IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was not right in setting aside the selection of the appellant as Professor, Marine Science, Goa University on the writ petition of respondent No.5.

Headnote:(i) Writ Petition in Service Matter-Respondent 5 having withdrawn earlier writ petition-Whether can file second writ petition? (Yes, as issues are not indentical) (See paras 16 and 17).
       (ii) Amendment in qualifications-Profession of Marine Science in Goa University-Grievance that amendment were neither prescribed by Executive Council nor recommended by Academic Council-Whether respondent 5 can raise that grievance now? (No).
       Held : Whether this is so or not, this is not a grievance which could have been raised by the respondent No. 5. He knew that there was a change in the eligibility criteria for the post yet he applied for the post and appeared at the interview without protest, he cannot be allowed to now contend that the eligibility criteria were wrongly framed. (Para 22)
       (iii) Post of profession of Marine Sentence in Goa University-Appellant selected-Respondent No. 5 filed writ petition challenging it-Set aside I High Court on five grounds-All grounds found not proper-Appointment of appellant by unanimous decision-The Courts must respect it- Appeal allowed. (Paras 14 to 36)

JUDGEMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-Leave granted.

2. The object of scrutiny, in this judgment, is the selection of the appellant as Professor of Marine Science in the University of Goa. The appellant s selection was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the respondent No. 5 who was himself a candidate for selection to the post. The challenge was upheld by the High Court.

3. The events which formed the basis of the High Court s decision can be said to have commenced in 1991 when the post of Professor, Marine Science fell vacant. Advertisements were issued from time to time but no candidate could be found who fulfilled the essential qualifications for the post. On 10th August 1994, an advertisement was again issued for the post of Professor, Marine Science. The hand-out distributed to the applicants prescribed the minimum qualifications as:

An eminent scholar with public work of high quality actively engaged in research with 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching and/or research at the University/National level Institution including experience of guiding research at doctoral level.

An outstanding scholar with established reputation which significant contribution to knowledge"

4. Additional qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission were also stated as:

"Specialisation: M.Sc., Ph.D. in Marine Science or any related subject with outstanding accomplishments of teaching and research in branches of Marine Science, Marine Biology, Marine Biotechnology Marine Geology, Chemical Oceanography or Physical Oceanography with a proven record of publications in international journals".

5. Both the appellant and the respondent No. 5 applied for the post. Both of them were Readers in the Department of Marine Science, the respondent No. 5 being senior most. Both were called for interviews on 13th September 1995.

6. Sometime before the date of the interview a note was written by the respondent No. 2 as Head of the Department to the Vice Chancellor requesting for the holding of an urgent interview for the appointment of Professor; Marine Science. The note placed on record an appointment letter received by the appellant for appointment as Professor in Geology in the University of Gulbarga. The note extolled the qualities of the appellant and concluded with the fol1owing paragraphs:

"8. HOD (Head of Department) submits that if Dr. Nayak (the appellant) is relieved from this Dept., the Dept. and the University will lose a dedicated and intelligent faculty whose services are very essential for this newly emerged dept and the young Goa University in general at this juncture.

9. It may be noted that Goa University had already advertised a post of Professor in Marine Sciences in January, 1995 for which Dr. Nayak is also an applicant. In the light of above, it is earnestly requested that Vice Chancellor may kindly hold the interviews as early as possible without re-advertising the same, so that Dr. Nayak is given a chance to answer the interview and if selected may be retained by the University.

7. This note was endorsed by the Dean of the Faculty on 6th August 1995 who forwarded the note with the endorsement that he fully agreed with the views expressed by the respondent No. 2 and suggested that interviews should be held.

8. The respondent No. 5 obtained a copy of this note and on 23rd August 1995 wrote a letter to the Chancellor as well as to the Vice Chancellor objecting to the participation of the respondent No. 2 and the Dean of the Faculty in the selection on the ground that he apprehended that they would be biased against him and that they had in writing disclosed their bias in favour of the appellant. There is no dispute that the Vice Chancellor received the letter but he did not reply.

9. The respondent No. 5 then filed a writ application (W. P.No. 264/95) in the High Court seeking to stop the participation of the respondent No. 2 as well the nominee of the Vice Chancellor in the selection process. The writ petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 138

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court was not right in setting aside the selection of the appellant as Professor, Marine Science, Goa University on the writ petition of respondent No.5.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was not right in setting aside the selection of the appellant as Professor, Marine Science, Goa University on the writ petition of respondent No.5.