Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 48 (MAN)

MD. FARID KHAN v. STATE OF MANIPUR

2018-09-17

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : KH. NOBIN SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri B.P. Sahu, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S. Yaiskul, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Shri I. Denning, learned Advocate for the MPSC. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the notification dated 6/11/2017 in FR/NFR respect of the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science and also for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner. 3.1 Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a member of the minority community (Meitei Pangal) in Manipur who passed his Master Degree in Public Administration in the year 2010; passed his Master of Philosophy (M. Phil.) in Political Science in the year, 2012 and qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) in Public Administration in the same year. 3.2 The Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the MPSC") issued an advertisement dated 15-11-2014 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment to the various posts of Assistant Professor in Government colleges, followed by a Notification dated 20/7/2015 laying down the process for recruitment. The petitioner being eligible applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor Political Science. The MPSC issued another notification dated 19/10/2015 informing the applicants to submit their documents as mentioned against their names. After the screening test being held, the date on which the personality test is to be held, was notified vide Notification dated 12/12/2015 issued by the MPSC. 3.3 Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 11/1/2017 passed by this Court in various writ petitions, the reservation was restricted to 50% of the total posts of Assistant Professor vide Notification dated 18-10-2017, because of which the changes in the category-wise vacancies came to be made in respect of 13 subjects. In respect of the subject of Political Science for which the petitioner submitted his application, the number of the post for the OBC (MP) was increased to 6 (six). In respect of the subject of Political Science for which the petitioner submitted his application, the number of the post for the OBC (MP) was increased to 6 (six). 3.4 The MPSC issued a notification dated 6/11/2017 declaring the result of the Academic Score and Interview for the post of Assistant Professors in Government colleges wherein the petitioner was considered to be ineligible as he does not possess Master Degree in Political Science but in Public Administration and accordingly, his name was not recommended by the MPSC. Being aggrieved by the action of the MPSC, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds-one, out of six posts reserved for the OBC (MP), two posts are still vacant; two, many of the selected candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science do not possess Master Degree in Political Science, rather they possess Master Degree in Politics and International Relations but they have been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science; three, in respect of the Mathematics subject, 2 (two) ineligible candidates who do not pass NET, have been selected for appointment and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Anr, (2008) 9 SCC 284 has held that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated as per the opinion given by the UGC. 4. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the MPSC wherein it has been stated that it is not possible for it to check all the applications at the time of submission. It is open to MPSC to confirm the eligibility or otherwise of the candidates in consultation with the State Government and other authorities. With regard to the eligibility of the petitioner, a clarification was sought for from the UGC which vide its letter dated 08-02-2018 informed that the issue of relevancy equivalent and interdisciplinary nature of the essential qualifications be decided by the appointing authority university with the help of subject experts in the relevant related field. Accordingly, on its request, an expert was nominated by the Manipur University who gave his opinion that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in Political Science. The MPSC accepted its opinion. Accordingly, on its request, an expert was nominated by the Manipur University who gave his opinion that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in Political Science. The MPSC accepted its opinion. So far as the decision relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that it will have no application because it was rendered in respect of the case of a Reader. 5. The short question that arises for consideration by this court, is as to whether a person who passed the Master degree in Public Administration is eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant professor in Political Science as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Notifications. Shri BP Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the subjects of Political Science and the Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, the issue ought to be decided in the affirmative. On the other hand, Shri I. Danning, the learned counsel appearing for the MPSC has submitted that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are different subjects; that pursuant to a letter dated 08-02-2018 of the UGC, an expert was appointed to look into matter who submitted his opinion that MA in Public Administration is not eligible for appointment as a teacher in Political Science in Manipur University and that the view expressed by the expert was accepted by the MPSC. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University & orders, (2001) 8 SCC 532 and Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University represented by its Registrar, (2014) 3 SCC 767 . The stand of the State Government is similar to that of the MPSC. Shri S. Nepoleon, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon the same decisions and in particular, the one rendered in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University represented by its Registrar, (2014) 3 SCC 767 . 