REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6045 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.14863 of 2007)

B.C. Mylarappa @Dr. Chikkamylarappa     ..Appellant

VERSUS

Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors.          …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. The appellant herein along with two other persons

was appointed to the post of ‘Research Assistant’ in

Sociology  Department,  Bangalore  University  (In

short, “the University”) on or about 18th of October,

1988.  The initial appointment was for a period of

three years provided however that the continuance

of the appointment will be on an year to year basis

1

subject to the report of the Head of the Department

concerned  testifying  to  the  satisfactory  work  and

conduct of the research during the year of review.   

3. In  the appointment  letter,  it  was also  made clear

that the appointment may be extended by one year

at  a  time  for  a  further  period  of  two  years,

depending upon the progress of the research work.

The  Clause  4  of  the  appointment  letter  states  as

under :-

“They will be required to do tutorial work for 3 to 4 hours a week in addition to the research  work  approved  by  the University.”          

4. Clause  9  of  the  appointment  letter  states  as

under :-

“They  should  produce  all  the  original certificates  pertaining  to  their qualifications, date of birth, experience etc. at  the  time  of  reporting  for  duty  to  the Heads  of  the  Department  concerned,  for verification. They should apply for registration for the Ph.d.  Degree  to the Registrar,  Bangalore

2

University,  Bangalore  within  two  months after  reporting  for  duty  to  do  research work on a selected subject and also abide by the regulations for the Ph.d Degree.”

5. On  or  about  12th of  February,  1987,  some

persons, whose tenure appointment as Research

Assistants  was  coming  to  an  end  in  1986-87,

made a representation on 12th of February, 1987

to  the  Chancellor,  Bangalore  University  to

regularize them by promoting/upgrading the post

of Research Assistants.  In their representation,

the  said  persons  submitted  that  during  the

tenure appointments (three years extended to five

years) have acquired sufficient experience in the

field  of  research  and  also  teaching  and  they

would be rendered jobless and put to hardships

if their appointments were terminated at the end

of their tenures.  

3

6. On 31st of October, 1988, the University framed a

draft statute thereby providing for absorption of

Research Assistants as Lecturers as a one-time

measure  and  submitted  it  to  the  State

Government for approval.  By an order dated 19th

of October, 1991, the University directed that in

regard  to  Research  Assistants  who  were

appointed for three years and continued beyond

that period, status quo would be maintained by

continuing their services until  further orders or

until the Government takes a decision in regard

to  proposals  of  their  absorption as lecturers  in

the University.  By a communication/order dated

3rd of  November,  1992,  the  State  of  Karnataka

returned  the  draft  statute  to  the  University

suggesting  some  changes.   Again  on  17th of

February,  1993,  the  University  resubmitted  the

draft Statute after making necessary changes as

instructed by the State Government.  On 4th of

October,  1993, the Chancellor of the University

4

gave  his  assent  to  the  said  Statute  and  the

Statute was called as the “Conversion of certain

posts of Research Assistants to that of Lecturers

and  abolition  of  vacant  posts  of  Research

Assistants in various Departments of Bangalore

University (for short “Statute”)”.

7. The  aforesaid  Statute  was  notified  by  the

Registrar  of  the  University  on 8th of  November,

1993.   The  clauses  which  are  relevant  for  the

purpose of proper decision of this appeal are as

follows :-

“3.1. As  from  the  date  on  which  these Statutes shall come into force the posts of Research  Assistants  as  mentioned  in Annexure ‘A’ to these Statute shall  stand converted to the posts of Lecturer.

3.2.   As  from  the  date  on  which  these Statutes shall come into force all posts of Research Assistants, which are vacant as on 13.11.1992, shall stand abolished and there  shall  be  no  further  appointment of Research  Assistants  in  any  of  the Departments of the University.”

3.4. The Research Assistants holding the post  as  such  and  as  mentioned  in Annexure ‘A’  to these Statutes as on the

5

date on which these Statutes shall  come into force shall be eligible to be absorbed and appointed as Lecturers.   

