Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 733
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, V.BHASKARA RAO
N.Nagabhushanam - Appellant
Versus
M.Vasudeva Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 08-08-96
The constitution of a Selection Committee and the selection process are valid even if one member is absent, and the Selection Committee is not obligated to give reasons for selecting or rejecting candidates unless the statute provides for it. The High Court's power of judicial review in matters of selection is limited to cases of gross violation of statutory principles or grave injustice or violation of law.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY SELECTION COMMITTEE - CONSTITUTION - U.G.C. MEMBER ABSENCE - VALIDITY - SELECTION PROCESS - REASONS FOR SELECTION - OBLIGATION - ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
Sri Venkateswara University issued advertisements for the posts of Lecturers/readers/professors in different disciplines. Petitioners applied for the posts of Readers in Bio-chemistry and Geography. The Selection Committee conducted interviews and appointed the 4th respondent as Readers. Petitioners challenged the selections alleging that the constitution of the Selection Committee was illegal as no representative of the Union Grants Commission (U.G.C.) was sent, and that the selections were not proper as no reasons were given for selecting the candidates.
Finding of the Court:
1. The constitution of the Selection Committee is valid and the selections made by it are legal. The absence of one member of the Selection Committee, in this case, the U.G.C. member, does not invalidate the selection process. 2. The Selection Committee is not obligated to give reasons for selecting or rejecting candidates unless the statute provides for it. In this case, there is no such rule requiring the Selection Committee to provide reasons. 3. The High Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the selections made by the Selection Committee unless there is a gross violation of statutory principles or grave injustice or violation of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the constitution of the Selection Committee is valid despite the absence of a U.G.C. member? 2. Whether the Selection Committee is obligated to give reasons for selecting or rejecting candidates? 3. What is the scope of judicial review in matters of selection by a Selection Committee?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The constitution of the Selection Committee is valid even if one member, in this case, the U.G.C. member, is absent. The Act does not require the presence of all members for the Selection Committee to be properly constituted. 2. The Selection Committee is not obligated to give reasons for selecting or rejecting candidates unless the statute provides for it. In this case, there is no such rule requiring the Selection Committee to provide reasons. 3. The High Court, while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the selections made by the Selection Committee unless there is a gross violation of statutory principles or grave injustice or violation of law.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeals are allowed, and the Writ Petitions are dismissed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
( 1 ) WRIT Appeal No. 574/95 is filed by the 4th respondent and W. A. No. 584/95 is filed by the 1st respondent-Srivenkateswara University, inw. P. No 3498/89. W. A. No,575/95 is filed by the 4th respondent and W. A. No. 585/95 is filed by the 1st respondent-Sri Venkateswara University in W. P. No3227/89. All the four Writ Appeals are filed by the appellants aggrieved by the Common judgment dated 6-4-1995, allowing the above two Writ Petitions.
( 2 ) THE parties will be referred io as they are arrayed in the Writ Petitions.
( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that Sri Venkateswara University issued two advertisements dated 15-5-1986 and 3-11-1988 respectively, calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the posts of Lecturers/readers/ professors in different disciplines. The petitioners applied for the posts of readers in Bio-chemistry and Geography respectively. The qualifications prescribed for the posts of Readers are (1) good academic record with a Doctoral degree or equivalent published work; (2) Evidence being actively engaged in research or innovation in teaching methods or production of teaching materials; and (3) five years experience Of teaching and/or research, provided that atleast three of these years were as Lecturer or in an equivalent position. The petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee on 23-1-1989. The interviews were completed and afterwards the selected candidates were appointed as Readers i. e. , R-4 in both the Writ Petitions were appointed as readers of the concerned subjects. Aggrieved by the said selections the petitioners filed the present W rit Petitions. Both the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent are qualified to appear in the interview for the Readers posts. There is no dispute about the qualifications, except the dispute regarding the service of the petitioner in W. P. No. 3227/89 as Lecturer.
( 4 ) IN the Writ Petitions it is mainly contended that the constitution of the selection Committee is illegal as no representative of the Union Grants commission (U. G. C.) was sent and therefore, the Selection Committee has got initial lack of jurisdiction.
( 5 ) IT is contended that the selections made are not proper as the wife of the 3rd respondent, a Selection Committee Member, was doing Ph. D. under the 4th respondent, therefore the same is vitiated by the mala fide action. It is further contended that the selections made are not proper as no reasons are given for selecting the candidates or considering the merits and demerits of the candidates who appeared for the interview. Number of other grounds are also taken but the learned Single Judge has considered only the two questions i-e. , whether constitution of the Selection Committee is valid or not, and secondly, whether the selections made are vitiated for not giving reasons for selecting the candidates. On both the points, the learned Single Judge held that the constitution of the Selection Committee is not valid as the representative of u. G. C. was not present as Member of the Selection Committee and consequently the selections made are illegal, and further held that the Selection committee has not given any reasons while considering the merits and demerits of the candidates and therefore, the selections are vitiated. The learned single Judge also held that the allegation of mala fide action against the 3rd respondent that his wife is doing Ph. D. under the 4th respondent (Dr. P. R. Parthasarathi) is not proved and in the counter filed the University stated that though the wife of the 3rd respondent registered for Ph. D. work for some time, but discontinued later since two years, therefore, the said allegation is not proved.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said common Judgment, the present Writ Appeals are filed by the 4th respondent in both the Writ Petitions and Sri Venkateswara university.
( 7 ) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the selection Committee is properly con
