Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1972 DIGILAW 8 (KAR)

N. B. K. REDDY v. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY

1972-01-17

MALIMATH, NARAYANA PAI

body1972
MALIMATH, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner Dr. N. B. K. Reddy has challenged the resolutions of the Karnatak University, Dharwar dt. 14th August, 1971 and 2nd October, 1971 in so far as they pertain to appointment to the post of a Reader in Geography and has further prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the University to fill the post of Reader in Geography in accordance with the provisions of the Karnatak University Act, 1949 (hereafter referred to as the Act ). Sri S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, formulated his submissions on the basis of admitted facts supported by original records of the University, which were made available to us by Sri S. C. Jayali, learned Counsel appearing for the Karnatak University. Those facts may, briefly, be stated as follows. ( 2 ) BY a notification of the University published in Samyukta Karnataka dt. 28th June, 1971, applications were invited for filling several posts, including the post of a Reader in Geography in the scale of Rs. 700-1250, a copy of which is produced along with the writ petition as Ex,. A. ( 3 ) THE qualifications prescribed in the said notification for the post of Reader in Geography are a Doctorate degree in Geography with a first class in at least one of the degree examinations and teaching experience of 5 years for post-graduate classes. ( 4 ) THE notification also states that in suitable cases the Syndicate may, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, relax the qualifications prescribed. It is also indicated therein that interview of candidates will be at their own cost. ( 5 ) A committee for selection for appointment was duly constituted as required by sub-sec. (2) of S. 44 of the Act. The Committee constituted, consisted of the Vice-Chancellor of the University as ex-Officio Chairman, one member elected by the Syndicate, one member elected by the Academic council and one member nominated by the Chancellor. The petitioner, who was incharge of the Head of the Post-graduate Department of Geography in the University, would have also been an ex-officio member of the Selection Committee, but for the fact that he himself happened to be a candidate for selection. Except the Vice-Chancellor, the other three members of the Committee are all outsiders, coming from Poona University, aligarh University and Bombay University. Except the Vice-Chancellor, the other three members of the Committee are all outsiders, coming from Poona University, aligarh University and Bombay University. ( 6 ) THE petitioner, respondent No. 2 Sri M. S. Honrao, respondent no. 3, Dr. G. S. Singh and some others offered themselves as candidates for the post of Reader in Geography. The candidates were requested to present themselves for interview to be held at 9-30 A. M. on the 11th of august, 1971 in the chambers of the Vice-Chancellor of the University at dharwar. On the date of interview, except the Vice-Chancellor, none of the other three members of the Committee was present. Therefore, the vice-Chancellor alone interviewed the candidates on that date. The other members of the committee, who were requested to come to Dharwar to take the interview of the candidates on the llth August, 1971, were informed that if it was not possible for them to come to Dharwar on the 11th of August, 1971, they may, on consideration of the relative merits of yhe candidates, send their recommendations in the order of their preference. All relevant information and particulars about the candidates were sent to the members of the Selection Committee to enable them to assess their merit. All the three members, after expressing their inability to attend the meeting for holding an interview, forwarded their respective recommendations in order of preference. ( 7 ) ALL the members of the Selection Committee were unanimous in recommending Dr. Singh as their first preference. It is also necessary to mention at this stage that Dr. Singh possessed all the prescribed qualifications for the post. Among the three members of the Selection Committee, other than the Vice-Chancellor, or, two of them recommended in the order of preference the name of Sri Honrao (Respondent No. 2) and the other member recommended the name of Dr. Reddy the petitioner. The vice-Chancellor did not specifically indicate his own preference, he being of the opinion that it is advisable to leave it to the remaining three members who are all experts in the field, coming from outside Universities. The recommendations of the majority of the members of the committee were treated as the recommendation or the committee. Accordingly, their names were all arranged in the order of preference as follows: (1) Dr. G. S. Singh respondent No. 3. (2) Mr. M. S. Honrao respondent No. 2. (3) Mr. The recommendations of the majority of the members of the committee were treated as the recommendation or the committee. Accordingly, their names were all arranged in the order