6. As per the advertisement dated 15-11-2014, the essential qualifications read as under: "3. Shri S. Nepoleon, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon the same decisions and in particular, the one rendered in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University represented by its Registrar, (2014) 3 SCC 767 . 6. As per the advertisement dated 15-11-2014, the essential qualifications read as under: "3. Essential Qualifications:- (i) Good academic record, with at least 55% marks) or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level and qualified in the National Eligibility Test (NET) or accredited test (State Level Eligibility Test - SLET/SET). (ii) NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition. However, candidates, who are or have awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor. (iii) NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. (iv) A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and master's level for the SC/ST/Differently able (Physically and visually differently-abled) categories and for assessing good academic record for direct recruitment to the said posts. The eligibility marks of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) and the relaxation of 5% to the categories mentioned above are permissible, based on only the qualifying marks without including any grace mark procedures. v) A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D. Degree holders, who have obtained their Master's Degree prior to 19 September, 1991. vi) Relevant grade which is regarded as equivalent of 55% wherever the grading system is followed by a recognised university shall also be considered eligible." In the Notification dated 20-07-2015 issued by the MPSC, the essential qualifications as mentioned in the advertisement were modified to the extent indicated below: "Essential Qualifications: Master's Degree in concerned subject and NET/SLET in the concerned subject. However, the requirement of NET SLET is exempted for the candidates possessing Ph.D in terms of UGC Regulation 2009." A corrigendum dated 23-10-2015 was issued by the MPSC which reads as under: "Please read as "Master's degree in the relevant subject and NET/SLET in the relevant subject" in place of "Master's degree in concerned subject and NET SLET in the concerned subject" occurring at 2nd para of Commission's notification dated 20th July, 2015". What does the expressions "concerned subject" and "relevant subject" mean?. These expressions are not defined either in the Notification or in the corrigendum issued by the MPSC. The difference between the two expressions appears to be quite ambiguous and the MPSC ought to have explained it in the interest of the candidates so that the issue involved herein could have been avoided. But the MPSC failed to do that for the reasons best known to it. 7. Facts are not in dispute except the confusion as regards the difference between the said two expressions. The whole controversy relates to the meaning of the expression "in the relevant subject" as mentioned in the corrigendum. As has been stated herein above, it is nowhere defined in the corrigendum. Therefore, the issue involved herein is to be decided by referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the counsels appearing for the parties. In Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda case (supra), the Sambalpur University issued an advertisement dated 30-11-1992 inviting applications in the prescribed form for certain posts enumerated therein including the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The appellant applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. On the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, he was appointed and accordingly, he joined the service. One of the unsuccessful candidates submitted a representation to the Chancellor questioning the appointment of the appellant and a writ petition was also filed which was disposed of to await the decision of the Chancellor who annulled the appointment of the appellant. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it held: "5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it held: "5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The stipulation regarding the minimum academic qualification reads, "good academic record with at least 55 per cent marks or an equivalent grade of Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian university or an equivalent degree from a foreign university". Though the Department concerned for which the appointment is to be made is that of "Political Science and Public Administration", the appointment with which we are concerned, is of Lecturer in Political Science and not Public Administration and subject-matterwise they are different and not one and the same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in Public Administration and in Political Science are distinct and separate and on selection the appellant could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration, be it in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration since the advertisement was specifically to fill up the vacancy in the post of Lecturer in Political Science. Merely because the Department is of Political Science and Public Administration - the essential requirement of academic qualification of a particular standard and grade viz. 55%, in the "relevant subject" for which the post is advertised, cannot be rendered redundant or violated by ignoring the relevant subject and carried away by the name of the Department only which, in substance, encompasses two different disciplines. That merely depending upon the context he was being referred to or the post is referred to as being available in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, is no justification to do away or dispense with the essential academic qualification in the relevant subject for which the post has been advertised. Consequently, Resolution No. 6.2 dated 18-2-1992 or extracts provided from the proceedings of the Board of Studies dated 2-3-1996 cannot be of any assistance to support the claim of the appellant. Consequently, Resolution No. 6.2 dated 18-2-1992 or extracts provided from the proceedings of the Board of Studies dated 2-3-1996 cannot be of any assistance to support the claim of the