J. ASHOKA versus UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 15-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 11 S.C.R. 81 
J. ASHOKA 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES & ORS. 
(Civi1Appea1No.12182of2016) 
DECEMBER 15, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, R. K. AGRAWAL AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Selection - University of Agricultural Sciences Statute, 1964 -
Statute 15, 30 -Selection process for appointment to the post of 
Assistant Professor in Sericulture - Select list prepared wherein 
appellant placed above respondent no.3 - Select list fonvarded to 
the Board of Regents of the University - Board selected two 
candidates including respondent no.3 - Aggrieved, appellant filed 
writ petition - High court set aside the order of Board and directed 
them to reconsider the case of appellant - Board again selected 
respondent no.3 afresh - Plea of appellant that appointment of 
respondent no.3 was made on extraneous considerations against 
the appellant whose merit is much superior to that of respondent 
110.3 - Held: The Board has power to select the best candidate as 
per the provisions of the statute - Whenever the Board considers a 
person placed lower in merit in the select list, it can do so only by 
recording reasons as to why the case of the person placed above is 
being overlooked and person below is considered the best for being 
appointed - On facts, the Board re-considered the matter and 
assigned cogent and adequate reasons for preferring respondent 
no.3, viz., her qualification, length of regular service as Assistant 
Professor and humanitarian grounds - The Considerations cannot 
be said to be irrelevai1t - Competence and merit is not only adjudged 
on the basis of qualification of candidate but also other factors 
like career of candidate, educational curriculum, experience, 
general aptitude, personality and all other germane factors -
Therefore, action of Board in selecting respondent no. 3 in 
accordance with the relevant statute framed by University -
Constitution of India - Arts.14 and 16. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. As per the impugned notification, the requisite 
H 
81 
82 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 
qualification for the post of Assistant Professor was Second Class 
Master's Degree in the concerned subject. The appellant 
possessed the requisite qualification to be eligible for the said 
post. However, the Board of Regents, considered Respondent 
No. 3 as the suitable candidate considering her qualification 
(Ph.D), continuous service as an Assistant Professor and also on 
humanitarian grounds. Whenever a selection is to be made on 
the basis of merit performance, it cannot be for the purpose of 
eliminating all others preventing thereby even an effective and 
comparative consideration on merits, by according e11 bloc 
precedence in favour of those in possession of additional 
qualification irrespective of the respective merits and demerits 
of all candidates to be considered. There is no escape for anyone 
from this ordeal and claim for any e11 bloc favoured treatment 
merely because, any one of them happened to possess an 
additional qualification than the relevant basic/general qualification 
essential for applying the post. It would amount to first exhausting 
in the matter of selection all those, delwrs their inter se merit 
performance, in possession of additional qualification and take 
only thereafter separately those with ordinary degree and who 
do not possess the additional qualification. [Para 17] (96-D-G] 
2. Reasons are the links between the materials on which 
certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They 
disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a 
decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial. They 
should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and 
the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions 
recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. 
Therefore, in the instant case, the relevant provisions of the 
Statute were fully complied with. [Para 18] (96-H; 97-A-B] 
3. Clause (2) of Statute 30 of University of Agricultural 
Sciences Statute, 1964 must be read in consonance with Articles 
14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, for the reasons, the University 
is covered under the definition of State given under the Articles. 
Hence, when under Clause (2) of Statute 30, the Selection 
Committee constituted for making selection on the basis of the 
performance of the candidates at the interview recommends the

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