THE CHANCELLOR AND ANR. versus DR. BIJYANANDA KAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 04-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT

Judgment (excerpt)

I,, 
THE CHANCELLOR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
DR. BUA YANANDA KAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 4, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) 
B 
Ori~a Universities Act, 1989: Section 21(2). · 
University-Professor-Appointment of-Selection Committee-Unani-
mous recommendation by-Subsequent to selections letters by members of C 
Selection Committee reneging their recommendation-{fniversity Syndicate 
not taking notice of letters-Accepting the recommendation of Selection Com-
mittee-Appointment of Professor-Validity of-Held sanctity of selection 
process should be maintained- Members of Selection Committee should not 
renege their own recommendation. 
D 
Service Law-Academic bodies-Selection Committee-Decision of-
Power of Court to inteif ere with. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226-Writ Petition challenging 
appointment of University Professor-Full facts not pleaded in writ petition-
E 
Neither Vice Chancdlor nor University Syndicate impleaded as party-ln-
ference drawn again.st Vice- Chancellor held not proper. 
Utkal University invited applications for the post of Professor of 
Philosophy, the requisite qualifications for which was specialisation in the 
'Philosophical Analysis or Values'. The Selection Committee, constituted 
in terms of Section 21(2) or the Orlssa Universities Act, 1989, unanimously 
recommended that M and K should be placed at Nos. 1 and 2 respectively 
F 
on the Merit List. A day after the selection three members of the Selection 
Committee addressed two letters • one or which was personally delivered 
by K • to the Vice-Chancellor stating therein that the candidate placed first -0 
in the Merit List did not possess the required qualification. However, the 
University Syndicate accepted the recommendations of the Selection Com· 
mittee and decided not to take notice of the letters. Accordingly , M was 
appointed as Professor. K submitted a representation to the Chancellor 
against the aforesaid appointment, without mentioning about the two H 
599 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A letters, which was dismissed. Thereafter, K filed a petition, without im-
pleading the Vice-Chancellor and Syndicate as parties, in the High Court 
Challenging M's appointment wherein also he pleaded no facts pertaining 
to the two letters. However, on K's application the· letters were produced 
before the High Court during the hearing of the petition and by its 
B judgment dated June 23, 1993 the High Court set aside the selection and 
appointment of M holding that there was a serious lapse on the part of 
the Vice-Chancellor in non placing the two letters written by the three 
members before the Syndicate. Against the decision of the High Court, 
appeals were filed in this Court. 
C 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court grossly erred in setting aside the selection 
and appointment of M on the basis of the two letters. [606-B] 
D 
1.1 The function of the Selection Committee comes to an end when 
the process of selection is completed and the proceedings are drawn. Every 
member of the Selection Committee has a right to give his independent, 
unbiased and considered opinion in respect of each candidate appearing 
before the Committee. Normally, it would not be considered a bona fide 
E act on the part of a member of the Selection Committee to say, after the 
selection is over and he has signed and proceedings, that he "overlooked" 
. certain qualifications in respect of a candidate. The sanctity of the process 
of selection has to be maintained. It would be travesty of the selection 
process if the candidates are encouraged to meet members of the Selection 
Committee after the selection is over and to obtain letters from them 
F 
attempting to renege the selection made. [606-B-D] 
2. The decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily 
be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfills the requisite 
qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided 
by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committees which 
G invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection. In 
his representation before the Chancellor, K specifically raised the issue· 
that M did not possess the specialisation in the "Philosophical Analysis of 
values" as one of the qualification. There is no doubt that the Chancellor 
must have got the same examined from the experts befor

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