BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ANR. versus DR. SAILABALA P ADHI

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 21-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ANR. 
v. 
DR. SAILABALA P ADHI 
APRIL 21, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Universities Act, 1989 : 
S. 21-Appointment-Post of Professor-Candidate interviewed-Sub-
Committee of the Syndicate recommending her appointment-Expert Com-
mittee giving opinion for re-advertisement of the post-High Court directing 
appointment of the candidate-On appeal, held, the Chancellor's direction 
for re-advertisement in accordance with Rules-High Court erred in directing 
D appointment of the candidate-Expert body having not selected her, no 
positive direction could be given for her continuance till the selection for the 
post is made. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3146 of 
E 1997. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.96 of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J.C. No. 8420 of 1993. 
P.N. Misra, S. Misra and A. Mohapatra for the Appellants. 
Ms. Indira Jaising, Manoj Misra, S. Das and Bharat Sangal for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court wad delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
We have 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. 
H No. 8420 of 1993. 
880 
T 
j 
' 
BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY v. SAILABALA P ADHI 
881 
The admitted position is that the respondent had applied for selec-
tion to the post of Professor, Environmental Science. The Selection Com-
mittee on January 31, 1992 interviewed 13 candid;ites 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 respon-
dent had secured 44 out of 90 marks, she was eligible for appointment and 
accordingly the matter wa~ referred to the Chancellor under first proviso 
to Section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Acl') 
The Chancellor (the Governor of Orissa) directed re-advertisement as per 
opinion of the Expert Committee by its proceedings dated January 15, 
1993. Pursuant thereto, 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 
A 
B 
c 
of the post in question. The High Court in the impugned judgment has 
directed appointment of the respondent within four weeks from the date D 
of the judgment. We are informed that pursuant to the contempt proceed-
ings 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 Profes~or in Environmental 
Science which requires Environmental Biology and the respondent is not 
possessed of Master's degree in Environmental Biology. The High Court 
cannot evaluate the relative requisite qualifications 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 relate to Environmental Biology; it requires 
E 
F 
only Master's degree in Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology. 
Since the respondent possessed Master's degree in Botany with requisite G 
experience in the field, she, having secured 44 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. 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Having regard to the respective contentions the question that arises 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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

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