http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. SAILABALA PADHI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Division Bench  of the  Orissa High  court, made  on September 11, 1996 in O.J.C No. 8420 of 1993.      The  admitted  position  is  that  the  respondent  had applied  for   selection   to   the   post   of   professor, Environmental Science.   The  Selection committee on January 31, 1992  interviewed 13  candidates and  found none  to  be qualified  for   appointment  to   the  post  of  Professor, Environmental Science.   The matter was referred to the sub- committee of  the syndicate  which by  its proceedings dated June 22,  1992 opined  that since the respondent had secured 44 out of 90 marks,  she was be eligible for appointment and accordingly the matter was  referred to the Chancellor under first proviso  to section  21(2) of  the Orissa Universities Act. 1989  (for short,   the  ’Act’)    The  Chancellor (the Governor  of  Orissa)    directed  re-advertisement  as  per opinion of  the Expert  committee by  its proceedings  dated January 15,   1993 Pursuant there to , another advertisement was issued  on October 16,  1993 for recruitment to the post of Professor  in Environmental  Science.  The  qualification desired  was   Master’s  degree  in  Botany  or  Zoology  or Environmental Biology.   The  respondent questioned  the re- advertisement of the post in question. The High Court in the impugned judgment has directed appointment of the respondent within four  weeks from  the date  of the  judgment.  We are informed that pursuant to the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent,  appointment of the respondent came to be made.      It  is   contended  by   Mr.  Misra,   learned  counsel appearing for  the appellants  that   the Expert body is the competent committee  to opine as to who is qualified and fit to be  selected as  professor in Environmental Science which requires  Environmental   Biology.  The  High  Court  cannot evaluate the  relative requisite  qualification and  come to its own  conclusion as  to who would be fit for appointment. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contends  that the  advertisement made  does not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

relate to  Environmental Biology ; it requires only master’s degree in  Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology. Since the respondent  possessed master’s  degree  in  Botany  with requisite experience  in the  field, she, having secured 414 marks out  of 90,  is entitled to be considered for the post and the       competent authority has no power to direct re- advertisement of  the post.  The High  court was, therefore, right in  giving direction  to  appoint  the  respondent  as Professor in Environmental Biology.      Having  regard   to  the   respective  contentions  the question that  arises for  consideration is whether the High court   is justified in evaluating whether the respondent is qualified to  be appointed as Professor. Section 21 reads as under:      "Appointment of officers,  teachers      and   other    employees   of   the      University.           (1)  All   officers   of   the      University excepting the Registrar,      and  the   Comptroller  of  Finance      shall be appointed by the concerned      Vice     Chancellor      on     the      recommendation   of   a   selection      Committee   consisting    of    the      Director, the Registrar, one member      to be  selected by the Syndicate of      such University  from  amongst  the      remaining members  of the  and  two      experts appointed  by the said vice      Chancellor wherever necessary.           (2)   The    teachers   of   a      University shall  be  appointed  by      the syndicate of that University on      the recommendation  of a  selection      committee   consisting    of    the      concerned  vice   Chancellor,   the      Director,   an expert  nominated by      the  Chancellor   in  the  case  of      appointment of Professor, and three      experts selected  by the  said vice      chancellor from  out of the list of      six experts  furnished by  the said      Syndicate, which shall not include-           (i)  any   teacher   of   such      University  or   of  any   of   its      constituent or affiliated colleges;      or           (ii) any  person who  has been      an examiner  of such  University in      the  preceding  or  the    relevant      year.           Provided   that    where   the      committee   fails   to   make   any      specific recommendation   or  where      the  syndicate   differs  from  the      recommendation    made    by    the      committee,  the   matter  shall  be      referred to  the  chancellor  whose      decision thereon shall be final."      It is  not in dispute that an Expert Committee has been constituted to  select the  candidates.    The  Expert  Body consists  of   Vice-Chancellor,      Berhampur   University; Director,  Higher  Education,  Orissa;    Professor,    Anna University,   Quindy; professor,   school  of  Environmental Science, Cochin University, Visakhapatnam.  They have opined