3.6.   The  Research  Assistants  absorbed and  appointed  under  the  Statutes  as Lecturers  for  the  purpose  of  seniority as Lecturers  will  rank  below  the  Lecturer already  working  in  the  University  as  on the  date  on  which  these  Statutes  shall come into force.”                  

8. In pursuance of the Statute, the Syndicate of the

University passed a Resolution on 18th of March,

1994 thereby absorbing 22 Research Assistants.

9.   In pursuance thereof,  a common appointment

order was issued on 21st of March, 1994 from which

the relevant conditions are as follows :-

“1. For  the  purpose  of  seniority  as Lecturers,  they  will  rank  below  the lecturers already working in the University and temporary lecturers now regularized.   2.  Such of the Research Assistants, who

are  absorbed  as  lecturers  not possessing  Ph.D./Net/M.Phill qualification  shall  acquire  Ph.D.  /Net within a period of 3 years, failing which

6

they  shall  not  earn  their  future increments,  till  they  acquire  above qualifications.   

6. The services as Research Assistants will  not  be  counted  for  the  purpose  of granting senior scale and selection scale of pay.”     

10. By  an  order  dated  4th of  August,  1994,  the

University ordered that the date of appointment of

the  present  appellant  as  Lecturer  in Sociology  be

read as ‘effective from 21.3.1994’.  In the year 1995,

the  present  appellant  and  some  other  Research

Assistants filed writ petitions before the High Court

of Karnataka, which were registered as Writ Petition

Nos.  41710-41786  of  1995,  in  which  the  writ

petitioners made the following prayer :-

“The petitioners therein interalia sought for a declaration that Clause 3.6 and 3.8 of the  Statute  are  illegal  and  ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution; and also for a declaration that Condition Nos. 1 & 6 of the  appointment  order  dated  21.3.1994 are illegal and void.   The  Petitioners  therein  also sought  for  a direction  to  the  University  to  give  the benefits if their past services as Research

7

Assistants for  the purpose of  seniority in their past services as Research Assistants for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of lecturer  and  accord  them  consequential benefits….”             

11. The aforesaid writ petitions were taken up for

final disposal by a learned Single Judge of the High

Court  of  Karnataka,  who  by  his  Judgment  and

order  dated  12th of  April,  2000  allowed  the  writ

petitions in part  inter alia upholding the validity of

Clauses  3.6  and  3.8  of  the  Statute  as  well  as

Condition No. 1 of the appointment order dated 21st

of March, 1994.  Further, it would be evident from

the  Judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  of  the

High  Court  that  the  Condition  No.  1,  as  noted

hereinearlier, of the appointment order dated 21st of

March, 1994 was cancelled.   

12. Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  Judgment

and Order passed by the learned Single Judge, the

writ  petitioners  as  well  as  the  University  and the

8

State  had  preferred  appeals  before  the  Division

Bench of the High Court.  By a Judgment and order

dated 7th of March, 2002, the Division Bench of the

High Court dismissed the appeal  and allowed the

appeals  preferred  by  the  State  as  well  as  by  the

University.   While  passing  such  Judgment,  the

Division Bench made the following conclusions :-

“(i) It has been amply demonstrated that the posts of Research Assistants are lower to the post of lecturers; and  ii) A  Research  Assistant’s  post  cannot

be equated with that of lecturers.”

13.  The University thereafter issued a notification

on  30th of  September,  2002,  inviting  various

persons to apply for the post of Professor,  Reader

and  Lecturer  in  the  University.   In  the  said

notification,  the  University  invited  candidates  for

the  post  of  Professors  in  which  the  following

qualifications were required :-

9

“An eminent scholar with published work of  high  quality,  actively  engaged  in Research with : 10  years  of  experience  of  Post-Graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the  University/National  Level  Institutions (including  experience  of  guiding  research at Doctoral Level).   

Or An  outstanding  scholar  with  established reputation  who  has  made  significant contribution to knowledge.”    

