DR. BASAVAIAH versus DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 29-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. ·227 
...... ('" 
' . 
' 
DR. BASAVAIAH· 
IJ:. ji~ .:_·,·i(.i A 
····" 
v."ln1 
. 
· .~ .l.~iiJr,q5 9•1t l" 
DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal 'No. 605:.f of 2010). '' 01" 
,:;, 
'JULY 29, 2010: 
.,, r·· .r .Gi:1r' 
T 
4. 
'.. 
..., .,. 
'<'1~!'.:.... 
Jl'J'l ~'·:1·-~ ;t \ ;q': B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND J.S. JHAt<UR? ,~J,.JJn.li; 
·' 'SeNite law - Appointment - Appointment of:appellants• 
as Readers in Sericulture - Challenge· to,• by respondent .on 
the" ground that app.ellants were not qualified1..:. High .Court, C 
upholding the appointment - However; Division Benc/J3of, 
High ·Court set aside the appointment - On appeal,' held: In 
academic matters, courts have a very limited role ·particularly, 
when no ma/a fide has been alleged against experts 
constituting selection c<?.mmUf.e..~ , . ...._,Expert Committe~ 0 
carefully examined and s'Crutihized the qualification, 
experience and published work of appellants before selecting 
therit'fOr posts of Readers in Ser'icu/ture ::.. High Court not 
justified in sitting in appeal over the· recomm'endailons'.of 
expert committee -· Thus,· order of Division Bench;;ofHigh' E 
Court is set aside' and thaf-of Single Judge of High ·court is 
restored. 
· 
·' '· ' · < 1 'v" · ' · ·: · 
... 
,-, _, 
. ~ 
~-;,.,: 
i'"01.~:.·) 
Ali advertisement·was·issued .for 0appointment·of 
Rea.ders 'in ·Sericulture ·in the University. ·The 
qualifications necessar}' for appointment as Readers.was 
consistently'- good academic record with ·a Doctorate 
Degree of'equivalent published work. The appellants 
were appointed as Readers in Sericulture.in the year 1999 
F 
on the basis of their qualifications. The respondent 
challenged the appointments of the appellants on the ,G 
ground that the appellants were not qualified to: be 
appointed· as Readers in Sericulture. The Single Judge 
of High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, ·the 
227 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A Division Bench of High Court set aside the appointment 
of the appellants. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the academic matters, the courts have a 
B very limited role particularly when no ma/a fide has been 
alleged against the experts constituting the selection 
committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and 
safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the 
academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the 
C courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal 
over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize 
and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic 
matters. [Para 45] [244-E-F] 
0 
Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha & Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad 
University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418; Maharashtra State 
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & 
Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others (1984) 4 
SCC 27; Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others 
E (1990) 2 SCC 746; Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. 
Medical College & Others (1992) 2 SCC 220; Dalpat 
Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan & Others 
(1990) 1 SCC 305; The Chancellor & Another etc. v. Dr. 
Bijayananda Kar & Others (1994) 1 SCC 169; Chairman J&K 
State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others 
F (2000) 3 SCC 59; Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. 
Charitable Trust & Another (2001) 5 SCC 486; Medical 
Council of India v. Sarang & Others (2001) 8 SCC 427; B. C. 
Mylarappa alias Dr. 
Chikkamylarappa 
v. 
Dr. 
R. 
Venkatasubbaiah & Others (2008) 14 SCC 306; Rajbir Singh 
G Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Another 
(2008) 9 SCC 284; All India Council for Technical Education 
v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726 -
relied on. 
H 
DR. BASAVAIAH v. DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS. 
229 
2.1 The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by 
A 
respondent no. 1 on the short ground that the appellants 
did not have Doctorate degree in Sericulture. Therefore, 
they were not qualified for appointment as Readers in 
Sericulture. In the impugned judgment, the court did not 
properly comprehend the advertisement in which it was 
B 
clearly mentioned that the prescribed qualification for the 
appointment as Readers was Doctorate degree or 
equivalent published work. Admittedly, both these 
appellants had extensive published work in the national 
and international journals of repute to their credit. This c 
is clearly indicated in extenso in the application forms 
which they had filled for the appointmen

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