B.C. MYLARAPPA @ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA versus DR. R. VENKATASUBBAIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 03-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R 288 
7'
B.C. MYLARAPPA @ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA 
"' 
A 
v. 
DR. R. VENKATASUBBAIAH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6045 of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 3, 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] r 
Service Law: 
c 
Selection and appointment of Professor - Teaching and 
Research experience - Counting of - Held: Supreme Court 
observed in the case of Dr Kumar Bar Oas vs. Utkal Univer-
sity & Ors. that opinion of the experts committee in counting 
teaching and research experience of candidates could be 
taken together to determine the minimum eligibility condition 
D for appointment as Professor - Considering the teaching ex-
perience and the research experience possessed by the ap-
\ 
,.. 
pellant, the expert committee/Board found him satisfying the 
v 
eligibility conditions for appointment as Professor- In absence 
of any a/legation of ma/a tides, opinion of experts cannot be 
E said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction - High Court 
erred in cancelling appointment of appellant as. Professor -
University directed to reinstate the appellant - Precedent. 
Selection of candidates by expert body/Board without 
F 
recording reasons - Propriety of 
I" 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
\-
appeal was as to whether the High Court erred in cancel-
ling the appointment of the appellant by rejecting the opin-
ion of the expe_rt Committee/Board in counting the teach-
G ing and research experience of the appellant in adjudg-
ing eligibility for the post of Professor in the University, in 
the absence of any allegation of malafides against the 
:i_~· 
members of expert Committee/Board. 
' ' 
-H 
288 
B.C. MYLARAPPA@ DR. CHIKKAMYLARAPPA v. DR. 
289 
R. VENKATASUBBAIAH & ORS. 
"' 
Appellant contended that the High Court ought not A 
) to have interfered with the decision of the Board of Ap-
pointment which comprised of experts for selection to the 
post of Professor in the University, as in the absence of 
any pleading that either the Expert Body of the University 
or the University Authorities had acted mala fide in the B 
matter of selection of the appellant, it was not for the court 
__ , 
to go into the question whether such selection was proper 
' 
or not; that both the periods of experience in teaching as 
Lecturer for a period of 8 years 7 months and 2 days and 
experience as Research Assistant for a period of 5 years c 
5 months and 10 days possessed by him ought to have 
been taken into account and after taking into account the 
aforesaid period, the High Court ought to have held him 
eligible for being selected as a Professor in the Univer-
sity; and that in view of the settled law and the law laid 0 
down by this Court particularly in the case of Dr. Kumar 
Bar Das, the judgments of the Division Bench as well as 
i ; 
of the Single Judge of the High Court are liable to be set 
aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 10 years experience in Post Graduate 
teaching and/or experience in Research in the University 
was necessary for selection to the post of Professor in 
the University. It is not in dispute that the appellant had 9 
years of service as Lecturer and had done Research work F 
for 5 years. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that 
he had satisfied that he had got 10 years Post Graduate 
teaching experience in Research in the University. It is 
also not in dispute that the Board of Appointment of the 
University consisted of the persons, who were experts G 
academician, found the appellant eligible for such ap-
pointment, after scrutinizing the experience required for 
appointment to the post of Professor in the Department 
of Sociology. He was interviewed along with others by 
the Board of Appointment, the Expert Body, and found to H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
be eligible for appointment as Professor. The Syndicate 
t~:;. 
of the University, which also consisted of Academic ex-
perts had passed a resolution approving the appointment 
-"of the appellant as Professor. (Para - 19) [302,A-D] 
B 
1.2 It was the stand of the University before the High -
Court as well that the appellant was duly qualified for ap-
pointment to the post of Professor. The Single Judge of ~ 
the High Court while allowing the writ petition of the re-
spondents, however, reckoned the service of the appel-
lant as Lecturer, but ignored to consider the experience 
c of the appellant as Research Assistant. It cannot be dis-
puted that these two experiences, namely, exp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.