Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 863 (MAD)

V. Kasi Rao v. The University of Madras

1997-08-14

P.SATHASIVAM

body1997
Judgment :- 1. By consent of all the parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents not to appoint the third respondent to the post of Deputy Librarian in the first respondent University and consequently direct the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Deputy Librarian in the first respondent University. 3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Adi-Dravida community and working as a ‘Documentation Officer’ in the Central Leather Research Institute, Adyar,Chennai-600020 for the past 13 years, before that he worked as ‘Library Assistant’ in the Guindy Campus Library of the University of Madras. He passed M.A., (History) degree and masters Degree in Library Science (M.L.I.S.) from the Madras University. He has also completed certificate course in computer science in Data base Management Systems, from COSTED, Chennai. He is currently doing Ph.D. programme on information technology applications in library, information and documentation centres. The first respondent herein issued advertisement in Hindu, dated 16.8.1996 calling for the post of Deputy Librarian. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Deputy Librarian is 8 years experience as an Assistant University Librarian/College Librarian. A.M.Phill/Ph.D. degree in Library Science/Information Science was said to be desirable. The post advertised was reserved for the Scheduled Caste community. Since the petitioner was eligible’ candidate as per the prescribed standards, he applied for the said post. However, he did not receive any intimation from the University thereafter. 4. After some time the first respondent directed the petitioner to appear on 10.6.1997 for interview. He attended the interview and performed well. The third respondent has also applied for the said post, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste person and also interviewed on 10.6.1997. The petitioner reliably understand that the third respondent has now been selected for the post of Deputy Librarian and the Syndicate meeting which was held on 12.6.1996 ratified the selection of the third respondent. The selection of the third respondent for the post of Deputy Librarian in the 1st respondent University is illegal and unjust. The petitioner reliably understand that the third respondent has now been selected for the post of Deputy Librarian and the Syndicate meeting which was held on 12.6.1996 ratified the selection of the third respondent. The selection of the third respondent for the post of Deputy Librarian in the 1st respondent University is illegal and unjust. The selection stands vitiated on the account of bias in favour of the third respondent shown by at least two of the selection committee members viz., K.S.Raghavan, 4th respondent herein and K.Sankariah, 5th respondent herein, The 3rd and 4th respondents have been in continuous personal and professional association. Thus, the 4th respondent has bound to have a personal bias in favour of the 3rd respondent and in all fairness should not have been part of the selection committee. The 5th respondent is an office bearer of an association called “Madras Library Association” also known as “MALA”. The 3rd respondent is also a member of the above association. Because of the relationship with the 5th respondent by the third respondent, the 5th respondent also bias in respect of the third’ respondent. 5. It is also contended mat the third respondent does not belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the community certificate produced by her is false. With these averments, he approached this Court with the relief mention above. 6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is contended that as per the Madras University Act, it is the Syndicate which has the power to fill up the post of Deputy Librarian and therefore it is entirely up to them to consider the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. In view of the above fact, the writ petition is hot maintainable. Further, after the names were recommended by the Selection Committee, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 12.6.97 by resolution No.40 approved the third respondents appointment as Deputy Librarian. In the said meeting 17 members have participated which includes several academicians as well as senior officials of the Government. In such circumstance also the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 7. In the counter affidavit the third respondent further contended that she is fully qualified to hold the post of Deputy Librarian and has got superior academic qualification man that of the petitioner. In such circumstance also the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 7. In the counter affidavit the third respondent further contended that she is fully qualified to hold the post of Deputy Librarian and has got superior academic qualification man that of the petitioner. In fact the selection Committee did not even recommend his case for even being kept in the waiting list. As per the advertisement given by the first respondent, it is clearly stated that persons with Ph.D., are desirable. The third respondent has secured M.L.I.S. from Madras University with ‘A’ grade and also got Ph.D., from the first respondent University in the year 1991. Apart from that experience which is required for the post of Librarian is 8 years as an Assistant University Librarian of a College Librarian. The third respondent had 16 years experience, where as the writ petitioner did not possess the requisite experience to apply for the said post. The fourth respondent is a academician in the field of Library and Information Science and a full Bright Scholar has visited United States of America. He was a research guide to several candidates and he was invited as a subject expert in the field of Library science from the Kerala University, Karnataka University, Mysore University and Manomaniam Sundaranar University. Even though he was present during the third respondents interview in the selection committee he kept himself aloof and questions were put to by other members of the selection committee. It was only be cause of the superior academic records, track records and performance in the interview, she was selected. 