Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University - Selection committee – Qualiification - Absence of post doctoral fellowship - It is only prudent for the Court to leave it to the wisdom of the expert body. If the Selection Committee has sought to accept Ext.P23 as sufficient indication of the post-doctoral fellowship, then it is not for this Court to interfere with such acceptance, especially in the absence of any specified guidelines on what are to be treated as fellowship - Discretionary jurisdiction to interfere in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226, is not required to be invoked in the instant case to upset the conclusion of the Selection Committee. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the selection of the 4th respondent, for the post of Associate Professor under the 3rd respondent.

JUDGMENT :

Two pedagogues are fighting amongst themselves for getting appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, an interview was conducted and the 4th respondent was declared as the first rank holder, while the writ petitioner received a close second.

2. By the time the 4th respondent got himself relieved from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and came down to join the 3rd respondent, petitioner had obtained a stay of appointment from this Court in this case. Thus the post of Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, lies unfilled for the last more than two and a half years.

3. Grievance of the writ petitioner is that selection and appointment of the 4th respondent was highly arbitrary and unreasonable, since he lacks the qualification prescribed for the post and failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria, which rendered the 4th respondent even incompetent to participate in the interview, let alone be selected. The writ petition, which initially contained only seven documents as exhibits and five grounds has, by the time it was heard, transformed into a voluminous bundle with a total of sixty six exhibits and several allegations raised as challenges to the selection of the 4th respondent.

4. The grounds raised in the writ petition were very brief and general in nature. The gist of the allegations raised in the writ petition was that the 4th respondent did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed as per the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (for short 'Regulations'). It was pleaded that the Ph.D Degree of the 4th respondent did not satisfy the minimum qualification prescribed since it was not in the same subject as the Master's degree and that it was not recognized by the Mahatma Gandhi University. It was also alleged that the research papers of the 4th respondent had not been published in a single UGC approved journal and that the distribution of marks obtained by the selected candidate therefore was suspect.

5. As mentioned earlier, as the litigation progressed, the scope of the writ was enlarged by repeated filing of affidavits, however without necessary amendments to the pleadings. In the additional affidavits that were filed, either as reply affidavit or as rejoinders, writ petitioner raised contentions relating to the 4th respondent's lack of post doctoral fellowship, lack of minimum API score and the award of marks for his academic background as contrary to the prescribed conditions. No specific allegation of malafides have been pleaded and none have been impleaded in their persona capacity. However, petitioner claims that his credentials are all highly worthy, including his Ph.D from JNU and hence vaunts that he should have been awarded the first rank.

6. The first respondent University filed a statement pleading that the selection committee found the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent as fulfilling the conditions prescribed in clause 4.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and after interview, ranked the 4th respondent as the first rank and the petitioner as the second rank. The proceedings of the selection committee was approved by the Syndicate of the University on 30.06.2018 and it was thereafter that Ext.P6 order appointing the 4th respondent as Associate Professor was issued. The statement further pleaded that the Master's Degree and the Doctoral degree are not insisted by the Regulations to be in the same subject and further that the Ph.D secured by the 4th respondent was in cultural studies which was one of the subjects under the Faculty of Social Sciences and the same was considered as suitable. It was also mentioned that the Ph.D Degree obtained by candidates from Deemed Universities and other recognized Indian Uni