of preference as follows: (1) Dr. G. S. Singh respondent No. 3. (2) Mr. M. S. Honrao respondent No. 2. (3) Mr. N. B. K. Reddy petitioner. ( 8 ) AT the meeting of the Syndicate held on the 14th of August, 1971, the question regarding appointment to the posts of Reader in Geography was taken up for consideration. After considering the opinions of the members of the Selection Committee, the Syndicate resolved that as Dr. Singh had already left the service of the University, his name be omitted and the next person, according to the majority opinion i. e. , Sri Honrao, be appointed to the post. ( 9 ) THE Vice-Chancellor felt that the Syndicate has taken the decision to appoint Sri Honrao without bearing in mind the provisions of S. 44 of the Act. The said provision requires the Syndicate to record its reasond if it proposes to make appointment otherwise than in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Committee and to submit its proposal for the sanction of the Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor, therefore, placed thr matter before the Syndicate for re-consideration of its earlier resolution dated 14th of August 1971. ( 10 ) THE Syndicate, after considering the note of the Vice-Chancellor, passed a fresh resolution on the 2nd October, 1971, superseding its earlier resolution of the 14th of August, 1971. The Syndicate resolved to make appointment strictly in accordance with the order of preference expressed by the majority of the members of the Selection Committee. It resolved to appoint Dr. Singh and to require him to join before 10th of November, 1971, failing which, to appoint the next person in the order of preference, viz. , Sri Honrao. After the presentation of the writ petition, Sri Honrao respondent No. 2 was appointed as Reader in Geography, because Dr. Singh, to whom the post was offered in the first instance, expressed his inability to join on or before 10th November, 1971. , Sri Honrao. After the presentation of the writ petition, Sri Honrao respondent No. 2 was appointed as Reader in Geography, because Dr. Singh, to whom the post was offered in the first instance, expressed his inability to join on or before 10th November, 1971. ( 11 ) SRI S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged the following two contentions : (i) That as the members of the Selection Committee did not meet, there is, in law, no recommendation made by the Selection Committee as required by S. 44 (3) of the Act, on the basis of which the Syndicate could make a valid appointment, (ii) That as respondent No. 2 does not possess the prescribed qualifications, his appointment is invalid. ( 12 ) FROM the statement of facts, about which there is no dispute, it is clear that all the members of the Selection Committee did not send their recommendations after deliberation at a meeting attended by all of them. It will be useful to extract at this stage the provisions of S. 44 of the Act, on the basis of which alone Sri Venkataranga lyengar has constructed this argument :"44. Committee of Selection for appointment of teacher of the university: (1) No person shall be appointed as a teacher of the universty except on the recommendation of a Committee of Selection constituted for the purpose. (2) The members of the Committee shall be (i) The Vice-Chancellor-ex-officio Chairman; (ii) the Head of the University Department in the subject for which the teacher is to be appointed; (iii) one member elected by the Syndicate; (iv) one member elected by the Academic Council; (v) one member nominated by the Chancellor. (3) The Committee shall investigate the merits of the various candidates, and shall recommend to the Syndicate the names, if any, of persons whom it considers suitable for the post, arranged in the order of merit. (4) Out of the persons so recommended, the Syndicate shall make the final selection: provided that where the Syndicate proposes to make the appointment otherwise than in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Committee, the Syndicate shall record its reasons and submit its proposal for the sanction of the Chancellor. " ( 13 ) SUB-SEC. (4) Out of the persons so recommended, the Syndicate shall make the final selection: provided that where the Syndicate proposes to make the appointment otherwise than in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Committee, the Syndicate shall record its reasons and submit its proposal for the sanction of the Chancellor. " ( 13 ) SUB-SEC. (1) of S. 44 requires that a teacher of University should be appointed only on a recommendation of a Committee of Selection constituted for that purpose. Sub-sec. (2) provides for the constitution of the selection Committee. Sub-sec. (3) requires the Selection Committee to investigate the merits of the candidates and to make recommendations to the Syndicate, arranging the names of the persons recommended in the order of merit. Sub-sec. (4) provides that the Syndicate should make a final selection out of the persons recommended by the Selection Committee. The proviso to the said subsection, however, states that if the Syndicate proposes to appoint anyone otherwise than