appellant. The rejection by UGC of the request of the Department in this case to relax the condition relating to 55% marks at post graduation level for Research Assistant having M Phil up to March 1991 or PhD up to December 1992, is to be the last word on the claim of the appellant and there could be no further controversy raised in this regard. In view of the above, no exception could be taken to the decision of the Chancellor and no challenge could be countenanced in this appeal against the well-merited decision of the High Court." In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) case (supra), the question was whether the appellant fulfilled the requisite academic qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration in Choudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa. The University issued an advertisement for direct recruitment for various post including the post of Reader in Public Administration. The appellant applied for it and was selected as Reader and then he joined as such on 04-04-2005. Respondent No.2 challenged it in the High Court which held that the appellant was not qualified for appointment as Reader unless he had the qualification in the appropriate subject. In the appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the UGC Regulation for the post of Lecturer, the requirement was Master degree in the relevant subject, whereas the expression "in the relevant subject" is not mentioned in the qualification for the post of Reader and therefore, it was not necessary for the appellant to have a Master degree in relevant subject for appointment to the post of Reader. He further submitted that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline, it is right for the court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts and that since a large number of universities in this country have a single department for both the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration, it demonstrate that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with his first submission and held that the expression "in the relevant subject" has to be read into qualification for the post of Reader also. So far as the second submission is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed with him that it is not appropriate for the court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts and this observation was made on the basis of a clarification sought for the UGC that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated and a candidate who possesses Master degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. The relevant paras of the said decision are as under: "31. We agree with Mr Patwalia, learned counsel, that it is not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts who are of the view that Political Science and Public Administration are interrelated and interchangeable subjects, and hence a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. We are told that a large number of persons having qualifications in the interchangeable/interrelated subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/Lecturers and are continuing as such in various colleges and universities in the State. 32. In Para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent University before the High Court, it has been specifically stated that Public Administration is one of the branches of Political Science, and the appellant was selected by a Selection Committee consisting of eminent experts after evaluating his qualifications and work. 33. As regards the decision in Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University we have carefully perused the same. In para 5 of the said judgment it has been observed: (SCC pp. 535-36) "5. ... Though the Department concerned for which the appointment is to be made is that of 'Political Science and Public Administration', the appointment with which we are concerned, is of Lecturer in Political Science and not Public Administration and subject-matterwise they are different and not one and the same. 535-36) "5. ... Though the Department concerned for which the appointment is to be made is that of 'Political Science and Public Administration', the appointment with which we are concerned, is of Lecturer in Political Science and not Public Administration and subject-matterwise they are different and not one and the same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in Public Administration and in Political Science are distinct and separate and on selection the appellant could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration...." A perusal of the above passage shows that the observation that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects was apparently given on a concession, because what has been stated therein is that "it is not in controversy" that the post of Lecturer in Public Administration and Political Science are distinct and separate. The use of the words "it is not in controversy" shows that a concession was made on the point by learned counsel for the respondent in that case. Hence the observation cannot be regarded as a precedent. Moreover, no reasoning has been given in the aforesaid passage (quoted above) as to why it has been held that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects. 34. The decision of a court is a precedent if it lays down some principle of law supported by reasons. Mere casual observations or directions without laying down any principle of law and without giving reasons does not amount to a precedent. 41. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) case cannot be read as a Euclid's formula or treated as a precedent, since it has not given any reason for holding that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects, and since the aforesaid decision was given on a concession." In Ganapath Singh case (supra), the Gulbarga University issued a Notification date 22-05-1998 inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Lecturer in Masters in Computer Application and the minimum qualification is good academic record with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent grade at the Masters degree in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent from a foreign University. The appellant, who possesses M.Sc. The appellant, who possesses M.Sc. in Mathematics, was recommended by a Board of Appointment which consisted of experts holding high position in academic field. But his appointment was questioned by way of a writ petition in the High Court. The stand of the University was that the expression "relevant subject" used in the Notification would mean any subject which is relevant for the purpose of holding the post of Lecturer in MCA. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and in an appeal preferred against it, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the appointment of the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any substance in the appeal and accordingly, dismissed the same with costs. The relevant paras of the decision are as under: "14. The main thrust in the appellant's contention is that when an expert body i.e. the Board of Appointment consisting of high academicians, has found Ganpat eligible and qualified and which has been approved by the Syndicate, another expert body, the High Court ought not to have acted as a court of appeal, examined the pros and cons and come to the conclusion that Ganpat did not possess the requisite qualification. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad submission that academic issues must be left to be decided by the expert body and the court cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters. It deserves great respect. When two views are possible and the expert body has taken a view, the same deserves acceptance. However, to say that expert body's opinion deserves acceptance in all circumstances and is not subject to judicial review does not appeal to us. In our constitutional scheme the decision of the Board of Appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute. Any other view will have a very dangerous consequence and one must remind itself of the famous words of Lord Acton "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". 15. Now we revert to the authorities of this Court relied on by the appellants. 16. B.C. Mylarappa deals with the appointment to the post of Professor, in which one of the eligibility condition for appointment was "10 years" of experience of postgraduate teaching. 15. Now we revert to the authorities of this Court relied on by the appellants. 16. B.C. Mylarappa deals with the appointment to the post of Professor, in which one of the eligibility condition for appointment was "10 years" of experience of postgraduate teaching. The Board of Appointment considered the selected candidate eligible by taking into consideration his experience as Lecturer and Research Assistant and in the absence of any mala fide, this Court observed that its opinion is not fit to be rejected. This would be evident from para 24 of the judgment, which reads as follows: (SCC p. 315) "24. There is another aspect of this matter which is also relevant for proper decision of this appeal. We have already indicated earlier that the Board of Appointment was constituted with experts in this line by the University Authorities. They have considered not only the candidature of the appellant and his experience as a Lecturer and Research Assistant along with others came to hold that it was the appellant who was the candidate who could satisfy the conditions for appointment to the post of Professor. Such being the selection made by the expert body, it is difficult for us to accept the judgments of the High Court when we have failed to notice any mala fides attributed to the members of the expert body in selecting the appellant to the said post." However, this judgment cannot be read to mean that the courts are denuded of the power to scrutinise the experience in a given case and come to a contrary conclusion. 17. As stated earlier, when the view taken by the expert body is one of the possible views, the same is fit to be accepted. Further, the yardstick would be different when it concerns eligibility conditions pertaining to "qualification" and "experience". In case of experience it is best known to the expert body in the field in regard to the actual work done and, therefore, its opinion is of higher degree deserving acceptance ordinarily. Hence, in our opinion, this judgment did not fetter the power of the High Court. 18. As regards the decision of this Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal the same is clearly distinguishable. Hence, in our opinion, this judgment did not fetter the power of the High Court. 18. As regards the decision of this Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal the same is clearly distinguishable. In the said case the controversy which fell for consideration was as to whether public administration is one of the branches of Political Science and in the face of the opinion of the expert body that they are interchangeable, the conclusion of the High Court that they are distinct and separate was not approved. This would be evident from the following passage from the said judgment: (SCC p. 297, paras 45-46) "45. As has been pointed out by my learned Brother, the University has in its counter-affidavit taken a stand that Public Administration is one of the branches of Political Science and the Selection Committee comprised of eminent scholars had rightly chosen the appellant for the post of Reader after considering his academic achievements and also relying upon the view of the University Grants Commission in its letter dated 5-3-1992 stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated and that a candidate who possesses a Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible to be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science. Similarly, a candidate possessing a Masters degree in Political Science is eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Public Administration. 