Rule D.B. CM No.15360/2007 (Stay)

1. By an order dated 5th November, 2007, a Division Bench of this Court had granted stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 27th August, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2064/2006.

2. The short controversy in this case relates to the selection of a Professor in the National Council of Educational Research and Training (for short NCERT). The post is described as Professor, Department of Education Survey and Data Processing and the pay scale is Rs.16,400 Rs.22,400.

3. In terms of the criteria laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the eligibility is as follows: An eminent scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research with ten years experience in post-graduate teaching and/or research at the University/national level institution including experience of guiding research at doctoral level in Social Work.

4. The advertisement by NCERT mentions that the post carries the responsibility of providing leadership for national level surveys conducted by the NCERT from time to time. An incumbent must have in-depth knowledge of survey methodology and statistical techniques necessary for large scale research in social sciences, which have a bearing on education. The educational qualifications and experience were those prescribed by the UGC.

5. It appears that NCERT received as many as 20 applications for the post and a process of short listing was carried out as a result of which Dr. V.P. Singh (Respondent No. 1) was not called for the interview and Dr. Sridhar Srivastava (Respondent No.2) was selected. Thereupon, Dr. Singh filed an Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the selection of Dr. Srivastava.

6. The Tribunal has taken two factors into consideration while allowing the application of Dr. Singh. Firstly, it found that the constitution of the Selection Committee was improper in as much as one Dr. R.N. Mehrotra was not a specialist in the field for which the selection was to be made and secondly, the short listing criterion fixed was alien to the eligibility criteria laid down by the UGC. Because of this alien criterion, Dr. Singh was erroneously not short listed or called for the interview.

7. In so far as the first factor is concerned, namely, the expertise of Dr. R.N. Mehrotra, we find that the Tribunal has mentioned in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its order that the specialist must have an in-depth knowledge of statistical techniques and would require expertise in the field of statistics. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that Dr. R.N. Mehrotra was lacking in experience or expertise in data processing.

8. The qualifications of Dr. R.N. Mehrotra have not been discussed by the Tribunal although it has been mentioned that he is a specialist in Research Methods, Educational Measurement and Evaluation as well as Teacher Education.

9. We have been told by learned counsel for NCERT that Dr. R.N. Mehrotra is on the panel of specialists of the NCERT. That being so, we have to assume that NCERT, which is by itself an expert body, is aware of the expertise of Dr. R.N. Mehrotra and when it put him on the Selection Committee, it had taken his experience and expertise into consideration.

10. It is not at all clear from the impugned order of the Tribunal how it came to the conclusion that Dr. R.N. Mehrotra does not have any experience or expertise in data processing. We are of the opinion that in a case such as the present, the Tribunal ought to have deferred to the view of the expert body in this regard, that is, NCERT. We may mention, only for the record, that NCERT has stated in the writ petition filed by it, that Dr. R.N. Mehrotra is a renowned educationist and is considered as an expert in the field of education and educational measurement and survey not only in this country but worldwide. He has to