts not pleaded in writ petition-   E
      Neither Vice Chancdlor nor University Syndicate impleaded as party-ln-
      ference drawn again.st Vice- Chancellor held not proper.

            Utkal University invited applications for the post of Professor of
      Philosophy, the requisite qualifications for which was specialisation in the F
      'Philosophical Analysis or Values'. The Selection Committee, constituted
      in terms of Section 21(2) or the Orlssa Universities Act, 1989, unanimously
      recommended that M and K should be placed at Nos. 1 and 2 respectively
      on the Merit List. A day after the selection three members of the Selection
      Committee addressed two letters • one or which was personally delivered
      by K • to the Vice-Chancellor stating therein that the candidate placed first -0
      in the Merit List did not possess the required qualification. However, the
      University Syndicate accepted the recommendations of the Selection Com·
      mittee and decided not to take notice of the letters. Accordingly , M was
      appointed as Professor. K submitted a representation to the Chancellor
      against the aforesaid appointment, without mentioning about the two H
                                           599
                                                                                    J   A




    600                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A letters, which was dismissed. Thereafter, K filed a petition, without im-
    pleading the Vice-Chancellor and Syndicate as parties, in the High Court
    Challenging M's appointment wherein also he pleaded no facts pertaining
    to the two letters. However, on K's application the· letters were produced
    before the High Court during the hearing of the petition and by its
B   judgment dated June 23, 1993 the High Court set aside the selection and
    appointment of M holding that there was a serious lapse on the part of
    the Vice-Chancellor in non placing the two letters written by the three
    members before the Syndicate. Against the decision of the High Court,
    appeals were filed in this Court.

C        Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the High
    Court, this Court

         HELD : 1. The High Court grossly erred in setting aside the selection
    and appointment of M on the basis of the two letters. [606-B]

D         1.1 The function of the Selection Committee comes to an end when
    the process of selection is completed and the proceedings are drawn. Every
    member of the Selection Committee has a right to give his independent,
    unbiased and considered opinion in respect of each candidate appearing
    before the Committee. Normally, it would not be considered a bona fide
E act on the part of a member of the Selection Committee to say, after the
    selection is over and he has signed and proceedings, that he "overlooked"
  . certain qualifications in respect of a candidate. The sanctity of the process
    of selection has to be maintained. It would be travesty of the selection
    process if the candidates are encouraged to meet members of the Selection
    Committee after the selection is over and to obtain letters from them
F attempting to renege the selection made. [606-B-D]
        2. The decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily
  be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfills the requisite
  qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided
  by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committees which
G invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection. In
  his representation before the Chancellor, K specifically raised the issue·
  that M did not possess the specialisation in the "Philosophical Analysis of
  values" as one of the qualification. There is no doubt that the Chancellor
  must have got the same examined from the experts before rejecting the
H representation. (606-E-F]
           CHANCELLOR v. DR. B. KAR [KULDIP SINGH, J.)                      601

      3. The High Court was.wholly unjustified in reaching the conclusion          A
that non placing of the two letters before the Syndicate was a very serious
lapse on the part of the Vice-Chancellor. There was no material whatsoever
before the High Court to show that the two letters were not placed before
the Syndicate. However, before reaching the conclusion, it should have
given an opportunity to the Vice-Chancellor to give his side of the story          B
regarding the two letters. [605-C, B]

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4880 of
1993 etc.

      From the Judgment and order dated 23.6.92 of the Orissa High Court           C
in O.J. No. 3907 of 1990.

         G.L. Sanghi, Ranjit Kumar and Vinoo Bhagat for the Appellants.

         H.L. Agrawal, S.K. Patri, A.Sharan and AK. Panda for the Respon-
dents.                                                                             D
         G.L. Sanghi, and Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondent No. 2.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted in both the petitions. Dr.            E
Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra was selected for the substantive post of profes-
sor of Philosophy by the Selection Committee constituted by the Utkal
University, Bhubaneswar, Orissa. A day after the selection Committee
addressed two letters to the Vice-Chancellor stating therein that the
selected candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications. The letters
                                                                                   F
were ignored and Dr. Mohapatra was appointed to the post he was
selected. Dr. Bijayananda Kar, respondent 1, challenged the selection and
appointment of Dr. Mohapatra by way of writ petition under Article 220
of the Constitution of India before the Orissa High Court. A Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the selection
and appointment of Dr. Mohapatra and directed that Dr. Kar be appointed
                                                                                   G1
to the substantive post of Professor of Philosophy in the Utkal University.
These two appeals, by way of special leave, against the judgment of the
High Court, are by the Utkal University and by Dr. Mohapatra.

         The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Utkal University, by an   H
    602                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A advertisement dated November 10, 1989, invited applications for two posts
    of Professor of Philosophy, one substantive and the order temporary ii:i a
    leave vacancy. One of the requisite qualification for the permanent post
    was specialisation in the "Philosophical Analysis of Values". A Committee,
    consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the Director of higher
B   education and four experts in the subject (one nominated by the Chancellor
    and the other three by the Vice-Chancellor) was constituted in terms of
    Section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989, The Committee met cm
    March 27, 1990 and placed Dr. Mohapatra at No. 1 in the merit for both
    the posts. Dr. Kar was selected and placed at No. 2 for both the posts. The
    unanimous recommendation of the Selection Committee was as under :
c
             ''Taking into consideration the academic record, teaching ex-
             perience, research activities of the candidates and their perfor-
             mance at the interview, the Committee recommends in order of
             preference : -
D
             1. Dr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra.

