Expert determinations of qualification equivalence warrant judicial deference absent mala fides or patent error.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 25 July 2010, the petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor in Engineering at the National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research (“NITTTR”). The prescribed qualification required five years’ experience in teaching, industry, or research at the level of Lecturer (pre-revised)/Assistant Professor or equivalent, with two years’ post-Ph.D. experience being desirable.

After interview, an appointment offer was issued on 2 April 2012; however, the appointment did not materialise owing to interim litigation concerning the selection process.

After the related proceedings concluded, the respondents declined to appoint the petitioner on 9 October 2018, holding that she lacked the requisite equivalent experience.

In W.P. No. 28474 of 2018, the learned Single Judge directed her appointment, but the Division Bench in W.A. No. 657 of 2021 set aside that order and remanded the matter to the competent committee for fresh consideration after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The Selection Committee thereafter concluded that the petitioner’s experience as an Assistant Engineer in the Soil Conservation Department, Kerala, and her service at Sathyabama University did not establish the prescribed equivalence, particularly with respect to the pre-revised pay scale of a Lecturer in Engineering.

Whether the petitioner’s experience as an Assistant Engineer in the Soil Conservation Department, Kerala, was equivalent to experience at the level of Lecturer in Engineering/Assistant Professor, as required under the NITTTR recruitment notification?

Whether the respondents’ determination that the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience qualification was arbitrary, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution, or otherwise liable to be interfered with under Article 226?

Whether equivalence could be established solely by reference to similarities in pay, or whether the determination was within the specialised domain of the employer and its expert committee?

The Court applied the terms of the NITTTR recruitment notification, under which experience had to be at the level of Lecturer (pre-revised)/Assistant Professor or equivalent.

It relied on the principle affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 657 of 2021 that prescription of qualifications and assessment of whether a candidate satisfies them ordinarily fall within the employer’s domain, particularly where the determination involves technical expertise; judicial review is therefore limited in the absence of mala fides, patent error, or violation of natural justice.

The Court also considered Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644, on determining equivalence by considering factors such as the nature and duties of the post, responsibilities and powers, territorial or other charge, and minimum qualifications, rather than pay alone.

The principles of Article 14 and estoppel were considered but found insufficient to override the expert determination on qualification equivalence.

The Court held that the expression “Lecturer (pre-revised)” required the petitioner to establish that her prior service was equivalent to the relevant pre-revised Lecturer pay scale and level.

The Selection Committee found that, during the relevant pre-revised periods, the Assistant Engineer’s pay scale was lower than that of a Lecturer in Engineering College, including differences in the 1992 and 2004 revisions; parity was established only from 1 July 2009.

The petitioner’s reliance on a certificate referring to Rs.7,200/- was insufficient because the document described the amount as “sub/officiating pay” and did not establish that it represented the Lecturer pay scale of Rs.7,200–11,400.

Likewise, her Sathyabama University appointment order reflected a basic pay of Rs.16,463/-, below the applicable AICTE/UGC Lecturer scale, and there was no satisfactory proof explaining the later increase to Rs.28,020/-.

Although the petitioner relied on Rooplal and contended that pay was only one factor in assessing equivalence, the Court held that the precedent did not govern the present comparison of distinct cadres.

Since the expert committee had examined the relevant materials and reached a reasoned conclusion, and no mala fides or patent error were established, the Court declined to substitute its own assessment for that of the expert body.

The respondents’ expert determination was neither shown to be mala fide nor affected by any patent error, and therefore did not warrant interference under Article 226.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.