8. The allegations made against the fourth respondent are unproved, false and the third respondent reserved her right to proceed against him for making such defamatory statement in support of the present writ petition. The allegation of bias against the fifth respondent is also meaningless and untenable, since the third respondent and 5th respondent are members of the Madras Library Association. The petitioner is also a member of the said association. The petitioner had not attributed any motive on the syndicate of the first respondent University. The statement that the third respondent does not belong to schedules caste is equally false. She has produced the community certificate as well as the first page of her fathers S.S.L.C. Book which was dated 6.9.1946. The petitioner had not attributed any motive on the syndicate of the first respondent University. The statement that the third respondent does not belong to schedules caste is equally false. She has produced the community certificate as well as the first page of her fathers S.S.L.C. Book which was dated 6.9.1946. In those circumstances, according to the third respondent absolutely there is no merit in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 9. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mrs.D.Nagasaila, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Ramamoorthy learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Chandru for third respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner supported her argument by raising the following three objections: (i) The 4th respondent has acted as a research guide for the third respondent and he also coauthored several academic articles along with her, therefore he is biased. (ii) The fifth respondent was fellow member of the Madras Library Association (MALA) which is a professional Association, therefore he was also biased in selected the third respondent. (iii) the third respondent did not belong to scheduled caste community and therefore her candidature cannot be considered for the post reserved for scheduled caste community candidate. 11. On the other hand Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent after taking me through the counter affidavit with regard to the academic qualifications of the 4th and 5th respondents submitted that there is absolutely no basis for the contention of the petitioner viz., respondents 4 and 5 have biased in favour of the third respondent. He also submitted mat the third respondent belongs to scheduled caste community only and she has already placed and proved sufficient material before the selection committee. He also submitted that in as much as the selection committee considered the case of the third respondent on merits and selected the same which has been approved by the syndicate, a person the petitioner herein who has not at all upon qualified cannot challenge the Selection of the third respondent by a qualified academicians. 12. He also submitted that in as much as the selection committee considered the case of the third respondent on merits and selected the same which has been approved by the syndicate, a person the petitioner herein who has not at all upon qualified cannot challenge the Selection of the third respondent by a qualified academicians. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has also submitted that in as much as the selection of the third respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the statute i.e., selection by a selection committee and approved by syndicate it is not possible for this Court to lightly interfere and issue direction to the respondents 1 and 2 as claimed by the petitioner. 13. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 14. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the involvement of respondents 4 and 5 in the Selection process. Before considering the above aspect it is seen that the third respondent has fully qualified to hold the post of Deputy Librarian since she has got superior academic qualifications than that of the writ petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the third respondent, the selection committee did not even recommend the petitioners name for being kept in the waiting list. The particulars furnished by the third respondent shows that the secured M.L.I.S. from the Madras University with ‘A’ grade and also Ph.D., holder from the first respondent University in the year 1995. 15. In the advertisement given by the first respondent it is stated, persons with Ph.D. qualifications are desirable. It is also brought to my notice that the experience which is required for the post of Deputy Librarian is 8 years as an Assistant University Librarian or a College Librarian. It is proved by the third respondent that for the past 16 years she was working as College Librarian. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Documentation Officer in the Central Leather Research Institute from 20.9.1990 and before that he was working as Senior Library Assistant. It is only a non teaching post. Further he had also secured only ‘B’ grade in graduate qualification (M.L.I.S.). 16. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Documentation Officer in the Central Leather Research Institute from 20.9.1990 and before that he was working as Senior Library Assistant. It is only a non teaching post. Further he had also secured only ‘B’ grade in graduate qualification (M.L.I.S.). 16. In the light of the particulars furnished by the petitioner as well as the third respondent and after perusing the requisite qualification for the post of Deputy Librarian, prima facie I am of the view that the selection of the third respondent by the Selection Committee cannot said to be either improper or erroneous. 17. Now, I shall consider the allegation of bias attributed against the fourth respondent. He is the contention of the petitioner that the third respondent is a student of Dr.K.S.Raghavan, fourth respondent herein and she had done her Ph.D., research only under his guidance. Further he is the co author in several papers which have been published in seminar volumes. It is also contended that the third and fourth respondents have also been recipients of joint awards, In the light of all this, it is contended that the 3rd and 4th respondent have been in continuous personal and professional bias. Only on the basis of the above statement it is contended that the 4th respondent is bound to have a personal bias in favour of the 3rd respondent and in all fairness should not have been part of the selection committee. 18. Learned counsel further submitted that the fourth respondent being the head of the Department of the Library and Science Department in the 1st respondent University is in a position to influence the decision making of the selection committee. 19. All the above contentions have been stoutly denied by the third respondent in her counter affidavit. It is seen that fourth respondent is a senior academician in the field of library and Information science and has a Full Bright Scholar had visited United States of America. He was a research guide not only to the third respondent but also to the several candidates and he was invited as a subject expert in the field of Library Science from the Karnataka University, Kerala University, Mysore University and Manomaniam Sundaranar University and he was a member of more than half a dozen Universities in South India. He was a research guide not only to the third respondent but also to the several candidates and he was invited as a subject expert in the field of Library Science from the Karnataka University, Kerala University, Mysore University and Manomaniam Sundaranar University and he was a member of more than half a dozen Universities in South India. He was also a nominee of the University Grants Commission in the State level entrance test. 20. After considering the academic qualifications of the fourth respondent the association of the third respondent as a research student cannot said to be that the fourth respondent is biased in favour of the third respondent. In the matter of academic collaboration there cannot be of any bias and I am in entire agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the allegations made by the petitioner against the fourth respondent are baseless. 21. I shall consider the other allegation that the fifth respondent is also biased in favour of the third respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that fifth respondent is an office bearer of an association called Madras Library Association (MALA). The Third respondent is also a member of the above association. It is also contended that the 3rd and 5th respondents were holding responsible posts of the above organisation at the same time. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 3rd and 5th respondents have had several years of close association with each other professionally and thus there is bound to be strong bias in favour of the third respondent. 22. It is the contention of the third respondent that she being a librarian which has increasingly become a specialized filed world over, she must be a member of a Professional Association of Librarians. It is also brought to my notice that just as third respondent is a member of the Madras Library Association (MALA), the writ petitioner is also a member of the very same association. The fifth respondent is a very eminent librarian manning the British Council Library which is one of the best Library in the City of Chennai. It is also brought to my notice that just as third respondent is a member of the Madras Library Association (MALA), the writ petitioner is also a member of the very same association. The fifth respondent is a very eminent librarian manning the British Council Library which is one of the best Library in the City of Chennai. Over three decades he had worked in that library, merely because the third respondent is a member of the Madras Library Association (MALA), wherein the fifth respondent is an office bearer, it cannot be construed mat the fifth respondent is biased in the selection of the third respondent. 23. I have already mentioned that the petitioner is also a member of the said Association (MALA). Apart from this, it is also brought to my notice that in the branch of Library science the course offered only by the first respondent in the entire university area and it is inevitable for most of the aspirants for any post in the department will be either students of the persons teaching in the department or would have had personal collaboration with them in the file of library science. In such situation, I am unable to accept the statement made against the fifth respondent with regard to selection of the third respondent for the post of Deputy Librarian. 