LexMADRAS INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AND ANOTHER versus DR. K. SIVASUBRAMANIYAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 276 A MADRAS INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT B c STUDIES AND ANOTHER v. DR. K. SIVASUBRAMANIYANAND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 6465 of 2015) AUGUST 20, 2015 [M. Y. EQBALANDARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Service Law- Selection Process I Procedure- For the positions of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor - Appel/ant-Institute issued advertisement - Several persons including respondent No. 1 submitted applications - Selection Committee conducted interviews 0 and recommended a panel of five names. Thereafter, Executive Council by Order dated 14.8.2006 approved the appointment of various persons - Since the Institute had advertised for three posts, the first three i.e. respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were initially approached for the post of Associate E Professor - Respondent No. 1 challenged the decision dated 14.8.2006 inter alia on grounds that the selection was not done strictly as per the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement; and that there was infraction of the recruitment rules - Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ F petition inter alia on grounds that there was no discrepancy with regard to the qualification mentioned in the advertisement and the service rules; and that respondent No. 1 having taken part in the selection process without raising any objection cannot challenge the selection process G after being declared unsuccessful- Division Bench of High Court reversed the order passed by the Single Judge-Held: H The contention of the respondent no. 1 that the short-listing of the candidates was done by few professors bypassing the Director and the Chairman does not appear to be correct from perusal of the documents on record - Decision of the 276 MADRAS INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES 277 v. DR. K. SIVASUBRAMANIYAN Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to A be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction - Having regard to tlie fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be B questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience - Division Bench of High Court ougflt not to have interfered with the decision of the appellant-Institute in appointing respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor - Be that as it may; respondent no. 1, without raising c any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated inthe selection process by appearing before the Committee of experts- It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very D selection process - The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra - Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the Jaw laid down by Supreme Court in a catena of E decisions, it is clear that the Division Bench committed grave error in law by reversing the order passed by the Single Judge - Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS) Faculty Recruitment Rules, 2001. Dr. G Sarana v. University of Lucknow & Or.s. F (1976) 3 sec 585: 1977 (1) SCR 64; Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486: 1995 (1) SCR 908; Manish Kumar Shahi v, State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576; Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others G (2013) 11 sec 309 : 2013 (5) scR 687 - referred to. H 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R. A Case Law Reference 1977 (1) SCR 64 referred to Para 21 1995 (1) SCR 908 referred to Para 22 (201 o) 12 sec 576 referred to Para 23 B 2013 (5) SCR 687 referred to Para 24 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6465 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2012 of the C High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 167 of 2008. WITH C.A. No. 6466 of 2015. Ms. V. Mahana, Sr. Adv., N.L. Rajah, Santanam D Swaminadhan, Ms. lnsha Mir, Sidharth Rajah, Anil Kumar Tandale, Gautam Narayan, R.A. lyer,Amitesh Kumar, Shashank Shekhar Singh,' Navin Prakash, Vijay Kumar, Anil Kumar Tandale, Anil KumarTandale, Satish Vig, B. Ragunath, Vijay Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.