DR. SRIDIP CHATTERJEE versus DR. GOPA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 06-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
DR. SRIDIP CHATTERJEE
v.
DR. GOPA CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6102 of 2019)
AUGUST 06, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Eligibility criteria – When cannot
be interfered – Respondent-University published advertisement
inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of
Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy) –
Appellant appointed to the said post – Respondent No.1 aggrieved
by the appointment of the appellant, filed writ petition in the High
Court – Appointment of the appellant set aside by Single Bench –
Intra-court appeal filed by the appellant – Dismissed – Held:
Condition of the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga
Therapy – Appellant possessed Diploma in Yoga Education –
Undoubtedly, in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it was
not recorded that the Diploma possessed by the appellant was
equivalent to the educational qualifications advertised, but the
Selection Committee was comprised of experts in the subjects and,
therefore, even if it was not specifically mentioned, the decision
could not have been interfered with only because the Court found
that Diploma in Yoga Education is not the same as Diploma in Yoga
or Yoga Therapy – Not only the Selection Committee found the
appellant suitable but even the Equivalence Committee, constituted
in terms of the directions of the Single Bench, also found the Diploma
of the appellant as the one satisfying the requirement of the
advertisement – Therefore, once the Experts took decision that the
appellant met the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the
Court in exercise of power of judicial review could not have come
to the conclusion that the Diploma possessed by the appellant does
not satisfy the eligibility conditions advertised and set aside the
appointment of the appellant – Judgment passed by the High Court
set aside – Appellant be reinstated in service forthwith with all
consequential benefits, seniority and pay fixation but he will not be
entitled to pay for the period he was out of service.
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1
65
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 65
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The condition of the advertisement was Diploma
in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. The appellant possesses Diploma in
Yoga Education. The Court in exercise of power of judicial review
could not come to a conclusion that the Diploma possessed by
the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions advertised.
The Court only looked to the bare nomenclature of Diploma
possessed by the appellant. No doubt, in the proceedings of the
Selection Committee, it is not recorded that the Diploma
possessed by the appellant is equivalent to the educational
qualifications advertised but the Selection Committee was
comprised of experts in the subjects and, therefore, even if it
was not specifically mentioned, the decision could not have been
interfered with only because the Court finds that Diploma in Yoga
Education is not the same as Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy.
The qualification prescribed in the advertisement remains the
same i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. It is
only Diploma in Yoga Education which has been considered as
equivalent to Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. Not only the
Selection Committee has found the appellant suitable but even
the Equivalence Committee, constituted in terms of the directions
of the Single Bench, also found the Diploma of the appellant as
the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement.
Therefore, once the Experts have taken a decision that the
appellant meets the eligibility conditions of the advertisement,
the Court could not have interfered with and set aside the
appointment of the appellant. Consequently, the judgment passed
by the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated
in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, seniority and
pay fixation but will not be entitled to pay for the period he was
out of service.  [Paras 16, 17 & 19] [72-D-G; 73-A-C]
B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Ors.
(2008) 14 SCC 306 : [2008] 14 SCR 288 ; Rajbir Singh
Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa &
Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 284 : [2008] 11 SCR 992 ; Prakash
Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015)
8 SCC 484 : [2015] 3 SCR 729 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
67
Case Law Reference
[2008] 14 SCR 288
referred to
Para 12
[2008] 11 SCR 992
refer

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