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

as under:      "13  candidates   were  called  for      interview   out    of   which    10      candidates  appeared   before   the      selection committee  and they  were      interviewed.         Taking    into      consideration    the    candidates;      career,   research    publications,      teaching  experience,  confidential      character roll  and performance  at      the Viva-voce  test,  the selection      committee recommends no one for the      professor     of      Environmental      science."      The   Vice-Chancellor,  after taking into consideration the opinion expressed by the expert selection committee, has opined as under:      "(2) For  the post  of Professor of      Environmental Science,   Dr. (Smt.)      Sailabala Padhy,  who  has  secured      the highest marks in the interview,      does not  have   specialisation  in      Environmental science either at the      P.G.  stage   or  at  the  Doctoral      stage. However,  she passed M.Sc in      Botany   with   specialisation   in      Algology,  securing a Ist class and      did Ph.  D. in  Algology. According      to the  proposal submitted  to  the      UGC for  the  8th  plan,    it  was      indicated  that   the   specialised      course    (Ph.D/M.     Phil)     in      Environmental  science   shall   be      started  as  an  inter-disciplinary      course      of       Botany/Zoology      Departments. and  for this  purpose      the Professor and the Reader should      be  from  the  Botany  and  Zoology      streams.       the   Sub-Committee,      therefore, suggested    that    the      syndicate might consider  referring      her case  to the  Chancellor for  a      decision under  the Ist  proviso of      section  21   (2)  of   the  Orissa      Universities Act, 1989.           The  recommendations   of  the      selection committee  and the report      of  the   syndicate   sub-committee      thereon,   alongwith    the   above      observations of  the  syndicate  be      referred  to   the  Chancellor   fr      consideration/decision."      The Syndicate in its Resolution stated as under:      "The Chancellor  has  further  been      pleased to order that the Berhampur      University should re-advertise  the      following  vacancies   as  per  the      required     stipulations     viz.,      qualification,     experience   and      specialisation etc."      (i)     xx      xxxxx           xx      (ii)  Professor   of  Environmental      Science.      xx               xx."      In the  light of these factual and legal situation, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

question that  arises for consideration is: whether the High Court would  be justified  in directing  appointment of  the respondent ?  It is  seen that,   admittedly  the respondent possessed Master’s  degree in  Botany with specialisation on the subject  of Algology.  Even among her articles published in various  journals we  come across,  only two articles are on  Environmental  science  but  the    experience  referred therein relates  to other subjects.  Obvious, therefore, the Expert Body  was to  select a  candidate  for  professor  in Environmental  science  from  amongst    the  candidates  by adjudging whether  a candidate  is fit  for   appointment as professor.  It   is  true  that  the  Syndicate  thought  it justified that  if respondent  should have the qualification in one  of the  subjects namely;  master’s degree in Botany, she would  be preferred  as a  candidate since Environmental science shall be started as a candidate since  Environmental science shall  be started  as  interdisciplinary  course  of Botany/zoology and  for that  purpose  the  professor/Reader should be  from the  Botany and  Zoology streams.  Under the first proviso  to sub-section  (2) of section 21 , the order of the  Chancellor shall  be final  and that  therefore, the opinion expressed  by the  sub-committee  of  the  Syndicate loses its sanctity. In  the selection of Professor/reader or an y other teacher with specified qualifications,  it is for the Expert  Body to  go into the merit and competency of the candidates for  selection to  the posts advertised for.  No. doubt, in  the advertisement,  Environmental science was not specifically mentioned  but it  is not   in    dispute  that Botany and  Zoology being the integral part of Environmental science,   necessarily the  syndicate is  enjoined to select candidates having  the needed  qualification and  experience for the  post of  professor in  Environmental  science  with master’s  degree   in  Botany,    Zoology  or  Environmental science. Thus,   it  could be  seen that  the authority  was competent to  evaluate the  merit of  the candidates and the Expert Body   came to its own conclusion that the candidates securing 44 marks out of 90 should be passed for appointment to the  post. The chancellor having had the advantage of the report of  the Expert  Body, obviously  was not  inclined to agree with the sub-committee of the Syndicate to appoint the respondent  as  Professor  and  accordingly,  he  has  given direction in  accordance with the rules for re-advertisement of the post of Professor in Environmental Science.  The High court was,  therefore,  manifestly in error in directing the appointment of  the   respondent.   The re-advertisement  is accordingly in  accordance  with  the  rules.    Ms.  Indira Jaising has  prayed  that  since  the  respondent  has  been appointed, she  may be  allowed to  continue in  the post of Professor,   Environmental Science.   Having  noted that the Expert Body  has  not  selected  her,  we  cannot  give  any Positive direction  for her  continuance till  the selection for the post of Professor in Environmental science is made.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.