Salam Mani Singh v. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education
2002-05-16
RAJENDRA MENON
body2002
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. The petitioner at present a Professor in the Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') has called in question the orders dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure P-26) and (Annexure P-13) dated 27.11.2000, by which respondent 4 has been appointed as Registrar and Professor respectively in the Institute. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was appointed as a Research Assistant in the Institute in August, 1970. Subsequently, he was promoted as Lecturer in August, 1972, Reader with effect from 1.1.1983 and Professor with effect from 27.11.2001. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent I-Institute is a Society and the affairs of the Society are managed through a Board of Management constituted and nominated by the Government of India. Respondents 2 and 3 are responsible for the proper and smooth functioning of the Institute. The Institute has to function in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Association. It is further averred that the said Society is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam. The Memorandum of Association has also been registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies which was approved by the Government of India as well as the University Grants Commissions. 3. Respondent 4 according to the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Institute in the year 1981. He was placed in the Lecturer (Sr. Scale) with effect from 26.8.1989 vide order dated 19.1.1991 and in the Reader's scale with effect from 26.8.1994 by order dated 16.8.1997. The aforesaid orders have been filed as Annexure P-2 and P-3 respectively. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 27.11.2001 (Annexure P-13), he was appointed as Professor with effect from 27.11.2001. It is relevant here to mention that the petitioner and the respondent 4 were appointed as Professors with effect from 27.11.2001, the Selection Committee which recommended their cases for appointment as Professors was the same. 4. On 1.8.2000, vide Annexure P-4, an advertisement was issued by the Institute calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Registrar in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400-22,400. It has been mentioned in the said advertisement that the essential qualification as prescribed by the University Grants Commission should be fulfilled by the candidates. 5. The University Grants Commission has prescribed the minimum qualifications for the post of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar.
16,400-22,400. It has been mentioned in the said advertisement that the essential qualification as prescribed by the University Grants Commission should be fulfilled by the candidates. 5. The University Grants Commission has prescribed the minimum qualifications for the post of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The rel~vant clause is reproduced below: "Registrar and equivalent posts -- 1. A Master's degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC seven point scale. 2. At least 15 years of experience as Lecturer (Sr. Scale)/Lecturer with eight years in Reader's grade along with experience in educational administration. or Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education. or 15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post." 6. It is further averred by the petitioner that according to rule 16(D) (a) of the Memorandum of Association, the appointing authority to the post of Registrar is the Board of Management, the Board of Management has to act on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee which consists of the Director of the Institute as Chairman, one nominee of the President of the Society, one nominee of the Board of Management and one expert appointed by the Board of Management who is not an employee of the Institute. A copy of the aforesaid rule has been brought on record as Annexure P-6. 7. In response to the advertisement, petitioner applied and submitted his application vide Annexure P-7. It is the case of the petitioner that he was qualified and had fulfilled the criteria of 15 years experience as provided in Clause 2 of the conditions of essential qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commissions. However, respondent 4 who had also made his application was not eligible as he did not fulfil the requisite condition of 15 years experience with 8 years experience in Reader's' grade as required under clause 2 of the minimum qualifications criteria. According to the petitioner, respondent 4 had completed 11 years and 5 months as Lecturer (Sr. Scale) and 6 years and 5 months as Reader as on 15.1.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent 4 was not having minimum eligibility criteria. He, therefore, submitted objections but the same were not considered and after interviews by order dated 18.1.2001 (Annexure P-8), respondent 4 was appointed. 8.
Scale) and 6 years and 5 months as Reader as on 15.1.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent 4 was not having minimum eligibility criteria. He, therefore, submitted objections but the same were not considered and after interviews by order dated 18.1.2001 (Annexure P-8), respondent 4 was appointed. 8. The petitioner filed a petition before this Court challenging the appointment of respondent 4 to the post of Registrar in W.P. 145 of 2001. The said petition has been disposed of by order dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure P-10) and the respondents were directed to conduct the selection afresh in accordance with the recruitment rules. 9. Thereafter, the selection process was again held and the respondent 4 was again appointed as Registrar by the impugned order dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure P-26). In the meanwhile, with a view to give additional advantage to the respondent 4, contrary to the recruitment rules; he was appointed to the post of Professor vide order dated 27.11.2001, Annexure P-13. 10. The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the appointment of the respondent 4 to the post of Registrar, so also to the post of Professor on various grounds. . 11. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a combined return and the respondent 4 has also filed his return. In the return filed by the respondents, ,it is stated that after the order dated 7.11.2001 passed by this Court in W.P. 145 of 2001, selections have been held in accordance with the directions of this Court, as per the recruitment rules and for reasons stated in the return, it is averred that there is no irregularity or illegality in the selection, the respondent 4 was fully qualified to be appointed to the post and it is stated that no case for interference is made out. 12. Shri N.K. Mody, learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the appointment of respondent 4 on various grounds. However, before adverting to the same on merits, it may be relevant to consider certain objections raised by him with regard to the fact that the return filed by respondents 1 to 3 are by an unauthorised person and accordingly it cannot be considered. It is submitted by Shri Mody that the return on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has been filed under the signature of one Dr. Amaresh Kumar, Dy.