in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Selection Committee, the Syndicate should record its reasons for deviating from the recommendation of the selection Committee and to submit its proposal for the sanction of the chancellor. ( 14 ) SRI Venkataranga lyengar submitted that it is the Selection, committee constituted under sub-sec. (2) that is charged with the task of investigating the merits of the candidates and of making recommendation to the Syndicate of persons whom it considers suitable for the post and to arrange them in the order of merit. It was submitted that sub-sec. (3) of S. 44 contemplates the investigation of the merits of the candidates only at a meeting of the Committee. It was urged that as all the members did not meet at a meeting, the recommendations of the majority of the members individually sent by them cannot, in law, be treated as recommendation of the committee contemplated by sub-sec. (3) of section 44 of the Act. ( 15 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that the recommendation contemplated under sub-sec. (3) is the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under sub-sec. (2 ). (3) of section 44 of the Act. ( 15 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that the recommendation contemplated under sub-sec. (3) is the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under sub-sec. (2 ). Though the committee is required to investigate the merits of the candidates and to make its recommendations, sri Venkataranga lyengar was not in a position to invite our attention to any provision prescribing the procedure to be adopted by the Committee for the purpose of discharging its functions under sub-sec. (3) of s. 44 of the Act. When an Act confers certain functions, it also impliedly grants the incidental power of regulating the procedure to be adopted for the satisfactory discharge of the functions entrusted. No such power can be implied if the Act which confers certain functions also provides the procedure to be followed for the discharge of those functions. As no provision has been made regulating the procedure, the Selection Committee has the implied power to regulate its own procedure for the purpose of discharging the functions entrusted to it by sub-sec. (3) of S. 44 of the Act. ( 16 ) ONE of the modes of discharging the functions entrusted to a committee is by deliberating and taking decisions at the meetings of the members of the committee. Taking decisions by circulation is another well known mode of discharging functions by the committee. The procedure adopted in this case of collecting by post the individual opinions of the members of the Selection Committee and treating the opinion of the majority of the members as the opinon of the Selection Committee was one which the Committee was competent to adopt. ( 17 ) IT is necessary to bear in mind that the members of the Selection committee for selecting persons for such important posts as Readers and professors of Universities normally come from distant places. Eminent persons with high academic distinctions who are expected to be in such committeess, may not find time to attend meetings for the purpose of making recommendations for selection to the posts of teachers in the Universities. If it is insisted that the Selection Committee should recommend candidates only after due deliberations at a meeting of all the members of the committee, it may become very difficult to secure recommendations, if the members of the Selection Committee do not find it convenient or possible to attend such meetings. If it is insisted that the Selection Committee should recommend candidates only after due deliberations at a meeting of all the members of the committee, it may become very difficult to secure recommendations, if the members of the Selection Committee do not find it convenient or possible to attend such meetings. The very purpose of securing recommendations from experienced men with academic distinction coming from various Universities in the country will be defeated if the members of the Selection Committee are obliged to send their recommendations only after due deliberations at a meeting attended by all of them. It is preciseslv having regard to all these difficulties that no specified provision has been made in the Act requiring the Selection committee to follow a particular procedure and has left the same for being regulated by the Selection Committee itself. ( 18 ) SRI Venkataranga lyengar, realising that decisions of an administrative character can be taken by Committees by following the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee in this case, submitted that the function of the Selection Committee required to be discharged under sub-gee. (3) of S. 44 is not of an administrative character but of a quasi-judicial character. The proposition that the function discharged by the Selection committee under sub-section (3) of S. 44 of the Act is quasi-judicial in nature is, in our opinion, too extravagant a proposition to merit any consideration. In the matter of selecting suitable candidates for appointment to a post, there is no lis and no duty is