Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Pradipta Ray
BASABI BHATTACHARYA - Appellant
Versus
JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY - Respondent
W. P. 7714 (W) Of 2003
Decided On : 03/08/2004
UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENT - ELIGIBILITY - OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SELECTION COMMITTEE - REASONING - TRANSPARENCY - UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) NORMS - WRIT PETITION: 1. A University or its Selection Committee cannot deviate from its own prescribed eligibility criteria and select an ineligible person. 2. Consideration, selection, and appointment of an ineligible candidate by any authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is per se illegal, arbitrary, unfair, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court should not normally interfere with the selection made by an expert Selection Committee in academic bodies if the prescribed decision-making process has been substantially followed and principles of fair play adhered to. However, the Court can intervene if there is a substantial and important question regarding the eligibility of the selected candidate. 4. The Court can interfere with the decision of a Selection Committee if it is hit by the 'wednesbury principles of unreasonableness', which means that the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. 5. The Selection Committee is not required to record reasons in support of its decision in all cases, but it is desirable to do so to ensure transparency, objectivity, and to eliminate subjectivity or extraneity. Absence of reason may not by itself vitiate an otherwise valid and lawful decision, but it makes the order/decision more vulnerable to allegations of extraneous consideration, non-application of mind, and arbitrariness. 6. Acceptance of a candidate without the required experience as 'outstanding' and treating him as an exception to the general rule must be founded upon an intelligible and acceptable basis. Any decision by way of exception to a general rule or ordinary course of events should be informed with reasons justifying the adoption of an exceptional course. 7. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Professor. An outstanding scholar is one who has established himself or herself (and is recognized and acclaimed by reputation) as a scholar of repute both at National and International levels by virtue of his/her exceptional contribution both in teaching and research published in peer-referred Journals of National and International repute. 8. In the present case, the Selection Committee selected a candidate who did not have the requisite teaching experience for the post of Professor, but considered him to be an outstanding scholar with established reputation and significant contribution to knowledge. However, there was no material on record to support this claim, and the Selection Committee did not record any reasons for regarding the candidate as 'outstanding'. Therefore, the selection of the candidate was set aside as it was hit by the 'wednesbury Principles of Unreasonableness'. 9. Since the petitioner had been selected as the second candidate in order of preference by the Selection Committee and the Executive Council of the University, the Court directed the University to consider the question of appointing the petitioner to the disputed post of Professor and take the necessary decision within one month.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Reader in the Department of Economics at Jadavpur University, challenged the selection of another candidate, respondent No. 4, for the post of Professor of Applied Economics (Financial Economics) at the University. The petitioner had more than 21 years of teaching experience and several publications, while respondent No. 4 had only 7 years of teaching experience and fewer publications. The Selection Committee had selected respondent No. 4 as the first candidate and the petitioner as the second candidate, and the Executive Council of the University had accepted this recommendation. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 4 was ineligible for the post as he did not have the requisite teaching experience and was not an 'outstanding scholar' as required by the eligibility criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that respondent No. 4 did not have the requisite teaching experience for the post of Professor and was not an 'outstanding scholar' as required by the eligibility criteria. The Court held that the Selection Committee had not recorded any reasons for regarding respondent No. 4 as 'outstanding', and that there was no material on record to support this claim. The Court also held that the Selection Committee was not justified in considering respondent No. 4 as an exception to the general rule regarding teaching experience without recording any reasons for doing so.