It is submitted by Shri Mody that the return on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has been filed under the signature of one Dr. Amaresh Kumar, Dy. Director (Admn./Person./Legal) and the affidavit of the said officer indicates that he has been authorised by the Vice-chancellor of the Institute to swear the affidavit and he has been appointed as officer-in-charge of the case. 13. It is submitted by Shri Mody that according to the rules, respondent 1 has to be represented through the Registrar and the respondent 2 through the Board of Management. Neither the Board of Management nor the Registrar has authorised the said officer-in-charge of the case to swear in the affidavit and file return on behalf of the' respondents 1 and 2 and engage a counsel. It is also submitted by him that the Union of India has also not authorised Dr. Amaresh Kumar to represent them before this Court in the present petition. 14. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has produced a letter written on behalf of the Union of India wherein Dr. Amaresh Kumar has been authorised to represent the case of the Union of India before this Court. Accordingly, vakalatnama engaging the counsel on behalf of the Union of India has also been duly signed by the said Dr. Amaresh Kumar. The respondents l to 3 have submitted that Dr. Amaresh Kumar has been duly authorised to file the return and swear the affidavits on behalf of the respondents. In view of this, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for rejecting the reply filed by respondents 1 to 3. 15. Shri N.K. Mody, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions: (1) that, the respondent 4 was ineligible. He did not fulfil the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission vide Annexure P-5. Accordingly, his selection is illegal; (2) that, the appointment of the respondent 4 as Professor has been made contrary to the rules inasmuch as the Selection Committee has not been constituted as per rule 13(II) (a) of the Memorandum of Association. The expert nominated to the Committee was not approved in the panel of expert as recommended by the Academic Council.
The expert nominated to the Committee was not approved in the panel of expert as recommended by the Academic Council. For selecting the Professor, the norms laid down by the UGC, as per notification dated 24.12.1998 (Annexure P-XXXI) has not been followed; (3) that, the Selection Committee for the appointment to the post of Registrar was not properly constituted as proper notice and period as provided in rule 6(d) (I) of the Memorandum of Association was not followed; (4) that, contrary to the rules and in violation of F.R.l27, the selection , committee has recommended for giving 5 advance increments to the respondent 4 which is not permissible. 16. In the return filed by the respondents, it has been stated that while disposing of W.P. 145 of 2001 on 7.11.2001 it was directed that the University should take into consideration the comparable experience in research establishment or other Institutions of higher education, for selecting the Registrar. It is the case of the respondents that when the matter was placed before the Selection Committee, the Committee as per the directions has taken into consideration the comparable experience of respondent 4 and therefore, there is no illegality in the selection. It is stated that the selection has been held as per the provisions of the rule. (Emphasis supplied) 17. Respondents 1 to 3 have also made a submission that clause 2 of the essential qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission is full of ambiguities and fulfillment of the criteria is quite' impossible. It is stated that it is practically impossible for a person to remain as a Lecturer (Sr. Scale) for a period of 15 years. In fact, in para 5.7 of the return, it has been stated that the qualification prescribed by the U.G.C., is not proper and nobody can fulfil such a qualification. It is further averred that respondent 4 was qualified and he was fulfilling the qualifications under the clause of comparable experience. For this purpose, the fact of his having held a post equivalent in pay scale to that of a Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme applicable at the relevant time was taken into consideration by the Selection Committee.