14.   In  response  to  the  said  notification,  various

candidates  including  the  appellant  and  the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 applied for the said post.

The last date of submission of application was 23rd

of October, 2002 on which date, the appellant had

completed 8 years, 7 months and 2 days i.e. from

21st of March, 1994 to 23rd of October, 2002.  The

Chairman,  Department  of  Sociology,  submitted  a

“Scrutiny  and  Verification  Report”.   In  the  said

report, it was stated as under :-

10

“….on my scrutiny, I am satisfied that the candidate  under  reference  fulfills  all  the requirements,  as  laid  down  in  the University Notification under reference and the  candidate  may  be  invited  for  the interview. If  the  candidate  is  not  eligible,  please furnish the details.”        

15.  From this Scrutiny and Verification Report, it

appears that the Chairman found only four persons

eligible  for  the  post  and  invited  the  appellant,

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one other person for

interview.  A  Board  of  Appointment  in  Sociology

Department  of  University  was  constituted  by  a

notification dated 30th of September, 2002 and the

Board assembled for selection of candidates for the

post  of  Professor  in  Sociology.   The  Board  of

Appointment selected the following persons in the

order of merit :-

1. Dr. Chikkamylarappa    (appellant herein) 2. Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah (respondent No.1 herein) 3. Dr. C. Somashekar     (respondent No.2 herein) 4. Dr. I. Maruthi

11

16. Challenging  this  selection,  the  respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before  the High

Court seeking for a writ declaring the selection and

appointment of appellant to the post of Professor in

the  Department  of  Sociology.   In  the  said  writ

petition,  the   appellant  filed  its  written  objection

and University also had filed its objection.  On or

about  18th of  June,  2003,  the  appellant  was

appointed by an appointment order as a Professor

in  the  Department  of  Sociology.   It  would  be

pertinent  to  mention  that  although  during  the

pendency  of  the  writ  petition,  the  appointment

order of the appellant was issued by the University,

but  such  appointment  order  was,  however,  never

challenged in the writ application even by way of an

amendment to the writ petition in which the only

challenge was against the selection of the appellant.

By a Judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2007,

12

the  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  had

allowed  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondent

Nos.  1  and  2  herein  and  thereby  directed  the

University  to  readvertise  the  post  and  fill  the

vacancy in accordance with law within a period of

three months from the date of  reply of the order.

While  setting aside  the selection of  the  appellant,

the learned Single Judge,  inter  alia,  concluded as

follow:-  

(1) The writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 and 2

confined their challenge only to one aspect i.e.

whether the appellant possessed the minimum

qualification as required.

(2) The  appellant  could  claim  to  be  a  Lecturer

only with effect from 21st of March, 1994 and

not prior to it.   

(3) In view of the Judgment and order dated 7th of

March,  2002,  it  would  not  be  permissible  to

13

reckon  the  services/experience  rendered  by

the  appellant  as  Research  Assistant  in  the

University as a Lecturer in the same.   

(4) Taking  the  said  dates  into  account,  the

appellant  did  not  possess  the  stipulated

qualification set out in the notification i.e. 10

years of experience in post-graduate teaching

or the alternative.  The appellant was selected

with  reference  to  the  number  of  years  of

teaching  and  not  with  reference  to  the

qualification that he was an eminent scholar

with research experience and publications etc.

(5) The appellant was ineligible for appointment to

the  post  of  Professor  in  the  Sociology

Department of the University and hence could

not  have  been appointed.   His  selection and

appointment,  therefore,  was  arbitrary  and

illegal.   

(6) The  writ  petition  survived  for  consideration

despite the superannuation of the respondent

14

No.  1  herein  and  non-short  listing  of

respondent No. 2.   

