Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. SAILABALA PADHI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Orissa High court, made on
September 11, 1996 in O.J.C No. 8420 of 1993.
The admitted position is that the respondent had
applied for selection to the post of professor,
Environmental Science. The Selection committee on January
31, 1992 interviewed 13 candidates and found none to be
qualified for appointment to the post of Professor,
Environmental Science. The matter was referred to the sub-
committee of the syndicate which by its proceedings dated
June 22, 1992 opined that since the respondent had secured
44 out of 90 marks, she was be eligible for appointment and
accordingly the matter was referred to the Chancellor under
first proviso to section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities
Act. 1989 (for short, the ’Act’) The Chancellor (the
Governor of Orissa) directed re-advertisement as per
opinion of the Expert committee by its proceedings dated
January 15, 1993 Pursuant there to , another advertisement
was issued on October 16, 1993 for recruitment to the post
of Professor in Environmental Science. The qualification
desired was Master’s degree in Botany or Zoology or
Environmental Biology. The respondent questioned the re-
advertisement of the post in question. The High Court in the
impugned judgment has directed appointment of the respondent
within four weeks from the date of the judgment. We are
informed that pursuant to the contempt proceedings initiated
by the respondent, appointment of the respondent came to be
made.
It is contended by Mr. Misra, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that the Expert body is the
competent committee to opine as to who is qualified and fit
to be selected as professor in Environmental Science which
requires Environmental Biology. The High Court cannot
evaluate the relative requisite qualification and come to
its own conclusion as to who would be fit for appointment.
Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent, contends that the advertisement made does not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
relate to Environmental Biology ; it requires only master’s
degree in Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology. Since
the respondent possessed master’s degree in Botany with
requisite experience in the field, she, having secured 414
marks out of 90, is entitled to be considered for the post
and the competent authority has no power to direct re-
advertisement of the post. The High court was, therefore,
right in giving direction to appoint the respondent as
Professor in Environmental Biology.
Having regard to the respective contentions the
question that arises for consideration is whether the High
court is justified in evaluating whether the respondent is
qualified to be appointed as Professor. Section 21 reads as
under:
"Appointment of officers, teachers
and other employees of the
University.
(1) All officers of the
University excepting the Registrar,
and the Comptroller of Finance
shall be appointed by the concerned
Vice Chancellor on the
recommendation of a selection
Committee consisting of the
Director, the Registrar, one member
to be selected by the Syndicate of
such University from amongst the
remaining members of the and two
experts appointed by the said vice
Chancellor wherever necessary.
(2) The teachers of a
University shall be appointed by
the syndicate of that University on
the recommendation of a selection
committee consisting of the
concerned vice Chancellor, the
Director, an expert nominated by
the Chancellor in the case of
appointment of Professor, and three
experts selected by the said vice
chancellor from out of the list of
six experts furnished by the said
Syndicate, which shall not include-
(i) any teacher of such
University or of any of its
constituent or affiliated colleges;
or
(ii) any person who has been
an examiner of such University in
the preceding or the relevant
year.
Provided that where the
committee fails to make any
specific recommendation or where
the syndicate differs from the
recommendation made by the
committee, the matter shall be
referred to the chancellor whose
decision thereon shall be final."
It is not in dispute that an Expert Committee has been
constituted to select the candidates. The Expert Body
consists of Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University;
Director, Higher Education, Orissa; Professor, Anna
University, Quindy; professor, school of Environmental
Science, Cochin University, Visakhapatnam. They have opined
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
as under:
"13 candidates were called for
interview out of which 10
candidates appeared before the
selection committee and they were
interviewed. Taking into
consideration the candidates;
career, research publications,
teaching experience, confidential
character roll and performance at
the Viva-voce test, the selection
committee recommends no one for the
professor of Environmental
science."
The Vice-Chancellor, after taking into consideration
the opinion expressed by the expert selection committee, has
opined as under:
"(2) For the post of Professor of
Environmental Science, Dr. (Smt.)
Sailabala Padhy, who has secured
the highest marks in the interview,
does not have specialisation in
Environmental science either at the
P.G. stage or at the Doctoral
stage. However, she passed M.Sc in
Botany with specialisation in
Algology, securing a Ist class and
did Ph. D. in Algology. According
to the proposal submitted to the
UGC for the 8th plan, it was
indicated that the specialised
course (Ph.D/M. Phil) in
Environmental science shall be
started as an inter-disciplinary
course of Botany/Zoology
Departments. and for this purpose
the Professor and the Reader should
be from the Botany and Zoology
streams. the Sub-Committee,
therefore, suggested that the
syndicate might consider referring
her case to the Chancellor for a
decision under the Ist proviso of
section 21 (2) of the Orissa
Universities Act, 1989.
The recommendations of the
selection committee and the report
of the syndicate sub-committee
thereon, alongwith the above
observations of the syndicate be
referred to the Chancellor fr
consideration/decision."
The Syndicate in its Resolution stated as under:
"The Chancellor has further been
pleased to order that the Berhampur
University should re-advertise the
following vacancies as per the
required stipulations viz.,
qualification, experience and
specialisation etc."
(i) xx xxxxx xx
(ii) Professor of Environmental
Science.
xx xx."
In the light of these factual and legal situation, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
question that arises for consideration is: whether the High
Court would be justified in directing appointment of the
respondent ? It is seen that, admittedly the respondent
possessed Master’s degree in Botany with specialisation on
the subject of Algology. Even among her articles published
in various journals we come across, only two articles are
on Environmental science but the experience referred
therein relates to other subjects. Obvious, therefore, the
Expert Body was to select a candidate for professor in
Environmental science from amongst the candidates by
adjudging whether a candidate is fit for appointment as
professor. It is true that the Syndicate thought it
justified that if respondent should have the qualification
in one of the subjects namely; master’s degree in Botany,
she would be preferred as a candidate since Environmental
science shall be started as a candidate since Environmental
science shall be started as interdisciplinary course of
Botany/zoology and for that purpose the professor/Reader
should be from the Botany and Zoology streams. Under the
first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 , the order
of the Chancellor shall be final and that therefore, the
opinion expressed by the sub-committee of the Syndicate
loses its sanctity. In the selection of Professor/reader or
an y other teacher with specified qualifications, it is for
the Expert Body to go into the merit and competency of the
candidates for selection to the posts advertised for. No.
doubt, in the advertisement, Environmental science was not
specifically mentioned but it is not in dispute that
Botany and Zoology being the integral part of Environmental
science, necessarily the syndicate is enjoined to select
candidates having the needed qualification and experience
for the post of professor in Environmental science with
master’s degree in Botany, Zoology or Environmental
science. Thus, it could be seen that the authority was
competent to evaluate the merit of the candidates and the
Expert Body came to its own conclusion that the candidates
securing 44 marks out of 90 should be passed for appointment
to the post. The chancellor having had the advantage of the
report of the Expert Body, obviously was not inclined to
agree with the sub-committee of the Syndicate to appoint the
respondent as Professor and accordingly, he has given
direction in accordance with the rules for re-advertisement
of the post of Professor in Environmental Science. The High
court was, therefore, manifestly in error in directing the
appointment of the respondent. The re-advertisement is
accordingly in accordance with the rules. Ms. Indira
Jaising has prayed that since the respondent has been
appointed, she may be allowed to continue in the post of
Professor, Environmental Science. Having noted that the
Expert Body has not selected her, we cannot give any
Positive direction for her continuance till the selection
for the post of Professor in Environmental science is made.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.