             2. Dr. Bijayananda Kar.

             for appointment as professor of Philosophy (D.S.A)"
E
    On March 28, 1990 Dr. Kar personally delivered a letter bearing the same
    date in the office of the Vice-Chancellor. The letter was signed by two of
    the expert members of the Selection Committee wherein they stated that
    "it was somehow overlooked that the post was specifically for "Philosophi-
F   cal Analysis of Values". According to best of our information candidate
    who has been placed first in the recommendation does not possess the
    required qualification". Subsequently another letter dated March 27, 1990
    addressed to the Vice-Chancell9r .was received from the third expert
    member of the Selection Cominittee. The contents of the letter were
G   substantially the same as those of the one mentioned above.

           The Syndicate of the Utkalc.University met on April 19, 1990 and
    ac:cepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It has been
    mentio11ed in para 14 of the special leave petition • supportr.d by the
    affidavit filed by the Admiiiistrative Officer of the· University • that the two
H   letters menti~ned above were informilly diacusaed at the meeting of the
         CHANCELLOR v. DR. B. KAR (KULDIP SINGH,             1.f           603

 Syndicate, but it was decided not to take notice of same. Dr. Mahapatra           A
 was appointed Professor in both the posts as recommended by the Selec-
 tion Committee. He, however, elected to retain the appointment to the
 substantive post.

         Dr. Kar made a representation dated June 13, 1990 to· the Chancellor
  against the aforesaid appointment. In the said representation Dr. Kar did
                                                                                 B
  not mention about the two letters written by the three experts of the
  Selection Committee to the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The Chan-.
  cellar rejected the representation by order dated August 23, 1990. Dr. Kar
  challenged the selection and appointment of Dr. Mahapatra by way of the
  writ petition before the High Court on October 29, 1990. In the writ C
  petition no mention was made regarding the two letters addressed by the
  three experts to the Vice-Chancellor. Dr. Kar filed an application on July
  29, 1991 stating that "......... he has been reliably informed by some members
  of the Selection Committee that two letters were sent to the Vice-Chancel-
  lor complaining to him that full details about the candidates ....... were not D
  placed before them...........". The application sought a direction to the
  University to produce the said two letter at the hearing of the writ petition.
  The letters were produced before the High Court at the hearing. By
  judgment dated June 23, 1992, impugned in these appeals, the High Court
  allowed the writ petition. The High Court set aside the selection and
· appointment of Dr. Mahapatra on the following reasoning : -                    E

          "As already stated that post required specialisation in "Philosophi-
          cal Analysis of Values". Nothing more is required to S!ltisfy our
          mind in this regard than the view expressed by three out of the
          four experts in their communications addressed to the Vice-Chan-         F
          cellor, one of which is dated 27.3.90 and another 28.3.90. These
          Communications in original have been produced for our perusal
          by Shri P.K. Mohanty, appearing for the University. A perusal of
          the same shows that so far as the communication dated 27.3.90 is
          concerned, it seems that it has come directly to the Vice-Chancel-
          lor, though the other communication had been received by the             G
          Vice-Chancellor through the petitioner ............... We specifically
          asked Shri Mohanty whether the Vice-Chancellor would go to the
          extent of saying that these documents are forged, concocted, or
          obtained by force by the petiti01:1er. Shri Mohanty has clearly stated
          the he has no instruction to say so. This being so ~d three out of       H
    604'                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A            the four experts having informed the Vice-Chancellor as early as
             27.3.90 and 28.3.90 that while sitting in the selection somehow.they
             overlooked that the post was specifically for "Philosophical
             Analysis of Values". The candidate who had been placed first in
             the recommendation did not possess the required· qualification to
             the best of their information; but the second candidate had the
B            required qualification. It was, therefore, requested by the experts
             that the matter may be considered when final decision is taken by
             the University.. Having received these communications we are of
             the firm view that the Vice-Chancellor was under an obligation to
    ..,...   place the same before t.he Syndicate when it met on 19.4.90 to
c            consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Non-
             placing of these comlnunications before the Syndicate was a very
             serious lapse, according to us, oil the part of the Vice-Chancellor
             because the Syndicate approved the proceeding of the Selection
             Committee basing on the recommendation made by the committee
             in which the experts must have played a dominant role. But as· the
D
             three out of the four experts informed the Vice-Chancellor even
             before the ink of the recommendation was dried up that they had
             missed a very important aspect of the matter, we have no explana-
             tion at all before us as to why the Vice-Chancellor did not think
             it fit and necessary to apprise the Syndicate about these com-
E            munications. As the Vice- Chancellor has not been impleaded as
             an opposite party in the case, refrain from making any comment
             on this conduct of the Vice-Chancellor."

