Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3525 of 1997
PETITIONER:
DR. BHANU PRASAD PANDA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE CHANCELLOR, SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju
JUDGMENT:
Raju, J.
This appeal filed against the order of a Division Bench of the
Orissa High Court at Cuttack dated 25.2.97, involves a challenge to
the order sustaining in its turn the order passed by the Chancellor,
Sambalpur University, annulling the appointment of the appellant to
the post of Lecturer in Political Science, on the ground that he did not
possess the minimum required academic qualification prescribed by
the University Grants Commission.
The appellant was initially appointed as a Research Assistant in
the Post-Graduate Department of the respondent-University and
joined as such on 6.7.79. In the course of his employment, he
performed his duties for collection, compilation, tabulation and
interpretation of data in addition to assisting the M. Phil. Programme.
On 30.11.92, the University issued an advertisement inviting
applications in the prescribed form for certain posts enumerated
therein, of which the Lecturer in Political Science was also one. Note
4 indicated that the details with regard to the nature specialization,
qualification required etc. for the different posts will be available along
with the application form. The details so made available contained
certain stipulations and so far as the posts of Lecturer are concerned,
in the following terms:
"Lecturer: Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences,
Commerce, Education, Physical Education,
Foreign Languages and Law. Good academic
record with at least 55 percent 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. [emphasis supplied]
Candidates, besides fulfilling the above
qualification should have cleared the eligibility
test for Lecturers conducted by University
Grants Commission, CSR at similar tests
accredited by U.G.C. Exception from passing
the Lecturers eligibility test (GATE or
Engineering graduates only) is only applicable
to these candidates who have done Ph.D.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
upto December, 1992 or M. Phil upto March
1991, provided such candidates have secured
55 percentage marks at the Master’s level.
Research Assistants of Sambalpur University
having 2nd class Master’s degree but have
secured less than 55 per cent marks at the
Master’s degree level and have earned
M.Phil. Upto March 1991 or Ph.D. upto
December, 1992 with certificates, mark
sheets, evidence of teaching/research
experience, testimonials and other
publications. Applications incomplete in any
manner are liable to be summarily rejected.
(b) Candidates in service should route a copy
of their applications through proper channel.
No applicant will be interviewed unless his/her
application has been duly submitted through
his/her employer or he/she produces a "No
Objection" certificate from his/her employer at
the time of interview.
(c) All applications and correspondence are to
be addressed to the undersigned by
designation and not by name.
(d) The candidates are required to appear at
an interview before the Selection Committee
at their own expenses.
(e) Issue of this advertisement does not make
it binding on the University to make
appointment.
(f) Retired persons who have not attained the
age of 65 years may also apply for the
appointment on tenure basis.
(g) SC/ST candidates are required to obtain
Caste Certificate from the District
Magistrate/Collector to be eligible to apply.
However, the consideration of their application
is subject to the approval of U.G.C."
As to the nature of posts, specialization etc. it has been stated as
follows:
"S.No. Name of the Name of No. of Specialisation
Dept.College Post Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xx xx xx xx xx
17. Pol. Science Lecturer One Open
& Pub. Admm."
The appellant was one of the applicants to the Post of Lecturer
in Political Science and the Selection Committee found him suitable
and recommended his only name for appointment, as such. On
30.8.93, he was appointed and joined in the post. One of the
unsuccessful candidates Sri B.S. Chandel made representation to the
Chancellor that the appointment of the appellant was irregular and in
violation of the provisions of the Act and statutes. The Chancellor
issued a show-cause notice as to why the appointment should not be
cancelled. Sri B.S. Chandel also appears to have filed a Writ Petition
in the High Court but the same was disposed of to await the decision
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
of the Chancellor and to approach the High Court, if aggrieved,
against the decision to be taken by the Chancellor. The Chancellor
ultimately found that the appellant was not eligible for the
appointment in question as he lacked the minimum academic
qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission, that
he was awarded excess marks towards academic career and
teaching experience and that the selection of the appellant was made
by ignoring the claims of the qualified candidates. By his order dated
5.4.95, the Chancellor, in exercise of powers under Section 5(10) of
the Orissa Universities Act, 1989, annulled the appointment with a
direction to terminate the services of the appellant and re-advertise
the post for being filled up afresh. Aggrieved, the appellant filed OJC
No.2521 of 1995 before the High Court. The High Court also affirmed
the decision of the Chancellor and did not agree with the claims of the
appellant, by dismissing the Writ Petition.
Heard, Shri Rakesh Diwedi, Senior Advocate, for the appellant,
Shri P. N. Misra, Senior Advocate, for the Chancellor and Sri A.
Subba Rao for the University and Sri G.K. Banerjee for the University
Grants Commission. The learned senior counsel for the appellant
vehemently contended that the appellant was fully qualified and
satisfied the norms prescribed, that the minimum prescribed marks
was secured by him in the subject of Public Administration and this
constitutes sufficient compliance and satisfaction of the academic
qualification stipulated. It was also contended that the competent
authority, well-versed in academic matters, have found the appellant
to be fully eligible and such a decision ought not to have been
interfered with by the Chancellor and that the High Court was in error
in not setting aside the order of termination of the services of the
appellant. All the learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
with equal vehemence, attempted to demonstrate that the Chancellor
was right in his decision and when the University Grants Commission
also declined to grant relaxation, the services of the appellant had to
be necessarily terminated for want of prescribed academic
qualification on his part.
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 Masters 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 &
Public Administration’, the appointment, with which we are
concerned, is of the Lecturer in Political Science and not Public
Administration and subject matter-wise 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, encompass 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, the Resolution
No. 6.2 dated 18.2.92 or extracts provided from the proceedings of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
the Board of Studies dated 2.3.96 cannot be of any assistance to
support the claim of the appellant. The rejection by the U.G.C. 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 upto March 1991 or Ph.D. upto 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.
Consequently, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. Our
attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the University
Grants Commission to certain latest amendments made effective
from March 2000 issued by the University Grants Commission, and
the fact that if the post is re-advertised, the appellant may be eligible
in respect of academic qualification also, as per the revised standards
and norms for any future appointment. These are matters for the
consideration of the concerned and competent authorities, as and
when occasion arise therefor and it is not for this Court to advert to
those aspects in this appeal, which deserves to be considered only in
the light of the stipulations in force and governing the appointment
made during the relevant point of time. The parties shall bear their
respective costs.
..............................J.
[ S. Rajendra Babu ]
..............................J.
[ Doraiswamy Raju ]
September 12, 2001.
8