LexDR. KUMAR BAR DAS versus UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. KUMAR BAR DAS v. UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. DECEMBER 3, 1998 [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K. VENKATASWAMI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B c Appointment-Professor of Economics (SB/ Chair)-Advertisement- Qualification-About ten years experience in teaching and/or research-- Appellant having teaching experience of seven years seven months and fourteen days and research experience of one year fwe months and fourteen days-Selection Committee consisting of highly qualified experts- Considering appellants nine years one month teaching/research experience D as "about ten years"-Recommendation for appointment-Rival candidate's representation to Chancellor that appellant not possessing requisite qualification-Appointment set aside by Chancellor-Validity of-Held, Chancellor ought not to have interfered with the views of expert committee on appointment unless malafides or other collateral reasons are shown-It E is necessary to take into account not only the teaching experience but also research experience in considering the total length of experience-Jl/egality committed by Chancellor in omitting the research experience of appellant- Appointment restored--UGC (qualification required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and other institution affiliated to it) Regulations, 1982. F Words and Phrases 'about ten years '-Meaning of State Bank of India, to promote research in Rural Economics, created an Endowment 'Chair' in favour of respondent university. Consequently, G respondent university issued an advertisement for the post of professor (SDI Chair) under clause 10 ofthe said advertisement, the essential qualifications required for the post was 'about ten years experience of teaching and/or research'. Pursuant to the said advertisement, appellant applied for the post of professor. The Selection Committee consisting of highly qualified experts H 315 316 S\JPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A recommended the name of appellant as their first preference. Respondent no. 5 was placed at preference no. 2. Thus, after approval from Syndicate of university, appellant was appointed to the post. Respondent no. 5 aggrieved by the said appointment made a representation to the Chancellor of Univc~rsity stating that the appellant was not eligible for appointment as he had only B seven years and seven months teaching experience. The Chancellor, after issuing show cause notice set aside the appointment of appellant holding the recommendation of Selection Committee invalid. Aggrieved, appellant filed a writ petition contending that his total teaching and research experience was in all nine years one month which came within the words "about ten years" as mentioned in the advertisement. The said writ petition was dismissed. C However, High Court allowed the writ petition of respondent no. 5 holding her eligible for appointment. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of High Court,. this Court D HELD : 1. The Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body unless malafides or other collateral reasons were shown. Thus, having regard to the High qualifications of the experts and the reasons furnished by the syndicate as being the obvious basis of the experts' opinion, the Chancellor ought not to E have interfered with the views of the experts. (327-C-B] University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 575; J.P. Kulshrestha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, (1980) 3 SCC 418; Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, (1990] 2 SCC 746 and Osmania University v. Abdul Rajees Khan, (1977] 3 SCC 124, relied on. F 2. The Chancellor failed to notice that the advertisement and the UGC Regulations-even as per the show cause notice-referred only to "about ten years experience in teaching and/or research". Hence it was necessary to take into account not only the teaching experience but also the research experience. The proforma which mentioned the marks under each of the six G heads did not unfortunately refer to the research experience though the advertisement did. Hence the Chancellor committed an illegality in omitting the Research experience of one year and five months out of consideration. If the research experience of one year and five months and fourteen days were added, the total teaching and research experience of the appellant would co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.