17.     It is in this view, the learned Single Judge

came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  selection  was

improper,  arbitrary  and illegal  and,  therefore,  his

appointment ought to be cancelled.  Being aggrieved

by the Judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2007,

the  appellant  preferred  a  writ  appeal  before  the

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court.   The  Division

Bench of the High Court, by its Judgment and final

order  dated  6th of  August,  2007  dismissed  the

appeal  preferred by the appellant  inter alia  on the

following findings:-

“(i)   The question whether the appellant’s experience  can  be  treated  as  research experience  was  not  considered  by  the Board  of  Appointment.   It  was not  clear how the Board of  Appointment found the appellant eligible.   (ii)  The  question  was  whether  the experience  of  the  appellant  as  Research Assistant can be treated as equivalent to post-graduate teaching experience.

15

(iii)   The High Court in its Judgment and order dated 7.3.2002 had taken the view that the post of  Research Assistants was not  equal  to  the  post  of  Lecturer. Therefore,  the  experience  as  Research Assistants  could  not  be  treated  as equivalent  to  post-graduate  teaching experience.”

18. Accordingly,  on  the  aforesaid  grounds,  the

Division  Bench,  by the aforesaid order,  dismissed

the  appeal  of  the  appellant  against  which,  the

appellant filed this Special Leave Petition in respect

of  which leave  has  already  been  granted  and the

appeal  was  heard  in  presence  of  the  learned

counsel for the parties.

19. We have heard Mr.Rama Jois, learned senior

counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  and

Mr.Hrishikesh  Baruah,  learned  counsel  appearing

for  the  respondents  and  also  examined  the

impugned judgment of the Division Bench as well

as of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ

16

application in depth and in detail.  Before  us, Mr.

Rama  Jois,  learned  senior  counsel  at  the  first

instance submitted that the High Court ought not

to have interfered with the decision of the Board of

Appointment  which  comprised  of  experts  for

selection to the post of Professor in the University

as it was not for the court to go into the question

whether  such  selection  was  proper  or  not  in  the

absence of any pleading that either the Expert Body

of the University or the University Authorities had

acted  mala  fide  in  the  matter  of  selection  of  the

appellant. Secondly it was argued by Mr.Rama Jois,

learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  the

High Court also erred in allowing the writ petition of

the  respondents  by holding that  having regard to

the wording of the prescription both the periods of

experience in teaching as Lecturer for a period of 8

years  7  months  and  2  days  and  experience  as

Research Assistant for a period of 5 years 5 months

and 10 days ought to have been taken into account

17

and after taking into account the aforesaid period,

the  High  Court  ought  to  have  held  that  the

appellant  was  eligible  for  being  selected  as  a

Professor  in  the  Sociology  Department  of  the

University  and  by  not  doing  so,  the  High  Court

erred  in  setting  aside  the  appointment  of  the

appellant.  In  support  of  this  contention,  learned

senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  had  drawn  our

attention to a decision of this Court in the case of

Dr.Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University & Ors.

[1999  (1)  SCC  453]  and  argued  that  this  case

squarely  covered  the  case  of  the  appellant  which

was also relied on by the appellant before the High

Court, but the High Court had failed to take notice

of  that  decision.  Reliance  was  also  placed  by  the

learned senior counsel for the appellant in the case

of The University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao

& Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491] and National Institute

of  Mental  Health  &  Neuro  Sciences  vs.

Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC

18

481].  Accordingly,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellant concluded that in view of the settled law