It is further averred that respondent 4 was qualified and he was fulfilling the qualifications under the clause of comparable experience. For this purpose, the fact of his having held a post equivalent in pay scale to that of a Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme applicable at the relevant time was taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. Proceedings of the selection have been brought on record as Annexure R-(1, 2 & 3) - 3 at page 50 of the return and it has been stated that by considering the provision .of clause 19 of the Merit Promotion Scheme circulated by the University Grants Commission vide letter F. 1-21/87-U dated 17.6.1987, the equivalent or comparable experience has been taken into consideration, and therefore, the appointment of the respondent 4 is proper. With regard to the appointment of respondent 4 as Professor except denying the averments, no specific averment has been made. However, it has been stated during the course of arguments by the, learned counsel for the respondents that the same Selection Committee had appointed the petitioner also as Professor and therefore, if the petitioner challenges the constitution of the Selection Committee, his appointment as Professor will also be cancelled. 18. Respondent 4 has filed a separate return. He has also made similar averments as has been made by the respondents 1 to 3. It is also his case that clause 2 of the minimum qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission cannot be fulfilled. It is impossible to have such a qualification. In fact, respondents 1 to 4 have challenged the minimum qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission by saying that it is ambiguous and irrelevant. 19. Respondent 4 has also stated that after the orders passed by this Court in W.P. 145 of 2001 on 7.11.2001, his case was considered under the criteria of comparable experience appearing in the minimum qualification clause, and therefore, the selection is proper. (Emphasis supplied) 20. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. This Court while disposing of the earlier petition had observed that from the chart submitted by the respondent-University, the respondent 4 has only served for a period of five years in the scale of Reader.
(Emphasis supplied) 20. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. This Court while disposing of the earlier petition had observed that from the chart submitted by the respondent-University, the respondent 4 has only served for a period of five years in the scale of Reader. It has been held as under : "Thus, at this stage, it is apparent that respondent 4 does not possess minimum qualification for recruitment for the post of Registrar." Thereafter, this Court has observed that respondents have pointed out that comparable experience in research establishment or other' institutions' of higher education has to be considered. The Court, therefore, observed that the other criteria has not been considered objectively while selecting the respondent 4 as Registrar. Thereafter, it was ordered that the selection of respondent 4 as Registrar is set aside and the University was directed to conduct the selection proceedings afresh in accordance with the recruitment rules and by taking into consideration the comparable experience in research establishment or other institution of higher education and administrative experience. 21. From the aforesaid it is clear that in W.P. 145 of 2001 (supra), this Court had come to the conclusion that the respondent 4 did not fulfil the criteria of minimum qualification as prescribed in clause 2 of Annexure P-5 under the first part i.e., 15 years experience as Lecturer (Sr. Scale)/Lecturer with eight years in Reader's grade along with experience in educational administration, and therefore, directed that the matter be decided taking into consideration the other two parts i.e., comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education or 15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years as Deputy Registrar. This fact was further clarified during the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 4 categorically stated that the respondent 4 does not fulfil the criteria of 15 years experience as Lecturer (Sr. Scale)/Lecturer and further in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. 145 of 2001 (supra), this fact is not disputed. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent 4 that the Selection Committee has considered the case of the respondent 4 under the comparable experience clause in which he has been found to be eligible.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent 4 that the Selection Committee has considered the case of the respondent 4 under the comparable experience clause in which he has been found to be eligible. It was the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent 4 that the order passed by this Court on 7.11.2001 is final and binding on the parties as it was not challenged. It was submitted by him that the respondent 4 is not entitled to be considered in the 15 years experience category as contained in clause 2 of the minimum qualification criteria, but in view of the directions of this Court, he was considered and found eligible under the comparable experience clause. In view of this, the only question which requires determination is as to whether the Selection Committee had assessed the eligibility of respondent 4 in accordance with the rules. (Emphasis supplied) 22. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to refer to the findings of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee in its recommendations after reproducing the provision of the Merit Promotion Scheme formulated by the University Grants Commission in the year 1983 has has that the Lecturer (Sr. Scale) or the Reader under the said scheme are in the same scale, i.e., Rs. 3000-5000 and hence, the experience of (working in the scale of Rs. 3000-5000) as Lecturer (Sr. Scale) or Reader can be considered at par. Thereafter, considering the fact that respondent 4 was promoted in the Sr. Scale in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000 with effect from 26.8.1989, it has been held that it is equivalent or comparable to that of a Reader grade in view of the Merit Promotion Scheme and taking into account this fact it has been held that respondent 4 comes in the category of Reader, accordingly; taking into account this comparable factor, his case had been recommended. After recording the abovesaid, the Selection Committee has further observed that this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when the previous petition was heard. It has been observed in the recommendation of the Selection Committee that the learned counsel, who represented the case of the Institute before the Court did not properly interpret the same. The experience of respondent 4 as Lecturer (in Sr. Scale) in the grade of Rs.
