Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 63
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay And Mr. Justice Arunabha Basu
BIDHAN CHANDRA KRISHI VISWAVIDYALAYA - Appellant
Versus
GURUPADA SARKAR - Respondent
M. A. T. 1907 Of 2004
Decided On : 02/06/2007
AMLAN KUMAR MUKHERJI, Kamalesh Jha, KASHI KANTA MAITRA, P.S.BOSH, P.S.DEB BARMAN, PRALOY KAR, Satyajit Talukdar, SHARADA PARMAR, SUBHAJIT DAN
The Selection Committee, authorized to assess candidates' academic attainments and merits for promotion to the post of Professor, must record reasons for its decisions, especially when a candidate fulfills the eligibility criteria and secures a higher score than other recommended candidates.
Headnote:
BIDHAN CHANDRA KRISHI VISWAVIDYALAYA ACT, 1974 - SECTION 33(4) - STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY - CLAUSES 8, 9, 14 - CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEME - PROMOTION TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR FROM READER - ROLE OF SCREENING COMMITTEE AND SELECTION COMMITTEE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION. 1. The Screening Committee is limited to scrutinizing self-appraisal forms and other testimonials to ascertain whether candidates fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria. It cannot assess candidates' merits in the absence of subject experts. 2. The Selection Committee, with the help of subject expert members, is authorized to assess the fitness, efficiency, and merits of candidates seeking promotion or appointment to the post of Professor. 3. The Selection Committee must evaluate candidates' academic attainments and achievements while deciding their fitness, efficiency, and merits. 4. The Selection Committee must record reasons for its decisions, especially when a candidate fulfills the eligibility criteria and secures a higher score than other recommended candidates. 5. Superimposing a condition outside the scope of the Career Advancement Scheme and relevant rules while assessing candidates on the basis of academic attainments is not permissible. 6. The Selection Committee's decisions can be quashed for want of transparency and non-furnishing of valid and proper reasons while assessing candidates' merits. 7. In exceptional circumstances, the court may not quash the entire selection process to protect the interests of those already promoted based on the Selection Committee's recommendations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant University implemented a Career Advancement Scheme for promoting Readers to Professors based on eligibility criteria and a selection process involving a Screening Committee and a Selection Committee. The petitioner, a Reader, fulfilled the eligibility criteria and secured a higher score than other candidates but was not recommended for promotion by the Selection Committee. The petitioner challenged the Selection Committee's decision, arguing that it failed to consider his academic attainments and did not provide valid reasons for not recommending him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Selection Committee was authorized to evaluate candidates' academic attainments and assess their fitness, efficiency, and merits. However, the Selection Committee in this case failed to discharge its duties appropriately, did not record any opinion on assessing individual merits, and did not indicate any shortcomings regarding the petitioner's academic attainment. The court found that the Selection Committee's decisions were not supported by adequate reasons and were not in accordance with the relevant rules and scheme.
Issues: 1. Whether the Selection Committee was empowered to consider candidates' academic attainments under the Career Advancement Scheme. 2. Whether the Selection Committee's role was limited to simply verifying the Screening Committee's report. 3. Whether the Selection Committee could supersede a candidate with a higher score without providing valid reasons. 4. Whether the Selection Committee's decisions could be quashed for lack of transparency and valid reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Selection Committee, comprising subject experts, is authorized to assess candidates' academic attainments and merits while deciding their fitness for promotion to the post of Professor. 2. The Selection Committee must record reasons for its decisions, especially when a candidate fulfills the eligibility criteria and secures a higher score than other recommended candidates. 3. Superimposing a condition outside the scope of the Career Advancement Scheme and relevant rules while assessing candidates on the basis of academic attainments is not permissible.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Selection Committee's decisions regarding the assessment of candidates and their recommendations for promotion to the post of Professor due to lack of transparency and non-furnishing of valid reasons. However, considering the interests of those already promoted based on the Selection Committee's recommendations, the court directed the University to comply with the directions of the lower court and grant the petitioner the benefits of promotion to the post of Professor.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred from the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2004 passed by the learned Single judge whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the University authorities to promote the writ petitioner to the post of Professor.
( 2 ) THE main issues raised in the instant appeal on behalf of the appellants are summarised hereinbelow : -
(i) Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that there was no scope of taking into consideration the "academic attainment" of the candidates by the Selection Committee? (ii) Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the Selection Committee was only empowered to simply see whether the report of the screening committee is in accordance with the rule and the rule does not permit the Selection Committee to further evaluate the candidates on the ground of "academic attainment"? (iii) Whether the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the role of the screening committee as well as Selection Committee? (iv) Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in granting relief nullifying the selection process even without having any challenge to the selection process?
( 3 ) THE University authority by a Notification dated 24th July, 2000 prescribed a scheme whereby applications were invited from the intending candidates for being placed to the post of professors from the post of reader upon fulfilling certain objective conditions under a scheme known as "career Advancement Scheme".
( 4 ) THE prescribed eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of professor from Reader in terms of the aforesaid Notification dated 24th july, 2000 are reproduced hereinbelow : -
"professor from Reader. (i) A Reader with minimum 8 (eight) years of service in the rank of Reader or seventeen (17) years of total service including those in the rank of Lecturer, Sr. Lecturer and Reader will be eligible for promotion to professor post. (ii) Participation and presentation in two (2) seminars/ conference in the subject area or two (2) refresher courses to be offered by ICAR/saus/ other institute of repute of 3-4 weeks duration. Contribution to teaching/research/extension education or others to enrich academic environment as specified in Self Appraisal form. (iii) Submission of Self Appraisal Form. "
( 5 ) IT has also been mentioned in the said notification that a candidate seeking promotion from the post of Reader to Professor should score atleast 40 points (cumulative ). In the said notification it has been specifically clarified that cumulative point means the points earned during the total period of service i. e. 40 points to be scored for promotion of a reader to Professor from the period of Lecturership to the date of claim for Professorship. In the said notification, the mode of distribution of points has also been mentioned.
( 6 ) THE writ petitioner submitted an application pursuant to the aforesaid notification with supporting documents and claimed that in terms of the said Notification secured 112 points while the requirement of score for promotion to the post of Professor from Reader is only 40 points. Pursuant to the said notification dated 24th July, 2000, minimum 40 points should be scored for promotion to the post of Professor from Reader and the writ petitioner although claimed 112 points but ultimately the screening committee awarded 84 points to the said writ petitioner. It has been specifically urged on behalf of the writ petitioner that three teachers even after securing lesser marks than the said writ petitioner have been promoted to the post of Professor although the writ petitioner was denied such promotion in spite of better academic records.
( 7 ) THE selection process for promotion from the post of Reader to professor is a three-tier system consisting of Screening Committee, selection Committee and finally the Executive Council of the University. Self appraisal forms