and the law laid down by this Court particularly in

Dr.Kumar  Bar Das (supra),  the  judgments  of  the

Division  Bench  as  well  as  of  the  learned  Single

Judge  are  liable  to  be  set  aside.  The  learned

counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents,  however,

refuted the submissions so made on behalf of the

appellant. According to the learned counsel for the

respondent,  the  Division  Bench  as  well  as  the

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  were

perfectly justified in holding that the experience of

the  appellant  as Research Assistant  could  not  be

treated  as  equivalent  to  Post  Graduate  teaching

experience and the question whether the experience

of  the  appellant  could  be  treated  as  Research

experience  was  not  considered  by  the  Board  of

Appointment of the University. Let us now deal with

the question raised by the learned counsel for the

parties.  As quoted herein earlier  that requirement

19

for selection in the post of Professor in the Sociology

Department of the University, 10 years experience

in  Post  Graduate  teaching  and/or  experience  in

Research in the University was necessary. It is not

in dispute that the appellant had 9 years of service

as  Lecturer  and  had  done  Research  work  for  5

years. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that

he had satisfied that he had got the experience of

10 years in Post Graduate  teaching experience  in

Research in the University. It is also not in dispute

that  the  Board  of  Appointment  of  the  University

consisted  of  the  persons,  who  were  experts

academician as Head,  found the appellant eligible

for  such  appointment,  after  scrutinizing  the

experience required for appointment to the post of

Professor  in  the  said  Department.  He  was

interviewed  along  with  others  by  the  Board  of

appointment  of  the  Expert  Body and found to be

eligible  for  appointment.  The  Syndicate  of  the

University,  which  also  consisted  of  Academic

20

experts  had  passed  a  resolution  approving  the

appointment  of  the  appellant  as  Professor.  This

appointment of the appellant was challenged on two

grounds. Before we go into the two grounds, we may

keep  it  on  record  that  it  was  the  stand  of  the

University  before  the  High Court  as  well  that  the

appellant was duly qualified for appointment to the

post  of  Professor.  The  learned  Single  Judge  while

allowing  the  writ  petition  of  the  respondents,

however,  reckoned the service  of  the appellant as

Lecturer,  but ignore to consider the experience  of

the  appellant  as Research Assistant.  It  cannot be

disputed  that  these  two  experiences,  namely,

experience as Lecturer and experience as Research

Assistant, if counted, the eligibility of the appellant

for appointment to the post of Professor could not

be questioned. In Dr. Kumar Bar Das (supra), this

court  in  detail  had  considered  this  aspect  of  the

matter and in the said decision, this Court observed

that  the  opinion  of  experts  in  the  Selection

21

Committee must be taken to be that the appellant’s

teaching  and  Research  experience  satisfied  the

above  conditions  of  10  years  as  mentioned  for

appointment to the post of Professor. In that case,

this  Court  at  para  27  at  page  462  observed  as

follows :

“  In our  view, having  regard  to  the high qualifications  of  the  experts  and  the reasons  furnished  by  the  Syndicate  as being  the  obvious  basis  of  the  experts’ opinion, the Chancellor ought not to have interfered with the view of the experts. The expert’s views are entitled to great weight as stated in University of Mysore’s case.”  

20. In Para 28 of the said decision, this Court also

observed :  

“In  our  opinion,  the  Chancellor  cannot normally  interfere  with  the  subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert  body unless  mala fides  or other  collateral  reasons  are  shown.  In Neelima  Misra  case  above-referred  to, this  Court  observed,  referring  to  the powers of the Chancellors in matters of appointment  of  Professors/Readers  as

22

being  purely  administrative  and  not quasi-judicial.”

21. Following the principles  laid down in  Kumar

Bar Das vs.  Utkal University  (supra), this Court

also in the case of G.N.Nayak vs. Goa University &

Ors. [2002 (2) SCC 712] considered this aspect of

the matter and held at para 27 which are as follows:

“A  candidate  can  club  together  his qualification  of  teaching  and  research  to cover  the  10  years’  period  as  has  been held  in  Kumar  Bar  Das  (Dr.)  vs.  Utkal University.”

22. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this

Court,  as  noted  herein  earlier,  which  extensively

dealt with the requirement to the post of Professor

in the University, we need not dwell in depth and in

detail any further and therefore, we must hold that

the  appellant  had  satisfied  the  qualifications

required for appointment to the post of Professor in

23

the  University.  There  is  another  aspect  of  this

matter which is also relevant for proper decision of

this appeal. We have already indicated earlier that

the  Board  of  Appointment  was  constituted  with

experts  in  this  line  by  the  University  Authorities.

They have considered not only the candidature of

the appellant and his experience as a Lecturer and

Research Assistant along with others came to hold

that  it  was  the  appellant  who  was  the  candidate

who could satisfy the conditions for appointment to

the post of Professor. Such being the selection made

by the expert body, it is difficult for us to accept the

judgments of the High Court when we have failed to

notice any mala fides attributed to the members of

the  expert  body  in  selecting  the  appellant  to  the

said  post.  In  University  of  Mysore  vs.

C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491], this

Court while dealing with the selection of candidates

for  academic  matters  by  a  Board  of  Experts

appointed by the University for the post of Reader

24

and the recommendation of the Board, this Court at

Para 13 of the aforesaid decision observed:-

“Boards  of  Appointments  are  nominated by  the  Universities  and  when recommendations made by them and the appointments  following  on  them,  are challenged  before  courts,  normally  the court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the  experts  who  constituted  the  present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the court to leave the decisions  of  academic  matter  to  experts who are more familiar with the problems they face that the courts generally can be. The  criticism  made  by  the  High  Court against  the  report  made  by  the  Board seems  to  suggest  that  the  High  Court thought that the Board was in the position of  an  executive  authority,  issuing  an executive fiat,  or was acting like a quasi- judicial  tribunal,  deciding  disputes referred  to  it  for  its  decision.  In  dealing with complaints made by citizens in regard to  appointments  made  by  academic bodies,  like  the  Universities,  such  an approach  would  not  be  reasonable  or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ, the High Court has made certain observations which  show that the  High  Court applied tests which would legitimately be applied in  the  case  of  writ  of  certiorari.  In  the judgment,  it  has been  observed  that the error  in  this  case  is  undoubtedly  a manifest  error.  That  is  a  consideration

25

which is more germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari. What the High  Court  should  have  considered  is whether  the  appointment  made  by  the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard  to  the  opinion  expressed  by  the Board  &  its  recommendations  on  which the  Chancellor  has  acted.  In  this connection,  the  High  Court  has failed  to notice  one  significant  fact  that when the Board  considered  the  claims  of  the respective  applicants,  it  examined  them very  carefully  and  actually  came  to  the conclusion that none of  them deserved to be  appointed  a  Professor.  These recommendations  made  by  the  Board clearly  show  that  they  considered  the relevant  factors  carefully  and  ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant No. 2 should  be  recommended  for  the  post  of Reader.  Therefore,  we  are  satisfied  that the  criticism  made  by  the  High  Court against the Board and its deliberations is not justified.”  

23. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show

any mala fides attributed against the members of

the  Expert  Body of  the University.  The  University

Authorities had also before the High Court in their

objections to the writ petition taken a stand that the

26

appellant  had  fully  satisfied  the  requirement  for

appointment. In this view of the matter and in the

absence of any mala fides either of the expert body

of the University or of the University Authorities and

in  view  of  the  discussions  made  herein  above,  it

would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High

Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its

recommendations  cannot  be  said  to  be  illegal,

invalid and without jurisdiction.

24. Again in  M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors.  vs. Union

Public Service Commission & Ors. [2008 (2) SCC

119], this Court clearly held that in the absence of

any mala fides attributed to the expert body, such

plea is usually raised by an interested party (in this

case  the  unsuccessful  candidate)  and,  therefore,

court  should  not  draw  any  conclusion  on  the

recommendation  of  the  expert  body  unless

allegations  are  substantiated  beyond  doubt.  That

27

apart,  the challenge  to the selection made by the

expert  body  and  approved  by  he  University

Authorities was made by the respondent Nos. 1 and

2 who were unsuccessful candidates and were not

selected for appointment to the post of Professor in

the Department of Sociology.     

25. In  National  Institute  of  Mental  Health  &

Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors.

