U.V. MAHADKAR versus SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 02-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL, C. NAGAPPAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 771 
U.V. MAHADKAR 
v. 
SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.843 of2012 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 
[M. '!· EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Selection -
To the post of Head of Department of C 
Agronomy - On merit-cum-seniority basis - By expert 
committee - Challenged- Selection set aside by High Court 
directing to hold fresh meeting for consideration of the 
selection - On appeal, held: In view of proviso to statue 41 
of the Universities Statutes, the recommendation of the D 
Committee was to be on the basis of merit and seniority- In 
such cases merit shall have to be given preference over the 
seniority- In the matter of selection and promotion, normally 
the courts should not interfere with the decision of Committee 
E 
of experts, unless mala fide is attributed or a/legations of 
arbitrarinet;s is proved- High Court was not right in entering 
into the arena of experts and reassess the merit of the 
candidates- Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Statutes, 
1990- Statute 41 Proviso. 
Selection - On the basis of 'merit-cum-seniority' and 
'seniority-cum-merit' - Distinction between - Discussed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. From bare perusal of the provision in statue 
F 
G 
41 of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Statutes, 
1990, it is manifest that the proviso to Statute 41 make it 
clear that recommendation of the Committee shall be on 
the basis of "merit and seniority". There is a sharp H 
771 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10S.C.R. 
A distinction between "merit-cum-seniority" and 
"seniority-cum-merit". In the former case, the merit shall 
have to be given preference over the seniority. It is only 
when the senior-most candidate has no merit and he is 
not suitable to be appointed on the selection post, merely 
B because of seniority, then the Committees have to select 
a meritorious candidate. [Paras 10 and 13] [776-.E; 777-
C-D] 
Guman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1971) 2 
c 
sec 452 - followed. 
B. V Sivaiah vs. Addanki Babu 1998 (3) SCR 782: 
(1998) 6 SCC 720; Ayurveda & Siddha vs. K. 
Santhakumari (Dr) 2001 (3) SCR 519: (2001) 5 
D 
SCC 60; K. Samantaray vs. National Insurance 
Co. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 286 - relied on. 
2. In the matter of selection and promotion to the 
higher post, if a Committee of experts is constituted, then 
E normally, the Court should not interfere in such decision 
unless. ma/a fide is attributed or allegations of 
arbitrariness is proved. The High Court should not have 
entered into the arena of the experts and to reassess 
the merit of the cahdidates when it is finally decided by 
F a duly constituted Committee of experts in the same field. 
[Paras 8 and 18] [775-G-H; 779-H; 780-A] 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference 
1998 (3) SCR 782 
(1971) 2 sec 452 
2001 (3) SCR 519 
(2004) 9 sec 286 
relied on. 
followed. 
relied on. 
relied on. 
Para 14 
Para 15 
Para 16 
Para 17 
U.V. MAHADKAR v. SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN 
773 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 843 A 
of2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2009 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5231 of 
2008. 
B 
Chinmoy Khaladkar, Ajay Choudhary, Pravin Satale, Rajiv 
Shankar Dvivedi, Sushi! Karanjkar, (For K.N. Rai), K.V. 
Sreekumarforthe appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
Civil Appeal No. 843 of 2012: 
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 
c 
D 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ 
Petition No. 5231 of 2008 setting aside the selection of the 
present appellant to the post of Head of Department of 
Agronomy of Respondent No.2 - Maharashtra Council of E 
Agricultural Education and Research, the present appeal has 
been filed. 
3. The facts are not much in dispute. 
4. In the year 1986, the appellant was appointed as F 
Assistant Professor, College of Agriculture, Dapoli under Dr. 
Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth Dapoli. He was 
selected and promoted as a Professor of Agronomy in 
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri on 17.8.2001. For 
the purpose of appointing a Head of Department of Agronomy, 
G 
a Selection Committee was constituted in the year 2008. The 
Committee, considered Statute 41 of the Maharashtra 
Agricultural Universities Statutes, 1990. The Committee after 
assessing th~ merit and other criteria of the appellant vis-a. H 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A vis contesting respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.