G. MARULASIDDAIAH versus T. G. SIDDAPPARADHYA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 01-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,I,' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
621 
G. MARULASIDDAIAH 
v. 
T. G. SIDDAPPARADHYA & ORS. 
February 1, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
M,vsoro University Act, 1956-Rule S of Supplementary Rules-Board 
Appointments-Reasons to be recorded by Board-Failure to record rea-
IOns for disrogarding gr<attr lengt,h of service of candidate does not vitiate 
appolmment. 
Rule S of the Supplementary Rules promul1ated under the Mysore 
Unlveralty Act, 1956, provide• tbat "the Board of Appointment• shall aive 
In writina the reasons for the 11lectlon of any candidate and also the basis 
on which the aelection has been made and always 1ive in writin1 the 
reasons for overlooking the claims of thote who are seniors (I.e.. total 
service as a teacher) and/or have higher qualifications." The first respon-, 
dent whose total service as teacher exceeded that of the appellant was.con-
sidered along with the appellant and two others by the Board of Appoint-
ments for the post of a professor. The Board made its written recommen-
dation that it took into consideration the academic qualification, research, 
teaching experience and the performance during the interview of the four 
candidates who appeared at the interview and resolved to appoint the 
appellant in the post. The appointment was later approved by the Chan-
cellor of the Umversity. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the 
High Court challenging the appointment C)f the appellant as being in viola-
tion of r. 5. The High Court quashed the appointment. It took the view 
that the rule was a mandatory provision and it was incumbent on the Board 
of Appointments to state in writing why the first respondent, although he 
had longer teaching experience, was passed over in favour of the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The proper construction of r. 5 is to regard the length 9f 
teaching expelrience 'as one of the important factors to be tak.:n into consi-
deration by the Board of Appointments. However much may be the im-
F portance of the length of teaching experience the rule did not provide that 
as the determining factor. The rule did not lay down all the factors which 
are to be C<''ISidered by the Board in making the selection. [ 625 HJ 
G 
H 
In the present case the academic qualifications of the appellant and the 
first respondenl were of the same standard. In mere length of service the 
first respondent certainly was superior to the appellant. But that by itself 
would not tip the scale in his favour. The recommendation of the Board 
clearly showed that one of the factors which the Board had taken into 
considerati_on was teachil)g experience. It would be giving preference to· 
the letter of the rule than to its spirit if it were to be held that the recom-
mendation of the Board was to be !teated as invalid merely because they 
had failed to state in C'lear words that the appellant was preferred to the 
first respondent although the latter had a lon11er period of service as a, 
teacher. 
Rule S was substantially complied with by the Board and the 
failure to record expressly the reasons for disregarding the greater length, 
of service of the first respondent did not vitiate the appointment per se 
At best it was an irregularity which was cured by the approval of the 
Chancellor. [626 Cl 
'622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 3 S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2241 of A 
1970. 
~ ppeal by special leave from tlie judgment and order dated 
Apnl 15, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 
2071 of 1967. 
M. C. Setalvad and R. V. Pillai, for the appellant, 
B. R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, f.or respondent No. 
], 
The Judgmellt of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Mitter, J. In this appeal 
by special leave the appellant C 
'Challenges the decision of the Mysore High Court quashing his 
.appointment as a University Grants Professor in Sanskrit by the 
Board of Appointments on the sole ground of non-compliance with 
Rule 5 of the Supplementary Rules promulgated under the Mysore 
Uruversity Act, 1956. That rule provides : 
"The Board of Appointments shall give in writing 
D 
the reasons for the selection of any candidate and also 
the basis on which the selection has been made and al-
ways give in writing the reasons for overlooking the 
daims of those who are seniors (i.e. total service as 
teacher) and/or have higher qualifications." 
E 
The facts are as follows. 
The appellant and the main con-
testing respondent have the same academic qu

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