Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 585 (AP)

Sadik Hussain v. University of Hyderabad

2014-04-24

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

body2014
JUDGMENT The issue in this writ petition concerns itself with the appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar in the University of Hyderabad (‘the University’ for brevity). The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his eligibility and experience in the feeder category in the same University, he has not been selected; but on the other hand, the unofficial respondents have been selected, notwithstanding their lack of qualification and their failure to meet the other selection criteria. The facts in brief are that the petitioner initially secured his entry into the respondent University as an Assistant Registrar in February, 2007 after having been subjected by the University to a rigorous selection process. Apart from handling various departments during the course of his employment, the petitioner is also said to have acted as Deputy Registrar In-charge, General Administration and Transport, of the respondent University. Presently, as per his averments, the petitioner is working as Assistant Registrar of Advanced Centre for High Energy Materials (ACRHEM), a DRDO Project, apart from holding certain other additional charge. To begin with, even though there was “a couple of vacancies” of Deputy Registrars in certain important departments of the respondent University, it did not provide any ad hoc promotion to the petitioner despite his numerous representations and reminders. Coming to the core issue, it can be seen that the respondent University issued an employment notification on 13.02.2013 to fill up four posts of Deputy Registrar – two of the posts having been earmarked for General Category, and the remaining, for OBC category and deputational category, one each. Claiming that he has all the requisite qualifications and the necessary experience, the petitioner applied under all three categories – regular, OBC and deputational. Despite the putative excellent performance of the petitioner in the interview, he has not been selected. On the other hand, respondents 4 and 6 were selected under General category and respondent 3 was selected under OBC category. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Dr. P. B. Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has made elaborate submissions on what is said to be the inequitable treatment meted out to the petitioner during the selection process. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Dr. P. B. Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has made elaborate submissions on what is said to be the inequitable treatment meted out to the petitioner during the selection process. Referring to the qualifications, experience and departmental credentials of the petitioner, the learned counsel has submitted that though, all through, the petitioner, as an in-service candidate, has earned the grade of “outstanding”, and performed exceptionally well in the interview, more particularly as an in-service candidate, for arcane reasons, he has been edged out in the selection process. He has also submitted that initially the list of selected candidates was not properly displayed and that the deputation post remained unfilled. According to the learned counsel, in the first place, the petitioner ought to have been considered either under the General category or under OBC category, inasmuch as the petitioner had been qualified under both the categories. In the alternative, the petitioner, contended the learned counsel, ought to have been selected at least as a deputationist. The learned counsel has contended that the successful candidates did not possess the requisite experience of five years in the feeder category, i.e., Assistant Registrar. The learned counsel has further ventilated the grievance of the petitioner contending that though the petitioner asked for the information relating to the Screening Committee minutes, the Selection Committee minutes and application copies of the selected candidates, the University did not provide the requisite information, despite the fact that the application was made invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act. The learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that earlier one Mr. S. Sivanandam filed a writ petition and participated in the selection process on the strength of the interim direction given by this Court. Later this Court, however, vacated the interim order observing that the said person did not fulfil the experience criterion. In other words, the said contender had only 4½ years of service in the cadre of Assistant Registrar instead of 5 years. The learned counsel uses this instance as an example to underline the importance attached by this Court to the aspect of experience. In other words, the said contender had only 4½ years of service in the cadre of Assistant Registrar instead of 5 years. The learned counsel uses this instance as an example to underline the importance attached by this Court to the aspect of experience. Though the epithet of lack of qualification has been hurled against all the unofficial respondents, in the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioner and also during the course of oral submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused more on the fourth respondent who is alleged to have been not possessing the requisite academic credentials and experience. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent had his entire career in navy and that he never held any equivalent post to that of Assistant Registrar at any time. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the notification, dated 13.02.2013, and elaborated on the issue of experience by way of holding equivalent post. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner vis-à-vis the fourth respondent could be summarised to the effect that the fourth respondent had all along been working as a lecturer and at the peak of his career as a Senior Staff Officer. Though the fourth respondent worked as a Director, Naval Children’s School, Visakhapatnam, he never worked in any post which could be put in the same bracket along with that of the Assistant Registrar. According to the learned counsel equivalence in pay cannot be a reckoning factor to determine the equivalence of the post, which, according to the learned counsel, depends entirely on different sets of parameters such as nature of the institution, academic exposure and administrative acumen in academic institutions like University, which is entirely different from cloistered defence institutions. The learned counsel has further contended that the sixth respondent does not have the requisite experience. He stated that the sixth respondent has experience of three years and three months. The learned counsel has also further pointed out that when the authorities eventually provided information to the petitioner, the authorities were said to have chosen to screen more information than what they have revealed. In sum and substance, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there have been many selection irregularities. The learned counsel has also further pointed out that when the authorities eventually provided information to the petitioner, the authorities were said to have chosen to screen more information than what they have revealed. In sum and substance, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there have been many selection irregularities. Apart from maintaining his submissions as to the alleged ineligibility of the unofficial respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged this court to issue a suitable direction to the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioner at least for the deputational post, given the experience and excellent credentials of the petitioner. Per contra, Sri A. Sathyam Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.V.Raghuveer, the learned counsel on record for the fourth respondent, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel has principally focused his attention on countering the allegations of the petitioner as to the alleged lack of qualification on the part of the fourth respondent. He has submitted that the equivalence of a post is to be determined, inter alia, based on the pay scale, grade of pay and the nature of functions one performs. The fourth respondent was initially recruited as an Education Officer in the integrated headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy). The said post is said to be a Group-A post. By the time of his retirement on 31st of May 2010 the petitioner was in the rank of commander with pay scale of 37,400-67,000. The learned Senior Counsel has further contended that all through the fourth respondent has discharged the same functions or even better functions than those of an Assistant Registrar in a University, inasmuch as the petitioner had been an Education Officer for more than 2 decades with rich academic and administrative experience. The learned Senior Counsel has also elaborated on the experience and exposure of the fourth respondent in the Education Department while not only when he was in Navy, but also after leaving it. Taking this Court through the entire record, the learned Senior Counsel has further stated that soon after retirement, the fourth respondent served as a Deputy Registrar in a deemed University for close to two years. Later, the fourth respondent served another institution of repute as a Deputy Registrar from 15th May 2013 to 14th November, 2013. Taking this Court through the entire record, the learned Senior Counsel has further stated that soon after retirement, the fourth respondent served as a Deputy Registrar in a deemed University for close to two years. Later, the fourth respondent served another institution of repute as a Deputy Registrar from 15th May 2013 to 14th November, 2013. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the fourth respondent, by the date of his appointment as a Deputy Registrar, had more experience than was required under the recruitment notification issued by the respondent University. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that in the list of selected candidates the fourth respondent was placed in the first place. Eventually, the learned Senior Counsel, summoning up his oratorical skills, submitted that the fourth respondent served the nation as a disciplined defence personnel for more than two decades and now, after getting relieved, all the way came down to Hyderabad only with a view to looking after his sick and ailing wife. On this count, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that, in view of the interim stay granted earlier by this Court, the fourth respondent, even after his selection, has been left in no man’s land without a job to fall back on. On the part of the respondent University, the learned Standing Counsel, apart from adopting the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent, has stoutly defended the selection process adopted by the respondent University and has strenuously contended that the respondents 4 to 6 have got the requisite qualification as well as experience. He has further contended that in the matters of academic excellence or experience, including suitability, this Court would be loath to interfere with the decision of a body of experts, which the selection committee is. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, apart from perusing the record. To begin with, the issue that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the respondents 4 to 6 have got the necessary qualifications and experience to be appointed Deputy Registrar. To begin with, the issue that falls for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the respondents 4 to 6 have got the necessary qualifications and experience to be appointed Deputy Registrar. And incidentally the issue that may have to be addressed is whether the petitioner has been ignored on any extraneous consideration despite what are said to be his rich experience and excellent performance as an in-service candidate. Before addressing those issues, this Court serves upon itself a caveat in the light of well-settled legal principles that in the case of academic excellence and suitability to a particular post, especially to a post like Deputy Registrar, in institution like a University, the scope of judicial review is severely restricted, for this Court can boast of neither specialisation required for evaluating the relative merits of the candidates, nor the necessary academic experience to supplant its opinion in the place of that of an expert academic body. In the same breath it may have to be stated that the above restatement of settled principles of law does not amount to abdication of judicial responsibility to adjudicate any issue affecting either constitutional or civil rights of a person, who has taken recourse to the public law remedy by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the canvas of which is as expandable as the requirement of Justice demands. I propose to address what I termed as the incidental issue as to the alleged circumstances under which the petitioner had been discriminated against and denied the appointment by the Selection Committee, or for that matter the respondent University. Though in the writ pleadings the petitioner did impute motives to the members of the Selection Committee, apart from alleging that the entire selection process had been vitiated on the ground of bias, I do not see on record the necessary foundational pleadings to sustain the said plea. Perhaps, precisely for the said reason, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed those contentions too far in his oral submissions. A perusal of the record reveals that the employment notification was issued on 13.02.2013 by the respondent University, which, in fact, is said to have received 78 applications for the said four posts in response to the notification. A perusal of the record reveals that the employment notification was issued on 13.02.2013 by the respondent University, which, in fact, is said to have received 78 applications for the said four posts in response to the notification. The University avers that after those 78 applications, save 23, the rest were rejected by the Screening Committee either for not meeting the qualification criteria, or for not possessing the minimum experience of five years as Assistant Registrars. Thus, in all, 23 members faced the interview on 17.10.2013. Speaking of the composition of the Selection Committee, it can be seen that it comprised the Vice Chancellor as the Chairman, two Executive Council Members, two External Experts, a Women’s Representative, a PWT Representative and a Member Secretary, as well as an SC & ST Representative. Insofar as the non-filling of OBC reserved post is concerned, the University has stated that the vacancy initially arose owing to the deputation of the incumbent to English and Foreign Language University, Hyderabad, as a Registrar and that now he intimated his willingness join back very soon. In other words, it was only a temporary vacancy not decided to be filled up for the aforementioned reason. Since the petitioner laid much stress on the alleged lack of necessary qualification on the part of the respondents 4 to 6, it may be relevant to scrutinise their qualifications and experience. As the record reveals their career particulars are as follows: "(a) The 4th respondent i.e., Sri Challa Venkateswar, who got selected under general category, worked in NAVY as Education Officer (Commander Rank) in the Pay Scale of Rs.37400-67000 Grade Pay of Rs.8000 and Military Service Pay of Rs.6000 from 2005 to 2010 which is equivalent to Deputy Registrar’s pay scale. He joined as Deputy Registrar in Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (Deemed University), Punjab on a consolidated pay of Rs.50,000/- p.m. from 12.05.2011 to 14.05.2013. He joined as Deputy Registrar in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology (Deemed University), Punjab in the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 and Grade Pay of Rs.7,600/- p.m. from 15.05.2013 to till date. Thus, he fulfils all the requirements as per the Notification i.e., five years as Assistant Registrar or equivalent post/grade pay. He joined as Deputy Registrar in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology (Deemed University), Punjab in the Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 and Grade Pay of Rs.7,600/- p.m. from 15.05.2013 to till date. Thus, he fulfils all the requirements as per the Notification i.e., five years as Assistant Registrar or equivalent post/grade pay. (b) The 5th respondent i.e. Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, who got selected under OBC quota, worked as Assistant Manager in TRIFED (autonomous body under Ministry of Tribal Affairs, GoI) from 05.10.2007 to 16.07.2013 in the equivalent pay scale of Assistant Registrar i.e., Rs.15600-39100, Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- and he joined as Deputy Registrar in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi from 17.07.2013 to till date. Thus he fulfils all the requirements as per the Notification i.e., five years as Assistant Registrar or equivalent post / grade pay. He joined the subject post on 07.11.2013. (c) The 6th respondent i.e., Sri K.Sai Jawahar, who got selected under general category, worked as Administrative Officer (on Deputation) in Advanced Training Institute of Electronics & Process Instrumentation, M/o. Labour & Employment, DGE & T, Hyderabad GoI from 12.02.2001 to 31.03.2008 (7 Years, 1 month) in the pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs.8000-13500, which is equivalent to Assistant Registrar. He worked as Section Officer in PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 with GP of Rs.5400 in Ministry of Water Resources, GoI, New Delhi from 01.04.2008 to 12.11.2009. At present, he is working as Assistant Registrar (on deputation) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.15600-39100 with GP of Rs.6600/- in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ministry of Finance from 19.11.2009 to till date. Hence he fulfils all the requirements as per the Notification i.e. five years as Assistant Registrar or equivalent post / grade pay.From the above, all the selected candidates, beyond the pale of doubt, do possess the requisite experience of five years in the academic field. The question is how relevant that experience is. Before addressing the above issue, it may be seen that the petitioner made reference to Fundamental Rule 49 (FR-49) and insisted that he ought to have been given at least ad hoc promotion, given the fact that he is an in-service candidate and that he has put in sufficient service. The question is how relevant that experience is. Before addressing the above issue, it may be seen that the petitioner made reference to Fundamental Rule 49 (FR-49) and insisted that he ought to have been given at least ad hoc promotion, given the fact that he is an in-service candidate and that he has put in sufficient service. It is beyond any cavil that as per the Administration Manual, quoted by the respondent University, under Chapter 21-4 (iii)(b), only those officers who fulfilled the eligibility conditions prescribed in the recruitment rules should be considered for ad hoc promotions. The recruitment to the post of Deputy Registrar shall be on the ratio of 25% through promotion and 75% through direct recruitment. The University has brought to the notice of the Court that under promotional quota a candidate is required to complete 16 years of service as Assistant Registrar to be considered for the promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner by the date of notification is said to have completed only six years as Assistant Registrar.To narrow down the issue, it is appropriate to examine the education and other qualifications prescribed for the post of Deputy Registrar. The notification dated 13.02.2013 issued by the respondent University prescribes the following essential qualifications and experience for the said post: "1) A Master’s Degree from recognized University with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade of ‘B’ in the UGC seven point scale with good academic record. 2) Nine years of experience as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.6000/- and above with experience in educational administration. OR Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education. Five years of administrative experience as ASSISTANT Registrar or in an equivalent post. 3) The candidate must have a consistently Good Academic Record as defined in the note given below:" It is discernible from the record that all the candidates have Master’s Degree from recognized universities with at least 55% marks. Nine years of experience as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.6000/- and above with experience in educational administration or comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education is one set of criterion required to be met. In the alternative, it has been further provided that a candidate may have five years of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or any equivalent post. In the alternative, it has been further provided that a candidate may have five years of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or any equivalent post. A plain reading of the above eligibility criteria makes it manifestly clear that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one must have worked as an Assistant Registrar alone with a minimum of five years experience. In fact, the eligibility criteria have been quite expansive and in the alternative. If one does not possess five years of experience as an Assistant Registrar or for that matter even if one has not worked as an Assistant Registrar at all, it does not affect one’s selection prospects if the said person fulfils the other eligibility norms. In other words, if a person has nine years of experience as an Assistant Professor in the actual grade pay of Rs.6000/- or above with experience in educational administration, it could be sufficient. As a further alternative still, a person could as well possess comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of Higher Education.It is not in dispute that equivalence of a post is to be determined on a cumulative consideration of different factors. It takes into its fold not only the field of activity but also the scale and grade of pay, as well as the core activity of the person during the course of discharge of his functions. Indisputably, all the respondents 4 to 6 have been connected with or discharging administrative functions in Educational Departments of varied nature. Taking the case of the 4th respondent illustratively, it can be seen that he has got richer and more varied experience in the arena of educational institutions. As such, it cannot be said that he has not possessed the requisite qualification. A thumb-nail sketch of his career reveals that he worked as a lecturer in the Naval Training Establishment from 1987-92; Lecturer in Indian Naval Academy, Goa from 1992-97; lecturer in Signal School (Naval Communication Training Establishment) from 1997-2002; as Joint Director (Education) at Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy) from 2002-05; and on a Social Staff Officer (Education) at Headquarters, Eastern Navel Command from 2005-10. Later the fourth respondent served as a Deputy Registrar in Narsee Monjee Institute of Management (Deemed to be a University) for one year eleven months, i.e., from 12.05.2011 to 12.04.2013. Later the fourth respondent served as a Deputy Registrar in Narsee Monjee Institute of Management (Deemed to be a University) for one year eleven months, i.e., from 12.05.2011 to 12.04.2013. That apart, just prior to his getting selected as a Deputy Registrar in the respondent University, he worked again as a Deputy Registrar from 15.05.2013 to 14.11.2013 in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology (SLIET), Longawal, Sangarul, Punjab. It is beyond the pale of doubt that the fourth respondent has possessed the requisite qualification. At this juncture, it is desirable to examine the judicial precedents the learned counsel for the respective parties have placed reliance on.In District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it would be a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable and that no Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. Putting this proposition of law in perspective, it can be stated that the respondents have amply demonstrated that the candidates that have been selected have possessed the requisite qualifications as has been affirmed by a body of experts. As such, the ratio laid down in M.Tripura Sundari Devi (1 supra) may not have any relevance to the present factual matrix. In Rameshwar Dass Mehla v. Om Prakash Saini and others (2010) 15 SCC 790), a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that although the High Court has noticed that the two candidates did not possess the necessary experience and they were not eligible to be appointed, still the matter has to be examined whether any illegality had been committed by the University. Placing reliance on a series of previous pronouncements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not open to the Court to interfere with the issue of determining the qualifications or suitability since it falls within the realm of academic matters. Even otherwise it has been the consistent judicial opinion that determination of issues such as qualification and desirability or suitability of a candidate, especially in academic matters, should be left to the wisdom of the University authorities. Even otherwise it has been the consistent judicial opinion that determination of issues such as qualification and desirability or suitability of a candidate, especially in academic matters, should be left to the wisdom of the University authorities. The same proposition of law has been reiterated in Subhash Chander Bajaj v. Kamal Singh Singhmar and others (2010) 15 SCC 795). On a comprehensive consideration of the issue, this Court is of the opinion that the Selection Committee, comprising experts in their respective fields of academic activity and administration, have concluded that the respondents 4 to 6 are qualified to hold the post of Deputy Registrar. In the first place, on appreciation of the settled principles of law on the issue of academic excellence or determination of desirable qualification, this Court would be loath to sit in appeal over the wisdom and experience, as well as the expertise, of the professional bodies. Secondly, expansive as the jurisdiction under Article 226 is, this Court would not be inclined to meddle in the matters of academic excellence unless the illegality is patent and the whole process of selection has been tainted with mala fides or extraneous considerations, as well as any other judicially acceptable vitiating factors. I regret my inability to persuade myself to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities, especially the Selection Committee, have been guilty of any mala fides or shortcomings or failure of judgment in determining the eligibility and desirability of the respondents 4 to 6 to be appointed Deputy Registrars.Before parting with the issue, on the plea of the petitioner that he could have been considered to be appointed at least on a temporary basis given his experience as an in-service candidate, this Court makes it clear that it is not for the Court to issue any judicial directive to the respondent University in that regard. Subject to the regulatory regime, if the University is desirous of making use of the services of the petitioner as a Deputy Registrar at any point of time, the University is absolutely at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner accordingly. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.