http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: MRS.  REKHA CHATURVEDI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1993

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (1) 186        1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 168  JT 1993 (1)   220        1993 SCALE  (1)93

ACT: Service Law: University--Appointment  of Assistant  Professors--Requisite qualifications--Whether to be considered as on the last date for  submission  of  applications  or  as  on  the  date  of selection--Guidelines  for  future  selection  process--Laid down.

HEADNOTE: The   Respondent   University   invited   applications   for appointment to 10 posts of Assistant Professors.  Out of 112 applications  received, the Screening Committee  recommended 106 candidates for being Interviewed and found the remaining 6  applicants  ineligible.   However,  only  65   candidates appeared for the interview. 6 candidates were selected  from the  general category-, and 2 from the Reserved Category.  5 candidates  Including  the  petitioner were  placed  on  the waiting list. As  per  the  advertisement,  a  candidate  should  have   a doctorate degree or research work of equally high  standard, and  good  academic  record  with  atleast  a  Second  Class Master’s Degree.  The lack of doctorate degree could be made up  by  either  research work of equally  high  standard  or M.Phil with two years research work.  Except in the case  of Respondent No.10, who had a doctorate degree as on the  last date  for submission of applications, the qualifications  of other selected candidates had to be relaxed by the  Scrutiny Committee. The  petitioner  challenged  the  appointment  of  the   six selected  candidates from the general category,  before  the High Court, but was not successful.  Being aggrieved by  the High Court’s judgment, the petitioner preferred the  present Special Leave Petition. On behalf of the Respondent-University it was contended that since  at the time of selection Respondent Nos. 5 and 4  had obtained their doctorate degrees they could be said to  have fulfilled the qualifications; 187 that  since respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were registered for  Ph. D.  in  1982, by the time of the selection they had  put  in research work connected with their thesis and on the date of selection,  they had about 3 years’ experience  in  research

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

work; that respondent No.8 had good academic record both  in MA  and  B.A.  and the Scrutiny Committee  could  under  the Ordinance relax the qualifications as admittedly  sufficient number  of  candidates  with  doctorate  degrees  were   not available;  and  that even the petitioner did not  have  the doctorate  degree;  that  the candidates  had  already  been appointed in February 1985 and they have been working  since then  and  some of them were also due for promotion  to  the higher  posts in the near future; and that their  record  of teaching  so far has been excellent and unblemished  and  so their  selection  need not be interfered with at  this  late stage. Dismissing  the Special Leave Petition and laying  down  the guidelines for future selection process, this Court, HELD  : 1. In the absence of a fixed date indicated  in  the advertisement/notification   inviting   applications    with reference  to which the requisite qualifications  should  be judged,  the  only  certain date for  the  scrutiny  of  the qualifications  will  be  the  last  date  for  making   the applications.  Therefore, when the Selection Committee  took into  consideration the requisite qualifications as  on  the date  of  selection  rather  than  on  the  last  date   for preferring  applications, it acted with  patent  illegality, and  on  this ground itself the selections in  question  are liable to be quashed.  However, the selected candidates have been  working in the respective posts since  February  1985. Almost eight years have elapsed.  ’Mere is also no record to show  as  to how the Selection Committee  had  proceeded  to weigh  the respective merits of the candidates and to  relax the  minimum qualifications in favour of some candidates  in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in it under  the University  Ordinance.  If the considerations which  weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite  qualifications were  valid, it would result in injustice to those who  have been  selected.   For  these  reasons,  this  Court  is  not inclined  to set aside the selections made by the  Screening Committee. [195H, 196A-E] A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors., (1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District  Collector JUDGMENT: Society)  Vizianagaram  & Anr. v. M. Tripura  Sundari  Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237, relied on. 188 2.   It is necessary to emphasise and bring to the notice of the Respondent-University that the illegal practices in  the selection  of candidates which have come to light and  which seem to be followed usually at its end must stop  forthwith. For this purpose the following guidelines are laid down  for the future selection process:               (i)   The   University  must  note  that   the               qualifications  it  advertises for  the  posts               should   not   be  at  variance   with   those               prescribed by its Ordinance/Statutes. [196F]               (ii)  The   candidates   selected   must    be               qualified  as  on  the last  date  for  making               applications  for the posts in question or  on               the  date to be specifically mentioned in  the               advertisement/notification  for  the  purpose.               The qualifications acquired by the  candidates               after  the said date should not be taken  into               consideration, as that would be arbitrary  and               result   in   discrimination.   It   must   be               remembered        that        when         the               advertisement/notification represents that the               candidates  must  have the  qualifications  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

