2016 Supreme(SC) 1013

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., R.K. AGRAWAL, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
J. Ashoka – Appellant
Versus
University of Agricultural Sciences & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12182 of 2016 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25302 of 2012)
Decided On : 15-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Board of Regents can chose any person placed lower in the merit list but it has to record reasons for doing the same.

Headnote:(a) University law – Statute 30(2) – Select committee recommending names in order of merit – University entitled to appoint a candidate lower in merit as per select list – However, reasons must be recorded for doing so – Giving en bloc precedence to those in possession of additional qualification irrespective of the respective merits and demerits of all other candidates, not permissible. (Para 14, 17)

       ILR 1991 Kar. 14 – Cited with approval

       (b) Administration of justice – Reasons – Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions – A rational nexus must be shown between the facts considered and the conclusions reached – Instantly, held, the relevant provisions of the Statute were fully complied with. (Para 18)

       (c) Statute 30(2) and Articles 14 and 16(1), Constitution of India – Statute 30(2) must be read in consonance with Articles 14 and 16(1) – Board of Regents can chose any person placed lower in the merit list but it has to record reasons for doing the same – Without giving reasons the appointment of a person lower in merit list would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) – Instantly Board of Regents appointing a candidate lower in merit list by giving cogent reasons – No infirmity. (Para 19, 20, 21)

       (2003) 3 SCC 541 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore advertised 3 (three) posts of Assistant Professors in Sericulture. Out of the three vacancies, one was reserved for scheduled caste; one for scheduled tribe and the third in favour of general merit candidate.

       The appellant herein applied for the said post as a general merit candidate.

       The Selection Committee prepared a Select List wherein Shri J. Ashoka-the appellant herein was placed at Serial No. 1 and Shri R. Narasimharaju, Shri K.C. Narayanaswamy and Dr. Fathima Sadathulla were placed at Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

       The Board of Regents prepared a separate list selecting Shri K.C. Narayanaswamy (Serial No. 3 in the Select List) for the post available under the General Category and Dr. Fathima Sadathulla (Serial No. 4 in the Select List) under the roster of reservation.

       The appellant herein and Shri R. Narasimharaju (Serial No. 2 in the Select List) preferred Writ Petitions before the High Court. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions. However, learned single Judge further directed to accommodate Dr. Fathima Sadathulla (Serial No. 4 in the Select List) either against any existing vacancy or by creating a new vacancy.

       The Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeals by setting aside the order passed by learned single Judge only in respect of Dr. Fathima Sadathulla (Serial No. 4 in the Select List) that the candidate may be accommodated against any existing vacancy or by creating a new vacancy. However, Dr. Fathima Sadathulla was permitted to continue in the post till issuance of the fresh appointment order.

       The Board of Regents cancelled the appointments of Shri K.C. Narayanaswamy and Dr. Fathima Sadathulla in the meanwhile. On 26/27.03.1999, while reconsidering the panel, the Board decided to select afresh Dr. (Mrs.) Fathima Sadathulla as Assistant Professor of Sericulture, considering her qualification (Ph.D.), length of regular service as Assistant Professor and also on humanitarian grounds. Based on the decision of the Board of Regents the University again appointed Dr. Fathima Sadathulla.

       The appellant herein preferred before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 17.11.2005, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.

       The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.