Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4335
Delhi High Court
Pradeep Nandrajog, Mukta Gupta, JJ.
TD Muralidharan - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Resopndent
LPA 983/2011
Decided On : 16-10-2015
For the Appellant :Mr.Dinesh Agnani, Sr.Adv. instructed by Mr.Piyush Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
The selected candidate should be fit for appointment, and the appointing authority can deny appointment for legitimate reasons.
Headnote:
Appointment - Reader (Research & Publication) - AIR 1991 SC 1612, (1993) 1 SCC 154, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230 - The court discussed the legal principles established in the cases of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., and R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, emphasizing the candidate's fitness for appointment and the appointing authority's right to deny appointment for legitimate reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant applied for the post of Reader (Research & Publication) at the Vidyapeeth. After being recommended by the Selection Committee, the appointment was initially approved but later withheld due to alleged deficiencies in the appellant's qualifications and publications. The Chancellor of the Vidyapeeth, after seeking opinions from outside scholars, held that the appellant was not eligible for the position and directed re-advertisement of the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's appointment was rightfully declined due to justifiable reasons, despite being recommended by the Selection Committee.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's eligibility for the position of Reader (Research & Publication), the legitimacy of the decision to withhold the appointment, and the subsequent dismissal of the appellant's writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principles established in the cases of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., and R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, highlighting the candidate's fitness for appointment and the appointing authority's right to deny appointment for legitimate reasons.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision to decline the appellant's appointment as Reader (Research & Publication) at the Vidyapeeth.
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. By this application the appellant seeks to bring on record the subsequent events in the Vidyapeeth particularly with regard to mismanagement. However, during the course of arguments, no such grounds are pressed.
2. The application is dismissed as not pressed.
LPA 983/2011
1. Advertisement seeking applications for appointment to various teaching posts including Professors and Readers were published by the respondent No. 2 Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth (in short the Vidyapeeth) in January 2004. The appellant Dr. T.D. Muralidharan applied for the post of Reader (Research & Publication) for which the eligibility conditions were:
“1. Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these candidate who join from outside the university system, shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master’s Degree level in the relevant field.
2. Five years experience of teaching and/or research (in the relevant field) excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curriculum.”
2. The advertisement also prescribed that it was desirable for the post of Reader (Research & Publication) to have:
“(a) Knowledge of textual criticism and manuscriptology
(b) Knowledge of printing and publishing of Sanskrit texts.”
3. Pursuant to the advertisement interviews of the candidates were held on March 12, 2004 when as claimed by the appellant all the originals were checked. After the interview the Selection Committee recommended a panel for appointment of Reader (Research & Publication) wherein Dr. T.D. Muralidharan was placed at Serial No. 1. The Selection Committee constituted of the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Vachaspati Upadhyaya as well as Prof. Ramesh Kumar Pandey. On April 15, 2004 in the 51st meeting of the Karya Parishad recommendations of the Selection Committee for appointment of the appellant to the post of Reader (Research & Publication) was accepted and the offer of appointment letter was also signed by the Registrar and sent to the dispatch section where it was duly endorsed. However on April 16, 2004 the offer of appointment order was called back from the dispatch postal Dak Register by the Registrar of the Vidyapeeth and was kept in abeyance. It is the case of the respondent/Vidyapeeth that a Sub-Committee was constituted which resolved on September 18, 2004 to reject the selection of the appellant which resolution was approved by the Karya Parishad in its 54th meeting held on October 25, 2004. The reason for keeping the appointment in abeyance was a letter received on April 16, 2004 which informed that Dr. T.D. Muralidharan neither submitted the relevant research and published material nor produced the published book before the Selection Committee and he did not possess the requisite qualification.
4. The appellant filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 15197/2004 which was disposed of vide order dated March 24, 2007 and it was directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 i.e. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (Retd.), Chancellor of the Vidyapeeth. The Chancellor of the Vidyapeeth after treating the writ petition as representation and after giving oral hearing to counsel for Dr. T.D. Muralidharan and the counsel for the Vidyapeeth referred the publication, published research papers and articles of Dr. T.D. Muralidharan to three outside scholars who rendered their opinion on the basis of which the Chancellor held:
“After reviewing all related documents/papers and the opinions of the three experts, I am of the opinion that Dr. Muralidharan is not eligible for appointment to the post of Reader (Research & Publication) as his publications do not show any quality
