DR. J. P. KULSHRESHTHA AND ORS. versus CHANCELLOR, ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAWAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 902 · Decided: 30-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
902 
DR. J. P. KULSHRESHTHA AND ORS. 
v. 
CHANCELLOR, ALLAHABAD UNIVERS11'Y, 
RAJ BHAWAN AND ORS. 
April 30, 1980 
IV. R. KRISHNA IYER. A. D. KosHAL """ 0. 011NNAPPA 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Ordinance 9(2) of the University of Allahabad issued under section 32(2) 
(/) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921-Whether striCt compliance regard-
ing the qualifications etc. prescribed for appolntment of teachers is necessary-
Wflether non-compliance vitiates the selection. 
Six posts of Readers in the English Department of the University fell vacant 
and applications were invited by advertisement. The appellants and respondent<; 
5 to 10, among others were applicants and they were all serving as lecturers 
in the U n!versity at that time. 
Sin Ce section 29 of the Allahabad University 
Act, 1921 stipulates that teachers of the University sh~ll be appointed by the 
Executive Council on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. a 
Selection Committee was constituted. 
The selection committee has to do the 
statutory exercise of choosing the best among the applicants in conformity with 
the minimum qualifications prescribed under Ordinance 9(2) of the University. 
But the committee chose to interview the candidates who were otherwise eligi-
ble for consideration. 13 applicants turned up for interview. Respondent 9, Dr. 
Rhattacharya and appellant Skand Gupta resented the viva voce test as unautho· 
rised and did not care to appear for the interview. 
However Dr. Bhattacharya. 
on being persuaded, did later turn up, was intervi'ewed and eventually included 
in the Select List. 
Skand Gupta did not enjoy the benefit of a second pursua-
tion to present himself for interview, did not appear befor'e the Selection Com-
mittee a.nd missed the bus. 
Respondentc; 5 to 10 were chooen and on the re-
commendation, the Executive Council made their appointment. The appellants 
thereupon moved the Chancellor under section 42 of the Act requesting him 
to cancel the appointments of respondents 5 to 10. 
But by an order dated 
November 22, 1973 he upheld the selection and appointment. The appellants, 
therefore, moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and 
impugned the selection process and the appointments on various grounds. The. 
teamed single judge considered the merits of the contentions c.nd concluded that 
the selections and the consequent iappointments were bad in law except in regard 
to respondents 7 and 10 and directed the University to make fresh selection and 
fill up the vacancies. 
Respondents 5 to 6 and 8 and 9 went in appeal to the 
Division Bench which accepted their appeals and reversed the judgment of the 
single judge in;its entirety and hence the appeal by special Ie:ive. 
Allowing the appeal the Court, 
HEID: 1. Any Administrative or quasi-judicial body clothed with pawers 
and left unfettered by procedures is free to device its own pragmatic, flexible 
and functiona11y viable processes of transacting business subj'ect. of course, to 
the basics of natural justice, fadr play in acCon, reasonableness in collecting dcci~ 
sional materials, avoidance of arbitrariness and e~traneous considerations a.nd 
A. 
... 
,.. 
I 
J. P. KULSHRESHTHA v. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY 
903 
otherwise keeping within the leading strings of the law. Though there is no flaw 
in the methodology of interviews, certainly, (:ases arise where the art of inter-
viewing .candidates deteriorates from strategy to strategem and undetectable 
rnanipul~tion of results is achieved by remote control tactics masked as viva voce 
tests. 
This, if allO\\'ed is surely a s·:.ibotage of the purity or proceedings, a sub-
terfuge wh~reby legal means to reach il!egal ends is achieved. 
So, it is that 
Courts insist on recording of' ma.rks at interviews and oth'er fair checks like 
guidelines for murks a.nd remarks, about candidates and the like. If the Court 
is skeptioal, the record of the Selection proceedings., including the notes regard-
ing the interviews, may have to be made available. Interviews, as such, are not 
bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad [908 H, 909 A-CJ 
2. Social scientists and educational avant garde may find pitfalls 
in our 
system of education and condemn the unscientific aspects of marks as the 
measure of merit, things as they now stand. But, however imperfect a.nd obtuse 
th'e current sYstem and however urgent the modernisation of our courses cul~ 
minating in examinations may be: the fact rem

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