24. On thebasis of materials placed by both the counsel. I am satisfied that the allegation regarding bias made against two senior academicians viz., respondents 4 and 5 are unfounded. In other words, absolutely there is no merit in the contentions as Well as apprehensions raised by the petitioner against both of them. It is not the case of the petitioner that only respondents 4 and 5 have selected the third respondent. Admittedly, there were other two subject experts, Vice Chancellor of the University were also in the selection committee. The selection of the third respondent is unanimous decision of the selection committee. After the selection was made by the selection committee, the same has been placed before the syndicate. In the meeting of the syndicate held on 12.6.1997 eminent professors and head of the Departments who are the members of the Syndicate apart from the Vice Chancellor have unanimously approved the selection of the third respondent by the selection committee. In those circumstances, the selection of the third respondent cannot be lightly interfered by this Court. 25. In the meeting of the syndicate held on 12.6.1997 eminent professors and head of the Departments who are the members of the Syndicate apart from the Vice Chancellor have unanimously approved the selection of the third respondent by the selection committee. In those circumstances, the selection of the third respondent cannot be lightly interfered by this Court. 25. In the light of the factual position, there is no need to refer any decision referred to by the counsel on either side. However, for the sake of completion, I refer some of the decisions applicable to the facts of this case. 26. In G.Sarana v. Lucknow University G.Sarana v. Lucknow University G.Sarana v. Lucknow University A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2428: (1977)1 SCR. 64 with regard to bias of the members of the selection committee, I hereby extract the following observation: “What has to be seen in a case where there is an allegation of bias in respect of a member of an administrative Board or body is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. In other words whether there is substantial possibility of bias animating the mind of the member against the aggrieved party. In deciding the question of bias, human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct have to be taken into consideration. In a group deliberation and decision like that of selection Board, the members do not function as computers. Each member of the group or board is bound to influence the others, more so if the member concerned is a person with special knowledge. His bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner.” I have already explained absolutely there is no bias with regard to the allegation made against the respondents 4 and 5. 27. I have already held that on the basis of the merits the selection committee has selected the third respondent who possessed required qualifications. Thereafter the selection has been approved by the syndicate consisting numbering about 17 persons which includes eminent professors, Head of the Departments as well as Vice Chancellor of the first respondent University. It is settled law that in matters of appointment in the academic field, the court gene-ally does not interfere. Thereafter the selection has been approved by the syndicate consisting numbering about 17 persons which includes eminent professors, Head of the Departments as well as Vice Chancellor of the first respondent University. It is settled law that in matters of appointment in the academic field, the court gene-ally does not interfere. The Apex Court in many decisions has observed that the court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointment is based on recommendations by all experts nominated by the University, this Court has got only to see whether the appointments had contravened any statutory binding rule. This Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the selection committee and its recommendations which the other body viz., the Syndicate considered and approved. In the absence of any violation of statutory provisions, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner. 28. Finally with regard to the allegation made by the petitioner that the third respondent does not belong to schedule caste community, apart from denying the above statement the third respondent has informed that along with her application from she had given her community certificate obtained from the designated authority and it shows her community as ‘Hindu Adi-Dravida’ community. Further, it is brought to my notice that during her interview, selection committee questioned her community status, for which the third respondent handed over the certificates about her community status and also produced the first page of her fathers S.S.L.C. book which was dated 6.9.1946. On the basis of the materials placed by the third respondent the selection committee as well as the Syndicate accepted her case even with regard to community also. Hence, the last objection of the petitioner is also unacceptable. 29. Under these circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition, consequently the same is dismissed. No costs. 30. In view of the dismissal of the main petition W.M.Ps.13927 and 16933 of 1997 are also dismissed.