It has been observed in the recommendation of the Selection Committee that the learned counsel, who represented the case of the Institute before the Court did not properly interpret the same. The experience of respondent 4 as Lecturer (in Sr. Scale) in the grade of Rs. 3000-5000 was overlooked which was equal to that of Reader as per UGC Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. It is held by the Selection Committee that even at that time he was eligible to be considered for the post of Registrar. 23. The report of the Selection Committee indicates that the Selection Committee has considered the fact that respondent 4 had held that post of Lecturer (Sr. Scale) an equivalent grade to that of Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme for a considerable period of time and accordingly, he was found to be eligible. In fact, the Selection Committee's recommendations indicate that it found the respondent 4 again eligible under the first part clause 2 of the minimum qualification i.e., 15 years experience clause whereas the counsel for respondent 4 admits that he is not eligible under the said clause and after the judgment of this Court in the earlier petition which was final and binding on the parties, is not claiming eligibility under the said clause but claim's eligibility under the second part of comparable experience. His argument is that the Selection Committee considered him to be eligible under this clause only. 24. As has already been indicated hereinabove, the proceedings of the Selection Committee indicates that it had found respondent 4 to be eligible under the 15 years experience clause, after treating the Reader grade equivalent to Lecturer (Sr. Scale), (the post held by him under the Merit Promotion Scheme). In this regard, there seems to be some difference in the stand of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 and the respondent 4. However, I shall proceed to consider both the interpretations. Even if the Selection Committee had found the respondent 4 eligible under the comparable clause by giving him the benefit of the grades, the fact remains as to• whether this is correct. Clause 2 of the minimum qualification criteria is specific in its term and prescribes the minimum qualification. The first part of this clause does not speak of experience in any equivalent of comparable grade. It only speaks about 15 years experience as Lecture (Sr.
Clause 2 of the minimum qualification criteria is specific in its term and prescribes the minimum qualification. The first part of this clause does not speak of experience in any equivalent of comparable grade. It only speaks about 15 years experience as Lecture (Sr. Scale)/Lecturer with eight years in Reader's grade. If the submission is accepted then the word 'equivalent' should. have been incorporated in the said clause. The clause being silent and clear, no words can be added or substituted. As the substitution of the said clause is not permissible, the clause has to be interpreted as it is. Even if it is accepted that the scale in which the petitioner was under the Merit Promotion Scheme was comparable, the question is whether the recruitment rules permit for such comparison under the first clause. The answer to this has to be in the negatives In doing so, the Selection Committee has acted in contravention of the rules and did something which was not provided for in the rules. The Selection Committee infact has added its own• explanation to the rules which has the effect of changing the minimum qualification criteria. (Emphasis supplied) 25. Apart from the aforesaid, in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it has been indicated that the interpretation of the Merit Promotion Scheme has been incorrectly made by the Selection Committee. Benefit of Clause 19 of the Scheme was extended to the respondent 4 is contrary to the provisions of the Scheme. Under the Merit Promotion Scheme, the benefit has to be extended only to such employees who have opted in writing for coming within the purview of the said scheme before the pay fixation under the Career Advancement Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent 4 has not opted to come under the Merit Promotion Scheme because benefit under the said Scheme was available only after putting 8 years service as Lecturer and the respondent 4 fulfilled the said criteria only on 26.8.1989, On that date, the Merit Promotion Scheme had already outlived its existence. It is stated that the respondent 4 was appointed in the Senior Scale of Rs. 3000-5000 only on 26.8.1989 under the Career Advancement Scheme of UGC, after the Merit Promotion Scheme was terminated in the year 1987. It seems that this aspect was overlooked by the Selection Committee. 26.
