Important Point
In the matter of appointment of Professor/Reader in university, the Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown.

Headnote:(i) Orissa Universities Act, 1983 -Section 5(10)-Appointment of Teaching Staff-Scope of power of Chancellor-Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merits of candidates made by an expert body unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown-University advertising for post of Professor-Qualification prescribed as about 10 years teaching and/or research experience put together-Appellant having 9 years and 1 month experience in research and teaching-Expert Committee opinioned this as about 10 years experience recommending appointment-Chancellor holding appointment invalid ordering fresh advertisement-Not sustainable.
       (ii) Service Law-University-Appointment of Professor/Reader-Advertisement for Professor fixing qualification as about 10 years experience in Teaching and/or Research-Appellant having 1 year 4 months and 14 days research experience and 7 years and 7 months teaching experience-Put together appellant having 9 years one month experience - Selection Committee consisting of experts considering this as about 10 years experience and recommending for appointment-Chancellor holding appointment not valid-Not sustainable.
       Held : The Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown. In the present case, the Chancellor failed to notice that the advertisement and the UGC Regulations-even as per the show cause notice-referred only to “about 10 years experience in teaching and/or research”. Hence, it was necessary to take into account not only the teaching experience but also the research experience. The proforma which mentioned the marks under each of the six heads did not unfortunately refer to the research experience though the advertisement did. Hence the Chancellor committed an illegality in omitting the research experience of 1 year and 5 months out of consideration. If the research experience of 1 year and 5 months and 14 days were added, the total teaching and research experience of the appellant would come to 9 years 1 month. It was not sufficient for the Chancellor to just go by the proforma inasmuch as the advertisement did refer to research experience also apart from the teaching experience. (Para 28)
       If the advertisement stressed on the research experience also and not merely the teaching experience, the column in the proforma for awarding marks when it referred to ‘teaching experience’ has to be treated as one meant to cover teaching and research experience. The Selection Committee and the Syndicate followed the right procedure but the Chancellor’s went wrong in confining himself to the actual language of the proforma and in omitting to give effect to the words ‘and/or research experience’ contained in the advertisement and the UGC Regulations. This, in our view, is a clear illegality in the order of the Chancellor. It was for the Selection Committee to consider whether the appellant’s case fell on the right side of `about 10 years’. After all they were considering the total length of experience both in teaching and research and in conjunction with his other qualifications to find out whether he can occupy the post of Professor, a post which was merely one concerned with research in Economics. In our view, the opinion of the experts in the Selection Committee must be taken to be that the appellant’s teaching and research experience satisfied the above condition of “about 10 years”. In fact, the Chancellor in his final order did not expressly say that the period was not “about 10 years”, though such a view was expressed in the show-cause notice. He merely stated that award of 4 marks towards `teaching experience’ was not justified. The appellant did have teaching experience of 7 years 7 months and 14 days and Research experience of 1 year 5 months and 14 days-in all 9 years 28 days and the Selection Committee gave him 4 marks out of 10 on this score. Even otherwise, if the view of the Chancellor was that the experience must be a minimum of 10 years and therefore zero marks ought to have been awarded to the appellant toward `teaching experience’ we cannot agree. That would, in our view, amount to ignoring altogether the words in the advertisement `teaching and/or research experience’ and to exclude the period of 1 year 5 months and 14 days. (Paras 29, 30 & 31)
       Held consequently, the order of the Chancellor as upheld by the High Court cannot be sustained.

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-The appellant, Dr. Kumar Bar Das has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 30.9.1993 in O.J.C. No. 1910 of 1990. By that judgment, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders of the Chancellor of the Utkal University dated 21.5.1990. The Chancellor, by the said order, had set aside the appointment of the appellant dated 3.2.1990 as Professor of Economics (State Bank of India Chair) (hereinafter called SBI Chair), holding that the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 29.2.1984 was invalid. The said order was passed by the Chancellor on a representation filed by the 5th respondent, Dr. (Mrs.) Bedabati Mohanty. The Chancellor, after setting aside the appointment of the appellant further directed that the Vice-Chancellor/Syndicate shall re-advertise the post and conduct the selection afresh to fill up the vacancy to the post of Professor (SBI Chair). The 5th respondent, being aggrieved by the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 21.5.1990 in so far as it directed re-advertisement, filed OJC No. 2144 of 1990. The High Court, by the same common judgment, while upholding the order of the Chancellor to the extent it set aside the appointment of the appellant allowed the 5th respondent’s writ petition OJC No. 2144 of 1990 and directed that she, being the next person in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee, be appointed as Professor of Economics (State Bank of India Chair).

2. The appellant, therefore, filed a separate SLP (Civil) No....... (CC 7855 of 1998) questioning the judgment of the High Court dated 30.9.1993 in OJC No. 2144 of 1990 to the extent it set aside the orders of the Chancellor directing ‘re-advertisement’ and directing the appointment of the 5th respondent. There is also an application for condonation of delay. In that SLP notice had not been issued but it has been posted before us.

3. The facts of the case are as follows. The State Bank of India (hereinafter called the ‘SBI’) created an Endowment for creation of a Chair called “State Bank Chair in Rural Economics”, with an investment of Rs. 6 lakhs in favour of the Utkal University so that with the interest accruing from the said amount, the salary of a Professor and 2 Research Associates to the Chair, could be met. We are not concerned with the various terms of the endowment except those relating to the selection and appointment of the Professor and a few other relevant provisions. It is stated in clause 2 of the amendment that the main objective of the endowment is ‘to promote research’ in the applicability in the field of Rural Economics which can be utilised for development of rural and tribal areas. Clause 13 of the endowment is titled ‘Emphasis on Research’ and states that as the main objective in creating the Chair is to promote research in the fields mentioned above, the professor’s teaching and other assignments in the University shall be such as to provide him sufficient time for independent research. Clause 14 is titled ‘Selection of topics of Research’ and states that the topics for research work to be undertaken by the Chair will be selected in consultation with the Bank. Thus, the emphasis for the Chair is mainly ‘research’ in Economics.

4. Coming to the mode of appointment of Professor to the Chair, this is contained in clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the endowment. They read as follows:

“Clause 8: Appointment of Professor to the Chair : The University shall take steps to ensure that the Chair does not remain vacant ordinarily for more than six months at a time.

Clause 9: Selection procedure of Professor and other staff : The procedure for selection of the Professor to the Chair would be made as followed by the University in other cases for appointment of Professor of similar status. The Bank shall be associated with the selection of the Professor. Regarding the 2 Research Associates, the University would advise the Bank their name

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 1195

Important PointIn the matter of appointment of Professor/Reader in university, the Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown.

Cases Referred (3)

Important Point
In the matter of appointment of Professor/Reader in university, the Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown.