Court should not interfere, when the selection committee along with the expert committee has already decided the post of Assistant professor of a University.

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 27th December 2019

DR. SRIDIP CHATTERJEE vs DR. GOPA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6102 OF 2019

Facts of the Case:

• The respondent-University published an advertisement on November 22, 2012 inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy).
• The qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the said post is Masters in Yoga/Yoga Therapy or Masters in Physical Education with Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy with at least 55% (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed). The appellant applied for the said post and appeared in the selection process with other candidates.
• The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee for an interview on March 26, 2013. He was selected to the said post on March 28, 2013.
• Respondent No. 1 submitted a representation before respondent No.3 challenging the eligibility of the appellant to participate in the selection process as according to respondent No.1, appellant did not fulfil the essential qualification for the said post.
• Subsequently, in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent No. 1 came to know that the appellant had already been appointed to the said post by a letter of appointment dated March 28, 2013.
• Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the appointment of appellant to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy), filed writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta.
• The learned Single Bench of the High Court set aside the appointment of the appellant and held that the duty of the University is to form an Equivalence Committee, which must comprise experts and on the basis of the reports gathered from the institute awarding a certain degree. As it was found that the University has not clarified that the appellant had the requisite qualification to be appointed for the said post as University was required to come to a conclusion that Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education is equivalent to the Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy.
• The court also directed  the university to  take appropriate steps for a fresh selection from amongst the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement in accordance with law.
• Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellant availed the remedy of intra-court appeal. The earned Division Bench dismissed the appeal there was no error in the decision making process of the learned Single Judge in arriving at a conclusion
• Still aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Supreme Court and contended that the directions issued by the learned Single Bench, the University has constituted an Equivalence Committee and has found that the Diploma certificate produced by the appellant satisfies the eligibility conditions, therefore, even if there were some procedural irregularities in not recording the eligibility of the appellant in the initial minutes of the Selection Committee, such irregularities stand cured when the Equivalence Committee considered the appellant eligible for appointment
• The respondents contented through placing reliance upon judgement Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., where it was held that Court could not go into the question whether a degree is equivalent or superior to the qualification

Issue:

• Whether Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education is equivalent to the Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy? Can the court interfere in deciding the equality even after an expert committee’s decision?

Held:

• The court held that the condition of the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. The appellant possesses Diploma in Yoga Education. The Court in exercise of power of judicial review could not come to a conclusion that the Diploma possessed by the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions advertised.
• No doubt, in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it is not recorded that the Diploma possessed by the appellant is equivalent to the educational qualifications advertised but the Selection Committee was comprised of experts in the subjects and, therefore, even if it was not specifically mentioned, the decision could not have been interfered with only because the Court finds that Diploma in Yoga Education is not the same as Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy.
• It was also stated that the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are in respect of change of eligibility criteria midway of the selection process. Such is not the fact in the present case.

• The qualification prescribed in the advertisement remains the same i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. It is only Diploma in Yoga Education which has been considered as equivalent to Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. Not only the Selection Committee has found the appellant suitable but even the Equivalence Committee, constituted in terms of the directions of the learned Single Bench, also found the Diploma of the appellant as the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement.
• Therefore, once the Experts have taken a decision that the appellant meets the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the Court could not have interfered with and set aside the appointment of the appellant.
• It was also seen that the Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a curriculum of Kaivalyadhama to argue that the Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education and Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy are different. We do not find that such curriculum can be relied upon by the respondents to hold that the appellant is not eligible when the committee of experts have found the appellant eligible.
• Consequently, we allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the High Court. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, seniority and pay fixation but will not be entitled to pay for the period he was out of service. No order as to costs.