1. Dispute over candidate eligibility for lecturer posts regarding whether degrees in listed subjects satisfy the requirement of a degree in the relevant subject. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 851
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : Sujata V.Manohar
Punjab University
Versus
Narinder Kumar
Case No. : 15011 of 1996
Date of Decision : 8/12/99
When an advertisement lists general essential qualifications in a "relevant subject" and separately lists specific acceptable degrees for a post, those listed degrees define the "relevant subject." Courts should not render specific advertisement terms redundant or interfere with expert selection committees absent mala fides.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment and Selection - Qualifications for Appointment - Interpretation of Advertisement Terms - Interpretation of "relevant subject" in the context of essential and desirable qualifications - Where an advertisement specifies general essential qualifications requiring a good academic record in a "relevant subject" and subsequently lists specific acceptable subjects under a specialization head, the subjects listed under the specialization head are to be treated as the "relevant subjects" for the purpose of the general qualification - To hold otherwise would render the list of acceptable subjects redundant. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Selection Committee - Scope of Judicial Review - Evaluation of candidates by a Selection Committee comprising experts cannot be faulted in the absence of allegations of mala fides. (Para 7)
(C) Policy Matters - Courts cannot examine or reframe policies relating to the prescription of qualifications for posts, as such policies are to be formulated by the appointing authority in accordance with norms laid down by expert bodies. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The University advertised posts for Lecturers in a specific subject. The advertisement prescribed general essential qualifications, including a good academic record in the "relevant subject," and a separate section listing several acceptable M.A. degrees for the post. The Selection Committee recommended candidates holding degrees in some of these listed subjects. A candidate challenged the selection in the High Court, arguing that only a degree in the primary subject of the post constituted a "relevant subject." The High Court set aside the selections and directed re-advertisement.
Findings of Court:
The candidates possessed M.A. degrees in subjects explicitly listed as acceptable in the advertisement and met the required percentage of marks. The High Court erred in concluding that only a degree in the primary subject of the post was acceptable, thereby ignoring the specific list of relevant subjects provided in the advertisement.
Issues: Whether candidates possessing M.A. degrees in subjects listed as acceptable in the advertisement, other than the primary subject of the post, satisfy the requirement of having a degree in the "relevant subject."
Ratio Decidendi: The term "relevant subject" in general essential qualifications must be interpreted in light of the specific subjects listed under the specialization section of the same advertisement. If multiple subjects are listed as acceptable for a post, any of those subjects qualifies as a "relevant subject." Interpreting the requirement narrowly would render the listing of other acceptable subjects redundant.
Result: Appeals allowed and the impugned judgments and orders are set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the essential qualification requires a degree specifically in the subject of the post or if other listed subjects are also acceptable. (Para 2 , 5 , 8 )
3. The specific list of acceptable subjects in the advertisement defines the relevant subjects; a narrow interpretation would render the listed alternative subjects redundant. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
4. Where an advertisement lists multiple acceptable subjects for a post, any degree in those listed subjects satisfies the requirement of a degree in the relevant subject. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals allowed and the impugned judgments and orders setting aside the selections are set aside. (Para 9 )
6. How is the term relevant subject interpreted when an advertisement lists multiple acceptable degrees?
The term is interpreted by referring to the specific list of subjects provided in the advertisement. If multiple subjects are listed as acceptable for a post, any degree in those listed subjects satisfies the requirement. (Para 5 )
7. Can a court reframe the policy for prescribing academic qualifications for university posts?
No, the policy for prescribing qualifications must be formulated by the University in accordance with norms laid down by the University Grants Commission or other specified expert bodies. (Para 8 )
8. What is the legal standing of a Selection Committee's evaluation of candidates?
The evaluation of candidates by a Selection Committee comprising subject experts is generally upheld and cannot be faulted in the absence of allegations of mala fides. (Para 7 )
S.V.MANOHAR, J.
(1) THE appellant Punjab University, Chandigarh had issued an advertisement No. 6/93 inviting application for verious posts in the University, fixing 9/7/1993 as the last date for receiving applications. Among the posts so advertised were two posts of Lecturers in Gandhian Studies. The advertisement prescribed qualifications for various posts. These were under two heads. A - Essential and B - Desirable/ Essential Specialisations etc. Under Head A there were two sub-paragraphs which read as follows:- A. ESSENTIAL:
(A) Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Masters degree level in the relevant subject from any Indian University, or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University.
(B) Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the Joint Preliminary Test (JPT) for the appointment as lecturers in Universities and colleges in the State of Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh or eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. However, this requirement will not be applicable to candidates (i) who have passed UGC/CSIR Jr. F. Examination (ii) who have already been awarded Ph. D. degree (iii) who have already been awarded Ph.D., M. Phil. degree up to 31st March, 1994, or (iv) who will submit their Ph. D. thesis up to 31st December, 1993.
EXPLANATION:- The term good academic record would imply that a candidate should possess:- (i) At least 55% marks or an equivalent grade in Masters degree and (ii) At least 50% marks at the graduation level. OR At least 50% marks in Honours at the graduation level."
Under (B) Desirable/Essential Specialisation etc. there were various subHeads dealing with the various subjects in which the posts of Lecturers were advertised. In respect of Lecturers in Gandhian Studies, the following were set out under the subHead Desirable:- (B) Desirable/Essential specialisation etc. Lectures in Gandhian Studies: Desirable "I. The candidate should have M.A. degree in one of the following subjects:- (a) Gandhian and Peace Studies (b) History (c) Political Science (d) Sociology (e) Economics (f) Public Administration. II. (a) Research work/Ph.D./M.Phil. in Gandhian and Peace Studies. (b) Published work on Gandhian and related aspects. (c) Competence to teach Gandhian Studies to Post-Graduate students." Pursuant to this advertisement, various persons applied for the posts of Lecturer in Gandhian Studies, including the first respondent (who is the original writ petitioner) and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. After interviewing 13 candidates for the said post, the Selection Committee recommended the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the two posts of Lecturers in Gandhian Studies. The name of a third candidate Vinod Kumar Verma, was kept on the waiting list. In the minutes of the Selection Committee, it is recorded as follows: "It is certified that the selected and empanelled candidates fulfil the qualifications laid down for the post."
(2) THE Syndicate of the appellant University at its meeting held on 1/6/1995, after considering the minutes of the Selection Committee resolved to appoint respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as Lecturers in the Department of Gandhian Studies of the appellant University. In the meanwhile, the first respondent who was one of the candidates for the said post, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the selection of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that these two respondents did not have the qualifications prescribed for the post. A learned single Judge of the High Court held that these two respondents did not possess the requisite qualification of an M.A. Degree in a relevant subject. He, merer fore, set aside the selections so made and directed readvertisement of these posts. This judgment has been upheld in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence, the appellant has filed the present appea