46. Despite the aforesaid views expressed by the expert bodies such as the University and the University Grants Commission, the High Court has held Public Administration and Political Science to be distinct and separate disciplines." In the present case, there is no such plea. Here, the plea is that as Mathematics is one of the subjects in MCA and, therefore, Ganpat possessing Masters degree in Mathematics is eligible. It is not the plea of the University that Masters degree in Mathematics is interchangeable with MCA. 19. Not only this, in Rajbir Singh Dalal, this Court came to the aforesaid conclusion due to different eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of Reader and Lecturer. It was pointed out by this Court that in the case of Reader the requirement was Masters degree in an "appropriate subject", whereas for appointment as Lecturer it was "relevant subject". The said case related to the appointment of Reader. It was pointed out by this Court that in the case of Reader the requirement was Masters degree in an "appropriate subject", whereas for appointment as Lecturer it was "relevant subject". The said case related to the appointment of Reader. On account of the use of different expressions, this Court came to the conclusion that postgraduate degree-holder in Political Science is eligible to be appointed to the post of Reader in Public Administration. This would be evident from paras 48 and 49 of the judgment, which read as follows: (SCC p. 298) "48. The recruitment rules followed by the University clearly indicate that in order to be appointed as Lecturer in a particular discipline a candidate must have a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject. On the other hand, for appointment to the post of Reader such a condition has not been specified. In fact, in Regulation 2 it has been generally indicated that no person shall be appointed to a teaching post in the University or in any institution, including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under the UGC Act, 1956, or any institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act, in a subject, if he/she does not fulfil the requirement as to the qualifications for the appropriate subject. 49. In my view, the omission in the Regulations cannot be said to be unintentional or a case of casus omissus. In my view, the expression 'appropriate subject' was intended to cover the post of Reader and once the expert bodies had indicated that the appellant who held a postgraduate degree in Political Science was eligible to be appointed to the post of Reader in Public Administration and had been rightly appointed to such post, it is normally not for the courts to question such opinion, unless it has specialised knowledge of the subject." This Court did not say that Political Science is the relevant subject for appointment as Lecturer in Public Administration." 8. After going through the above decisions minutely, it is seen that facts are almost identical, in the sense that the expression "in the relevant subject" is common for all. In Dr. After going through the above decisions minutely, it is seen that facts are almost identical, in the sense that the expression "in the relevant subject" is common for all. In Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda case, the subject matter in issue relates to the appointment of Lecturer in Political Science and in other words, the appellant who does not possess Master in Political Science but possess Master in Public administration, was appointed as the Lecturer in Political Science and his appointment was challenged before the High Court which dismissed it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after having considered the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties, held that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are different and not one and the same. It was further observed that it is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in Public Administration and in Political Science are distinct and separate and on selection, the appellant could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration. Relying upon this decision, the Hon'ble High Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) case set aside the selection and appointment of the appellant. In fact, the issue involved in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case, was as to whether the appellant fulfilled the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration. But with regard to the submission made by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the expression "in the relevant subject" required only for appointment to the post of Lecturer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disagreeing with his submission and taking into account the exception to the ordinary principles of interpretation, held that the expression "in the relevant subject" be read into the qualification for appointment to the post of Reader as well. On the issue relating to the interference with the opinion of the experts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed with the submission of the counsel appearing for the appellant that it is not appropriate for the court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. As regards the decision in Bhanu Prasad Panda case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the observation that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects was apparently given on a concession and that it could not be treated as a precedent, since no reason was given for holding that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subject. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that on a clarification given by the UGC vide its letter dated 05-03-1992 addressed to the Registrar, M.D University that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, the court could not sit in appeal over the opinion as it was an expert opinion. It may be noted that although the meaning of the expression "in the relevant subject" was not examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases, the opinion of the UGC was placed before it for consideration in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case. In Ganapath Singh Gangaran Singh Rajput case, the issue relates to the appointment of Lecturer in Master in Computer Application. The stand of the University as regards the expression "relevant subject" was that it would mean any subject which is relevant for the purpose of holding the post of Lecturer in MCA. Accepting the contention of the University, the Hon'ble High Court held that the expression "relevant subject" could mean candidates who possessed Master degree in such of those subjects as are offered in MCA course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the academic issues must be left to be decided by the expert body and that the court cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in our constitutional scheme, the decision of the Board of Appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute and to say that expert bodies opinion deserves acceptance in all circumstances and is not subject to judicial review, does not appeal to the court. As regards the decision in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the same is clearly distinguishable and that the issue involved therein was as to whether Public Administration is one of the branches of Political Science and in the face of the opinion of the expert body that they are interchangeable, the conclusion of the High Court was not accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it did not say that Political Science is the relevant subject for appointment as Lecturer in Public Administration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it did not say that Political Science is the relevant subject for appointment as Lecturer in Public Administration. In this case also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not examine the meaning of the expression "relevant subject" and had proceeded on the footing that the plea taken in the Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case was not there in this case. Confining to the facts of this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since Ganpat did not possess Master degree in Computer Application, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. 9. As has been stated herein above, the meaning of the expression "in the relevant subject" has not been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases. This expression "in the relevant subject' appears to have been borrowed from the UGC Regulations as is evident from Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda case and it further appears to have not been defined in the UGC Regulations, because of which the present controversy or any other similar controversy has arisen. It is the UGC which is the appropriate authority to explain the meaning thereof and in its absence, it is not clear to this court as to why the word "relevant' is being used as a prefix to the word "subject". What is the purpose or for that matter, the aim and object of using the word "relevant" is not known to this court. According to the Dictionary, the word "relevant" is synonymous with the word "connection" which is quite different from the word "same" as a result of which many experts in different Universities in the country have given their different opinions. This sort of controversies in respect of various subjects in different universities will continue to arise, as long as the expression "relevant subject" is not defined by the UGC. In the interest of general public and in order to obviate such controversy, it is the right time for the UGC to do the needful. The expert from Manipur University has opined that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are different, while the Choudhary Devi Lal University has treated both the subjects as one discipline. In the interest of general public and in order to obviate such controversy, it is the right time for the UGC to do the needful. The expert from Manipur University has opined that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are different, while the Choudhary Devi Lal University has treated both the subjects as one discipline. Even in the instant writ petition, it has been alleged that candidates possessing Master degree in Politics and International Relations, have been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science. If it is the intention of the UGC that for appointment to the post of Assistant professor in Political Science, one must possess Master degree in the subject of Political Science only, nothing prevented it from using the expression "in the same subject", rather than the expression "in the relevant subject". The present controversy has arisen because of this ambiguous expression which remains unexplained by the UGC. In Dr.Bhanu Prasad Panda case, it has been held that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate subjects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) has observed that the decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda cannot be said to be a precedent for the reason that it was rendered on a concession and no reason was given for it. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interfered with the clarification given by the UGC vide its letter dated 05-03-1992 addressed to the Registrar, M.D University that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated and this court is bound by it. So far as the issue relating to the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration is concerned, the opinion given by the UGC can be said to be final. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganapath Singh Gangaran Singh Rajput case has not overruled the decision in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case but has distinguished it on facts by observing that the plea taken in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case was not taken therein. In view of the above, this court is of the view that in the present case, the decision rendered in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case will have application because of the stand taken by the UGC that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated. In view of the above, this court is of the view that in the present case, the decision rendered in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) case will have application because of the stand taken by the UGC that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated. No one appears to have questioned it so far. It is indubitably the UGC which has framed the Regulations which are to be followed invariably by all the Universities and the Institutions. There is no material on record to show that the UGC has subsequently changed its stand. 10. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the Notification dated 06-11-2017, issued by the MPSC, in respect of the petitioner is quashed and set aside and accordingly, the MPSC shall take appropriate steps towards the declaration of the result of the petitioner within two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.