         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasoning and the
F conclusion reached by the High Court. We are unable to agree with the
  same. It is clear from the tenor of the High Court judgment, that the "two
  letters" were produced by the learned counsel for the University before the
  Learned Judges of the Division Bench at the time of the hearing of the writ
  petition. The judgment was dictated in the court the same day.. As men-
                                                                                    .
                                                                                    •.
  tioned above Dr. Kar had not even mentioned about the "two letters" in
G the writ petition filed before the High Court. He pleaded no facts pertain-
  ing to the "two letters". Neither the Vice- Chancellor nor the Syndicate was
  a party before the High Court. The Vice-Chancellor, under the cir-
  cumstance, was deprived of an opportunity of giving an explanation before
  the High Court as to whether he placed the "two letters" before the
H Syndicate or not. The Utkal University was im.pleaded before the .High
        CHANCELLOR v. DR. B. KAR (KULDIP SINGH, J.]                       605

Court through the Registrar. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for A
the University was fully justified in stating that he had no instructions to
say as to whether the Vice-Chancellor "would go to the extent of saying
that these documents are forged, concocted, or obtained by force by the
petitioner". We are of the view that before reaching the conclusion, which
the High Court did, it should have give an opportunity to the Vice-Chan- B
cellor to give his side of the story regarding the "two letters". There was no
material whatsoever before the High Court to show that the "two letters"
were not placed before the Syndicate. The High Court was wholly unjus-
tified in reaching the conclusion that "nor placing of these communications
before the Syndicate was a very serious lapse, according to us, on the part ·
of the Vice- Chancellor ................" As mentioned above it has been specifi- C
cally averred in the special leave petition that the "two letters" were
informally discussed at the meeting of the Syndicate dated April 19, 1990
but it was decided to have no notice of them as it could harm the reputation
and prospects of respondent No. 1 Dr. .Kar. The averments are supported
by the affidavit filed by the Administrative Officer of the University. We D
have no reason to disbelieve the factual statement made before us on behalf
of the Chancellor of the University.

       It is not disputed that Dr. Kar knew about the "two letters" from the
day they were written. He personally delivered one of the letters in the
office of the Vice-Chancellor. He submitted a representation dated June E
13, 1990 to the Chancellor of the University. Chancellor, apart from being
the Governor of the State, is the highest authority in the hierarchy of the
University. It is surprising that Dr. .Kar did not mention about the "two
letters" in the said representation. In the Selection Committee, there was
an expert nominated by the Chancellor. Had these facts been brought to p
the notice of the Chancellor, we have no doubt, he would have examined
the "two letters" in consultation with the fourth expert who was his
nominee. For reason best known to Dr. Kar he did not choose to open his
mind before the Chancellor. Even in the writ petition filed by Dr. Kar
before the High Court he did not make any mention about the "two letters".
It was only on July 29, 1991 in the application for summoning the records, G
that he mentioned about the "two letters". Despite having full personal
knowledge Dr. Kar chose to state in the said application that he" ..... :""""
has been reliably informed by some members of the Selection Committee
that two letters were sent to the Vice-Chancellor ................" We fail to
appreciate as to why Dr. Kar has been playing hide and seek in respect of H
    606                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the "two letters". In the facts and circumstances of this case the least we
    can say is that Dr. Kar did not approach the High Court with clean hands.

         Even on the merit of the controversy we are of the view that the High
   Court fell into patent error in setting aside the selection on the basis of the
   "two letters". The function of the Selection Committee comes to &n end
B when the process of selection is completed and the proceedings are cirawn.
   Every member of the Selection Committee has a right to give his inde-
   pendent, unbiased and considered opinion in respect of each candidate
   appearing before the Committee. Normally, it would not be considered a
   bona fide act on the part of a member of the Selection Committee to say,
C after the selection is over and he has signed the proceedings, that he
 . "overlooked: certain qualifications in respect of a candidate. The sanctity
   of the process of selection has to be maintained. It would be travesty of
   the selection-process if the candidates are encouraged to meet members
   of the Selection Committee after the selection is over and to obtain letters
   from them attempting to range the selection made. The High Court, in the
D facts of the present case, grossly erred in setting aside the selection and
   appointment of Dr. Mohapatra.

          This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic
    authorities should not ordinarily, be interfered with by the courts. Whether
E   a candidate fulfills the requisite qualifications 'or riot is a matter which
    should be entirely left decided by the academic bodies and the concerned
    selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subjects ,
    relevant to the selection. In the present case D"r. Kar in his representation
    before the Chancellor specifically raised the issued that Dr. Mohapatra did
    not possess the specialisation in the "Philosophical Analysis of Values" as
F   one of the qualifications. The representation was rejected by the Chancel-
    lor. We have no doubt that the Chancellor must have looked into the
    question of eligibility of Dr. Mohapatra and got the same examined from
    the experts before rejecting the representation of Dr. Kar.                      ....
G         We allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High
    Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by Dr. Kar before the High Court.
    Keeping in view that fact that Dr. Kar is a part of the teaching fraternity
    we refrain from burdening him with costs.

    T.N.A.                                                       Appeal allowed.