cast on the selecting authority to act judicially. The Supreme Court has, in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 clearly stated that the functions of academic bodies such as the selection boards like the Selection Committee in the present case, are not quasi-judicial in character entitling the High Court to issue writs of certiorari. As the decisions reported in AIR 1930 Cal. 447, AIR 1948 patna page 79 and AIR 1951 SC. page 230 relate to exercise of functions by Jury which are of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, they do not assist the argument of Sri Venkataranga lyengar. The functons of the selection Committee not being of a quasi-judicial character, the contention of Sri Venkataranga lyengar that the Committee could discharge its functions under sub-sec. page 230 relate to exercise of functions by Jury which are of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, they do not assist the argument of Sri Venkataranga lyengar. The functons of the selection Committee not being of a quasi-judicial character, the contention of Sri Venkataranga lyengar that the Committee could discharge its functions under sub-sec. (3) of S. 44 of the Act only at a meeting attended by them, has to be rejected. ( 19 ) AS the Vice-Chancellor has not expressed his opinion, it was submitted that the opinion acted upon by the Syndicate is not the opinion of the Selection Committee. As the Vice-Chancellor in this case himself expressed that the opinion of the majority of the other members of the Committee who are all experts coming from different Universities should be treated as the recommendation of the committee, it is clear that the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor was the same as opinion of the majority of the other members. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Vice Chancellor did not contribute his views in the matter. Even otherwise, if one of the members of the Selection Committee remains neutral and chooses not to express his opinion one way or the other, it does net mean that the majority opinion of the other members of the committee will not constitute the opinion of the committee. If after an opportunity is afforded to all the members of the committee to express their views, one or some of them choose to remain neutral, their conduct means that they have no objection to the majority opinion being given effect to as the joint opinion of the committee. ( 20 ) WE, therefore, reject the contention of Sri Venkataranga lyengar that majority opinion of the members of the Selection Committee acted upon by the Syndicate is not tho opinion of the Selection Committee as contemplated by sub-sec. (3) of S. 44 of the Act. ( 21 ) IT was next urged that as respondent No. 2 did not possess the requisite qualifications, his appointment is invalid. It is not disputed that on the last date for submission of application respondent No. 2 did not possess all the prescribed qalifications. (3) of S. 44 of the Act. ( 21 ) IT was next urged that as respondent No. 2 did not possess the requisite qualifications, his appointment is invalid. It is not disputed that on the last date for submission of application respondent No. 2 did not possess all the prescribed qalifications. The same is also the position of the petiitoner, though he has stated that on the date on which the second resolution was passed by the Syndicate, the petitioner became fully qualified, as he was conferred a doctorate degree by the Karnatak university on that date. The subsequent acquisition of qualification by the petitioner has necessarily to be ignored. The notification inviting applications for the post of Reader in Karnatak University specfied the prescribed qualifications. The very same notification also stated that the syndicate may relax the qualifications in suitable cases on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The members of the Selection Committee were furnished with the particulars and information about qualifications and experience possessed by all the candidates. The Selection committee was fully aware of the qualifications prescribed for the post as well as the qualifications possessed by all the candidates. As the Selection committee recommended respondent No. 2 placing him second in the order of preference, it must be deemed under the circumstances that the selection Committee did recommend to the Syndicate relaxation of the qualifications. As the Syndicate which was fully aware of the fact that respondent No. 2 did not possess all the prescribed qualifications resolved to appoint respondent No. 2 recommended by the Selection Committee, there is an implied relaxation of qualification by the Syndicate. ( 22 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that the appointment of respondent no. 2 is in contravention of any statutory or binding rule or ordinance. Thejre is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 2 is invalid on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed qualifications. ( 23 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petiton fails and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .