MRS. REKHA CHATURVEDI versus UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 13-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MRS. REKHA CHATURVEDI 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 13, 1993 . 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
University-Appointment of Assistant Professors-Requisite qualifica-
C lions-Whether to be considered as on the last date for submission of 
applications or as on the date of selection-<1uidelines for future selection 
process-Laid down. 
The Respondent University invited applications for appointment to 
~,.I., 
10 posts of Assistant Professors. Out of 112 applications received, the 
D Screening Committee recommended 106 candidates for being interviewed 
and found the remaining 6 applicants ineligible. However, only 65 can· 
didates appeared for the interview. 6 candidates were selected from the 
general category; and 2 from the Reserved Category. 5 candidates lnclud· 
ing the petitioner were placed on the waiting list. 
E 
F 
As per the advertisement, a candidate should have a doctorate 
degree or research work of equally high standard, and good academic 
record with atleast a Second Class Master's Degree. The lack of doctorate 
degree could be made up by either research work of equally high standard 
or M.Pbil with two years research work. Except in the case of Respondent 
No.10, who bad a doctorate degree as on the last date for submission. of 
applications, the qpalifications of other selected candidates had to be 
relaxed by the Scrutiny Committee. 
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the six selected can· 
G didates from the general category, before the High Court, but was not 
successful. Being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the petitioner 
preferred the present Special Leave Petition. 
On behalf of the Respondent-University it was contended that since 
at the time of selection Respondent Nos. 5 and 4 bad obtained their 
H doctorate degrees they could be said to have fulfilled the qualifications; 
186 
' 
REKHA CHATURVEDI v. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN 
187 
that since respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were registered for Ph. D. in 1982, by A 
the time of the selection they had put in research work connected with 
their thesis and on the date of selection, they had about 3 years' experience 
in research work; that l'P.spondent No.8 had good academic record both in 
M.A. and B.A. and the Scrutiny Committee could under the Ordinance 
relax the qualifications as admittedly sufficient number of candidates with 
doctorate degre.;s were not available; and that even the petitioner did not 
. have the doctorate degree; that the candidates had already been appointed 
in February 1985 and they have been working since then and some of them 
were also due for promotion to the higher posts in the near future; and . 
that their record of teaching so far has been excellent and unblemished 
and so their selection need not be interfered with at this late stage. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition and laying down the 
guidelines for future selection process, this Court, 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. In the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertise· D 
ment/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisi· 
te qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of 
the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. There· 
fore, when the Selection Committee took into consideration the requisite 
qualifications as on the date of selection rather than o.i the last date for 
prefering applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground 
itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. However, the 
selected candidates have been working in the respective posts since 
February 1985. Almost eight years have elapsed. There is also no record 
to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the 
respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualifica· 
lions in favour of some candidates in exercise of the discretionary powers 
vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the considerations which 
weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were 
valid, it would result in injustice to those who have been selected. For 
these reasons, this Court is not inclined to set aside the selections made 
E 
F 
by the Screening Committee. [195H, 196A-E] 
G 
.>- . 
A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarai 
Chandra & Ors., (1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District Collector & Chainnan, 
Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram & 
Anr.

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