Issues: 1. Whether respondent No. 4 was eligible for the post of Professor of Applied Economics (Financial Economics) at Jadavpur University? 2. Whether the Selection Committee was justified in selecting respondent No. 4 as the first candidate, despite his lack of teaching experience and absence of any record of being an 'outstanding scholar'?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A University or its Selection Committee cannot deviate from its own prescribed eligibility criteria and select an ineligible person. 2. Consideration, selection, and appointment of an ineligible candidate by any authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is per se illegal, arbitrary, unfair, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court should not normally interfere with the selection made by an expert Selection Committee in academic bodies if the prescribed decision-making process has been substantially followed and principles of fair play adhered to. However, the Court can intervene if there is a substantial and important question regarding the eligibility of the selected candidate. 4. The Court can interfere with the decision of a Selection Committee if it is hit by the 'wednesbury principles of unreasonableness', which means that the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. 5. The Selection Committee is not required to record reasons in support of its decision in all cases, but it is desirable to do so to ensure transparency, objectivity, and to eliminate subjectivity or extraneity. Absence of reason may not by itself vitiate an otherwise valid and lawful decision, but it makes the order/decision more vulnerable to allegations of extraneous consideration, non-application of mind, and arbitrariness. 6. Acceptance of a candidate without the required experience as 'outstanding' and treating him as an exception to the general rule must be founded upon an intelligible and acceptable basis. Any decision by way of exception to a general rule or ordinary course of events should be informed with reasons justifying the adoption of an exceptional course. 7. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Professor. An outstanding scholar is one who has established himself or herself (and is recognized and acclaimed by reputation) as a scholar of repute both at National and International levels by virtue of his/her exceptional contribution both in teaching and research published in peer-referred Journals of National and International repute.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the selection of respondent No. 4 as Professor of Applied Economics (Financial Economics) at Jadavpur University and directed the Executive Council of the University to consider the question of appointing the petitioner to the post within one month.
( 1 ) JADAVPUR University issued an advertisement being its Employment Notification No. A/2/c/7/2002 inviting application for appointment to various teaching posts including the post of Professor of Applied Economics (Financial Economics) at serial No. 1 (b) (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed post' ). For the disputed post prescribed essential and desirable qualifications were : qualification Essential: For the posts of Sl. No. 1 (b) to 1 (d ). An eminent scholar with published 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 Institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level. OR an outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge. For the post of Applied Economics post Graduate degree in Economics or related relevant disciplines. Desirable: For the post of Sl. No. 1 (b)proven ability to teach Economics Theory, relevant to Financial Economics at the PG Level and conduct research in Financial Economics. Specialisation : For the post of Sl. No. 1 (b ). Applied Economics (Financial Economics ).
( 2 ) IN response to the said Employment Notice the writ petitioner Dr. Basabi Bhattacharya, a Rader in the Department of Economics, Jadavpur University, and respondent No. 4, Dr. Anajan Chakraborty, a Reader in the Department of Economics of Calcutta University, among others, applied for the disputed post. The Selection Committee constituted for the disputed post in its meeting held on April 8, 2003 recommended the names of the respondent No. 4 and the writ petitioner placing respondent No. 4 at Serial No. 1 and the writ petitioner at Serial No. 2 in order of preference. The said recommendation of the Selection Committee was sent to the Executive Council of the Jadavpur University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') for acceptance. Against such selection of the respondent No. 4 the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Chancellor of the University complaining that the respondent No. 4 was not eligible to be considered. The said representation was sent to the Executive Council by the Chancellor for consideration. Before placing the said representation before the Executive Council the Vice-Chancellor referred the same to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts. The Dean sent a reply that the Selection Committee regarded the respondent No. 4 as an outstanding scholar and selected him although he did not have the required teaching experience. The Executive Council in its meeting held on April 16, 2003 accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment to the disputed post. In this writ petition the writ petitioner has challenged the said selection for the disputed post of Professor.
( 3 ) DR. Basabi Bhattacharya, the writ petitioner has pointed out that Dr. Anjan Chakravorty, the respondent No. 4 did not have the requisite teaching experience and was not eligible to be considered for the disputed post. Admittedly, Dr. Chakravorty had only seven years' teaching experience in the University and minimum experience required for the disputed post was ten years' experience in Post-Graduate teaching including experience of guiding research at doctoral level. However, an outstanding scholar with established reputation who made a significant contribution to knowledge was also entitled to be considered and no minimum experience was prescribed for such an outstanding scholar.
( 4 ) MRS. Chameli Majumdar, learned Advocate appearing for the Jadavpur University has submitted that the impugned selection having been made by a duly constituted Selection Committee with experts in the field, this Court should not sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee. According to her the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and there being no irregularity therein, this Court should not interfere w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