It is stated that the respondent 4 was appointed in the Senior Scale of Rs. 3000-5000 only on 26.8.1989 under the Career Advancement Scheme of UGC, after the Merit Promotion Scheme was terminated in the year 1987. It seems that this aspect was overlooked by the Selection Committee. 26. A perusal of Annexure R/4-2 filed along with the return by the respondent 4 at page 83 indicates that the Merit Promotion Scheme of 1983 was terminated in the year 1987 and those who have not opted for this are not entitled for the same. It is, therefore, clear that consideration on the basis of the Merit Promotion Scheme was not proper. When the rule specifically contemplated that a candidate should have 15 years experience as Lecturer (Sr. Scale)/Lecturer of which 8 years should be as a Reader, the Selection Committee could not bring in their own principle of treating the post of Lecturer (Sr. Scale) in the grade of Rs. 3000-5000 to be equivalent to that of Reader and then holding that the respondent 4 is eligible to be considered in the comparable/equivalent grade criteria. In the opinion of this Court, no such comparison was permissible under this clause and in doing so, the Selection Committee has in fact added its own criteria to the rule which was not permissible and beyond its power. 27. This Court while disposing of the earlier petition had categorically held that the Selection Committee has to consider the case under the criteria of comparable experience clause. In fact the direction was to the following effect: "In view of the aforesaid fact, selection of respondent 4 as Registrar is set aside and the University shall recruit the Registrar in accordance with the recruitment rules and shall select Registrar having qualifications and shall also take into consideration the comparable experience in research establishment or other institutions of higher education and administrative experience of which eight years as Deputy Registrar or on an equivalent post. Selection Committee shall select Registrar in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order." (Emphasis supplied) 28. A perusal of clause 2 of the minimum qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission indicates that comparable experience has to be considered in the research establishment or other institutions of higher education.
Selection Committee shall select Registrar in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order." (Emphasis supplied) 28. A perusal of clause 2 of the minimum qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission indicates that comparable experience has to be considered in the research establishment or other institutions of higher education. The records does not indicate that the comparable experience has been considered in the field of any research establishment on the contrary, comparable experience in an equivalent grades having indentical scale of pay has been taken into consideration. This is not the requirement of this clause: The clause does not deal with. comparable experience in an equivalent grade or scale. But it speaks of the comparable experience in research establishment or other institutions of higher education. The records does not indicate that comparison was made with regard to research establishment or other institutions of higher education on the contrary, comparison has been made in a post of equivalent or similar pay scale. This was not the intention of this Court when order dated 7.11.200 1 was passed in the earlier petition. Rightly so, the learned counsel for the respondent 4 also admitted that his case has to be considered under the comparable experience clause. The Selection Committee misdirected itself in comparing the experience in a comparable scale under the similar grade, scale/post criteria rather than comparing the experience in any research establishment. The Selection Committee, therefore, has committed irregularity in considering the minimum qualification in the case of respondent 4, in view of this, the entire proceedings of the Selection Committee stands vitiated. (Emphasis supplied) 29. It is surprising that after having considered and found that the respondent 4 was eligible in the criteria of comparable/equivalent grade and after having unanimously recommended for his appointment with five advance increments, the Selection Committee again proceeded to assess case of the respondent 4. A perusal of the recommendation of the Selection Committee indicates that after giving its recommendation, it further observed that respondent 4 is a dynamic person and if he does not fulfil the minimum eligibility, his is a deserving case, and therefore, the minimum number of years of experience requirement must be relaxed. Accordingly, it proceeded to assess the merit of respondent 4 and recommended him again by relaxing the experience.
Accordingly, it proceeded to assess the merit of respondent 4 and recommended him again by relaxing the experience. Relaxation of experience is not permissible when the rules do not permit. When the respondent 4 was not eligible, there was no question of relaxing his qualification contrary to the recruitment rules. Considering. the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Selection Committee has totally misdirected itself and the entire selection of respondent 4 stands vitiated in view of the fact that he does not fulfil the requisite qualification as prescribed under the rules. In fact, the Committee itself was not sure about the eligibility of respondent 4. That is why after having made its recommendation, it proceeded further and observed "Though Dr. Rishipal Singh fulfills all minimum eligibility requirements. but the Committee was of the opinion that even if any such dynamic person some how does' not fulfill the minimum eligibility, in such deserving cases the minimum number of years of experience requirement must be relaxed. The Universities and Institutes are the temple of learning, where the persons should be appointed on the basis of sole overall merit and not on the basis of the number of years he has worked." and thereafter a separate assessment of the respondent 4 merit was made, however in doing so the merit if any of the other three candidates were not at all assessed in order to make a comparison of all the eligible candidates. (Emphasis supplied) 30. Contention of the respondents that minimum qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission is not sustainable and cannot be fulfilled, and therefore, it has to be ignored cannot be accepted by this Court. The University Grants Commission is a body of experts and the criteria laid down by them cannot be interfered with by this Court until and unless, rules are challenged on the around of its Constitutional validity, being in violation of any statutory provisions having the force of law. So long as the provision exists, this Court has to accept it as correct and review the selection proceedings in the light of the existing rules. This Court cannot hold that the recruitment rules and the minimum qualification prescribed therein are ambiguous and impossible to be achieved, therefore to be ignored. This does not come within the scope of the judicial review.