[1992 Supp (2) SCC 481], this Court considered in

detail  the  role  of  an  expert  body  in  deciding  the

candidature for selection to a particular post. While

doing so, this Court at Para 7 at P. 484 of the said

decision observed as follows:

“In the first place, it must be noted that the function  of  the  Selection  Committee  is neither  judicial  nor  adjudicatory.  It  is purely  administrative.  The  High  Court seems  to  be  in  error  in  stating  that the Selection  Committee  ought  to  have  given some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as  against  the  other  candidate.  The selection  has  been  made  by  the assessment  of  relative  merits  of  rival

28

candidates determined in the course of the interview  of  candidates  possessing  the required  eligibility.  There  is  no  rule  or regulation  brought to  our  notice  requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons. In  the  absence  of  any  such  legal requirement  the  selection  made  without recording  reasons  cannot  be  found  fault with.  The  High  Court  in  support  of  its reasoning  has,  however,  referred  to  the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan  Lai  Capoor.  That  decision proceeded  on  a  statutory  requirement. Regulation  5(5)  which  was considered in that case required the Selection Committee to  record  its  reasons  for  superseding  a senior  member  in  the State Civil  service. The decision in Capoor case was rendered on  26  September,  1973.  In  June,  1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the requirement  of  recording  reasons  for  the supersession of senior officers of the State Civil  services.  The  Capoor  case  cannot, therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition that there should be reason formulation  for  administrative  decision. Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural  justice  do  not  require  an administrative  authority  or  a  Selection Committee  or  an  examiner  to  record reasons for  the selection or  non-selection of  a  person  in  the  absence  of  statutory requirement.  This  principle  has  been stated by this Court in R. S. Dass v. Union of  India in  which  Capoor  case  was also distinguished.”

29

26. Keeping  this  observation  in  our  mind  and

considering  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the

present case, we find that there was no dispute in

this  case  that  the  selection  was  made  by  the

assessment  of  relative  merit  of  rival  candidates

determined  in  the  course  of  the  interview  of  the

candidates  and  after  thoroughly  verifying  the

experience and service of the respective candidates

selected the appellant to the post of the Professor in

the said Department. It is not in dispute that there

is  no  rule  or  regulation  requiring  the  Board  to

record  reasons.  Therefore,  in  our  view,  the  High

Court was not justified in making the observation

that from the resolution of the Board selecting the

appellant for appointment, no reason was recorded

by the Board.  In our view, in the absence  of any

rule  or  regulation  requiring  the  Board  to  record

reasons and in the absence of mala fides attributed

against  the  members  of  the  Board,  the  selection

30

made  by  the  Board  without  recording  reasons

cannot be faulted with.

27. Before  we conclude,  at the risk of repetition,

we may reiterate that the Chairman, Department of

Sociology,  University  of  Bangalore  submitted  his

scrutiny  and  verification  report  in  which  it  was

stated as under:

“On my scrutiny, I am satisfied that the candidate under reference fulfils all  the requirements  as  laid  down  in  the University  Notification  under  reference and the candidate may be invited for the interview. If the candidate is not eligible, please furnish the details.”  

28. A  reading  of  the  scrutiny  report  which  was

extracted by the learned Single Judge in his order

would clearly show that the Chairman found only

four  persons  eligible  for  the  post  and  invited  the

appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one

more candidate  for interview.  After  being satisfied

and after verifying the report  of the eligibility and

31

the  requirements  for  appointment  to  the  post  of

Professor  in  the  Sociology  Department  of  the

University, the scrutiny and verification report was

filed by the Chairman and on the basis of which the

appellant was selected and appointed in the post of

Professor in the University. That being the position

and in view of our discussions made herein above,

we are of the view that the Division Bench as well

as  the  learned  single  judge  ought  not  to  have

exercised  the writ  jurisdiction and interfered  with

the  selection  of  the  expert  committee  of  the

University for  the reasons made in the order and

particularly when the selection of the appellant was

not challenged on the ground of mala fides.

29. For the reasons aforesaid,  we are inclined to

set aside the orders of the High Court. Accordingly

the impugned orders of the High Court are set aside

and  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondents  is

hereby rejected.   In view of the fact that we have

32

already found that the appointment of the appellant

is legal, the University is directed to re-instate the

appellant  within  two  months  from  the  date  of

supply  of  a  copy  of  this  order.  The  appeal  is

allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

 …………………….J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi;        …………………….J. October 03, 2008.                [Harjit Singh Bedi]

33