This Court cannot hold that the recruitment rules and the minimum qualification prescribed therein are ambiguous and impossible to be achieved, therefore to be ignored. This does not come within the scope of the judicial review. The Court has to accept that the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission are proper and proceed to assess the case' accordingly. Under these circumstances the recommendations of the Selection Committee are held to be vitiated being contrary to the recruitment rules and the notifications of the University Grants Commission as contained in Appendix III of Annexure. 31. The question with regard to the selection of respondent 4 as Professor was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Learned counsel for the respondents except for contending that the petitioner himself was appointed by the said Selection Committee, cannot challenge the appointment of Professor of respondent 4 have not replied to this argument on merit. As the petitioner's counsel insisted for quashing the appointment of the respondent 4 to the post of Professor on the ground that the Selection Committee was not properly constitute~ in accordance with the rules, this Court has to consider the same. 32. Rule 13(II) (a) of the Memorandum of Association contained in Annexure P-27 prescribes the constitution of the Selection Committee for making recommendations to the Board of Management for appointment to the post of Professors, Readers, Lecturers and Administrative Staff in the Institute. This document is a letter dated 11.4.2001 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs. and Sports and under the subject matter it has been indicated that the order is with regard to constitution of Selection Committee for making recommendations to the Board of Management for appointment to the posts of Professors, Readers, Lecturers and Administrative Staff. Item (a) of the said order deals with the constitution of the Committee. That apart, Academic Council of the Institute in its meeting held on 19.6.2001 has also recommended the panel of experts in different subjects. Annexure P-28 dated 6.11.2001 is the list of experts. It is indicated by the petitioner that by ignoring the aforesaid two orders, Selection Committee was constituted and meeting was held on 23.10.2001. The experts were changed and the constitution' of the Selection Committee was illegal. It is stated that the Selection Committee was not as per order, Annexure P-28 but the Vice.
It is indicated by the petitioner that by ignoring the aforesaid two orders, Selection Committee was constituted and meeting was held on 23.10.2001. The experts were changed and the constitution' of the Selection Committee was illegal. It is stated that the Selection Committee was not as per order, Annexure P-28 but the Vice. Chancellor himself appointed the Selection Committee. 33. The aforesaid grounds had been raised in ground (D) of the petition. In reply to the said ground no arguments were advanced at the time of hearing and it was not denied by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. In the return also, it is stated that the contentions of the petitioner are false and denied. It has been stated that the same Selection Committee recommended the case of the petitioner but the petitioner has only challenged the appointment of respondent 4 and as the petitioner has not challenged his appointment, the argument has to be rejected. The fact remains that the averments made with regard to the constitution of the Selection Committee and the irregularities therein have not been refuted or denied by the respondents. The respondents have not produced the Minutes of the Selection Committee, even the name of the experts and constitution of the Selection Committee is not explained. The respondents in the light of the pleadings made by the petitioner have failed to demonstrate that the Selection Committee has been constituted in accordance with the rules. Accordingly, it has to be held that for appointment to the post of Professor, the grounds raised by the petitioner in ground (D) and vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be accepted. As the respondents have only denied the same but have not placed the correct facts before this Court. This Court under these circumstances has no other option but to accept the submissions made in this regard. It is, therefore, held' that constitution of the Selection Committees for appointment to the post of Professor being contrary to the provisions of the Memorandum of Association and Appendix V as contained in Annexure P-29 dated 24.12.1998 has to be quashed. 34. Even though, counsel for the petitioner had tried to impunge the appointment of respondent 4 on various other grounds, it is not necessary to advert into those grounds in view of the findings which have been recorded by me hereinabove. 35.
34. Even though, counsel for the petitioner had tried to impunge the appointment of respondent 4 on various other grounds, it is not necessary to advert into those grounds in view of the findings which have been recorded by me hereinabove. 35. Shri Mody has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University and others, (2001) 8 SCC 532 . 36. In the case of Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda (supra), it has been held that minimum prescribed eligibility criteria has to be adhered to and departure •from the same was considered by the Supreme Court and appointment was annulled. 37. Similarly, in this case also, the minimum criteria fixed for appointment to the post of Registrar has not been followed, as such in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda (supra), the recommendation of the Selection Committee cannot be sustained. 38. During the course of hearing, counsel for the respondent 4. has invited my attention to the following judgments of the Supreme Court: Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan AIR 1989 SC 434. 39. Referring to the aforesaid case Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (supra), and inviting my attention to para 9, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the function of the Court is not to hear the appeals over the decision of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. In fact, it has been stated that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the selection made by the Selection Committee. There is no dispute in accepting the aforesaid proposition of law. It is settled principle of law that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with by the Courts of law in exercise of their powers of judicial review, until and unless they are found to be arbitrary or contrary to statutory provisions or rules and regulations governing the• subject. 40. In the instant case, this Court has not scrutinized the proceedings of the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. Scrutiny of the proceedings was limited to examine as to whether the petitioner's contention that the respondents 4 does not fulfil the minimum qualification has been properly considered or not.
40. In the instant case, this Court has not scrutinized the proceedings of the Selection Committee as an appellate authority. Scrutiny of the proceedings was limited to examine as to whether the petitioner's contention that the respondents 4 does not fulfil the minimum qualification has been properly considered or not. On the basis of the provisions of the recruitment rules and the findings recorded by this Court in its order dated 7.11.2001, this Court has only considered whether the Selection Committee has assessed the minimum qualification criteria properly. A close scrutiny, reveals that the Selection Committee misconstrued itself and in spite of the fact that the .respondent 4 did not fulfil the minimum criteria, his case has been recommended. This Court has not examined the merit of the candidates or findings on merit of the Selection Committee. An expert body is required to proceed with its functions' in accordance with law, it cannot be permitted to act on its own whims in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner while judging the suitability of a candidate. It is required to consider the case of such candidates who fulfill the criteria prescribed under the recruitment rules. It is not the function of the Selection Committee to interpret the provision in the recruitment rules in a manner resulting in modification of the criteria itself. In the instant case, the Selection Committee has exceeded its power while holding the respondent 4 to be eligible. That being so, this Court can intervene in the matter. Accordingly, the said judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 41. A Selection Committee cannot ignore the minimum qualification prescribed under the recruitment rules and proceed to recommend a candidate who does not fulfil the requisite qualification only by assessing his merit and other capabilities. When a person is disqualified for consideration, due to want of the inherent qualification required for appointment, the proceedings of the Selection Committee can always be considered and interfered with in exercise of the powers of judicial review. 42. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the respondents have referred to the following cases: (1) University of Co chin Rep. by its Registrar v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others AIR 1997 SC 2083 .
42. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the respondents have referred to the following cases: (1) University of Co chin Rep. by its Registrar v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma and others AIR 1997 SC 2083 . (2) Vijay Kumar Sharma and others v. Chairman, School Service Commission and others 2001 AIR SCW 1744, and (3) Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, W.E. v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others AIR 1985 SC 330 . 43. All those cases are basically with regard to power of interference in a decision of an expert body under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the aforesaid judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 44. During the• course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had made serious arguments, contending that as respondent 4 was not at all qualified to be appointed as Registrar, all orders passed by him, all actions taken by him should be annulled and should be quashed. 45. I am afraid this Court cannot go into all those questions. It would be appropriate for the competent authorities to look into the matter and take remedial action if warranted in accordance with law. 46. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the fact that the President of the Society, namely, the Minister of the Department concerned vide Annexure P-35 had rejected the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the representative of the Ministry had also rejected the recommendation of the Selection Committee on the ground that the case has not been properly considered in the light of the order. dated 7.11.2001, passed by this Court. On this count, it was submitted that the return of the Union of India was necessary and Dr. Amaresh Kumar was trying to help the respondent 4. 47. In view of the fact that this Court has found the entire selection to be vitiated on the ground indicated hereinabove, it is not necessary to advert into these grounds now. 48. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded hereinabove, it is held that the selection of the respondent 4 to the post of Registrar vide order dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure P-26) and his appointment to the post of Professor vide order dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure P-13) are illegal and cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. 49.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded hereinabove, it is held that the selection of the respondent 4 to the post of Registrar vide order dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure P-26) and his appointment to the post of Professor vide order dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure P-13) are illegal and cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. 49. Respondents 1 to 3 may proceed to make appointment to the post of Registrar in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.