             question, with reference to the last date  for               making  the applications or with reference  to               the  specific date mentioned for the  purpose,               those  who do not have such qualifications  do               not  apply for the posts even though they  are               likely  to acquire such qualifications and  do               acquire  them  after the said  date.   In  the               circumstances,  many  who would  otherwise  be               entitled  to  be considered and  may  even  be               better  than  those  who  apply,  can  have  a               legitimate  grievance since they are left  our               of consideration. [196G,H, 197A-B]               (iii) When  the  University or  its  Selection               Committee   relaxes   the   minimum   required               qualifications,  unless  it  is   specifically               stated in the advertisement/notification  both               that  the qualifications will be  relaxed  and               also  the  conditions on which  they  will  be               relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal.               [197C]               (iv)  The University/Selection Committee  must               mention  in its proceedings of  selection  the               reasons  for  making relaxations, if  any,  in               respect  of  each of the candidates  in  whose               favour relaxation is made. [197D]               189               (v)   The  minutes  of  the  meetings  of  the               Selection Committee should be preserved for  a               sufficiently  long time, and if the  selection               process  is challenged until the challenge  is               finally  disposed of An adverse  inference  is               liable   to  be  drawn  if  the  minutes   are               destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not               available. [197E-F]

& CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6324 of 1992. From  the  Judgment  and  Order  dated  20.11.1991  of   the Rajasthan  High Court in D.B. Civil Spl.  Appeal No. 226  of 1991. S.K. Jain for the Petitioner. Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lallta Kohli (For M/s Manoj Swarup &  Co.) and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: By   this  petition,  the  petitioner  has  challenged   the appointment  of  six respondents from  General  Category  as Assistant  Professors  (Lecturers)  in  the  Department   of History in the University of Rajasthan. 2.   The    University   invited   applications    by    its advertisement  dated 12.10.1983 for appointment to 10  posts of  Assistant  Professors (Lecturers).  The  last  date  for submitting  applications  was  14.11.1983. Out  of  112  ap- plications   received,   the  Scrutiny  Committee   of   the University on 25.4.1984 recommended 106 candidates for being interviewed,  the remaining six being found  ineligible  for the  posts.  Out of the 106 candidates so recommended,  only 65  candidates  appeared  for interview, out  of  which  the Scrutiny Committee selected 8 candidates who are respondents 5 to 12 before us.  Out of the 8, two were earmarked for the reserved posts.  We are not concerned with the selection  of the  said two candidates under the reserved  category.   The Scrutiny   Committee  also  placed  five  other   candidates

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

including the present petitioner on the waiting list. 3.   The minimum qualifications for appointment to the  post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) as laid down by  Ordinance 149-B of the Handbook of the University of Rajasthan,  Part- II, Volume-I are as follows: 190               "141-B  The  following shall  be  the  minimum               qualifications for University teachers in  the               Faculties   of   Arts.   Fine   Arts,   Social               Sciences, Commerce and Science :-               A.    Minimum        qualifications        for               Lecturers/Research Associates in the Faculties               of Arts, Social Sciences, Science and Commerce               :               [Except  in  the subjects of  English,  Modern               European Languages, Physical Education, Health               Education   &  Sports  Journalism   and   Home               Science];               a.    A  Doctorate degree or research work  of               an equally high standard; and               b.    Good  academic  record with at  least  a               second  class  (C in the  seven  point  scale)               Master’s degree in a relevant subject from  an               Indian University or an equivalent degree from               a foreign University having regard to the need               for  developing interdisciplinary  programmes,               the  degree  in (a) and (b) above  may  be  in               relevant  subjects.   Provided  that  if   the               Selection  Committee is of the view  that  the               research work of a candidate as evident either               from his thesis or from his published work  is               of  a very high standard, it may relax any  of               the qualifications prescribed in (b) above:               Provided   further   that   if   a   candidate               possessing  a Doctorate degree  or  equivalent               research  work  is  not available  or  is  not               considered  suitable,  a person  possessing  a               good academic record (weightage being given to               M.Phil. or equivalent degree or research  work               of  quality) may be appointed provided he  has               done  research work for at least two years  or               has   practical  experience  in   a   research               laboratory/organisation on the condition  that               he  will have to obtain a Doctorate degree  or               give  evidence  of research of  high  standard               within eight years of his appointment, failing               which  he  will  not be able  to  earn  future               increments    until    he    fulfills    these               requirements."               Although   these   were   the   qualifications               required  by  the  University  Ordinance,  the               advertisement inviting applications stated the               following               191               qualifications as necessary for being eligible               to the posts :               "ASSISTANT PROFESSORS (LECTURERS): (Except  in               the   subject  of  Drawing  &   Painting   and               Dramatics,  Education, Management studies  and               English).               (a)   A Doctorate’s degree or research work of               an equally high standard and               (b)   Good  academic  record  with  at   least               second  class  (C in the  seven  point  scale)               Master’s degree in a relevant subject from  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             Indian University or/equivalent degree from  a               foreign University.               Having  regard  to  the  need  for  developing               interdisciplinary  programmes, the degrees  in               (a)   and  (b)  above,  may  be  in   relevant               subjects:               Provided that if the selection committee is of               the view that the research work of a candidate               as evident either from his thesis or from  his               published  work is of very high  standard,  it               may relax any of qualifications prescribed  in               (b) above.’               Provided   further   that   if   a   candidate               possessing  a  Doctor’s degree  of  equivalent               research  work  is  not available  or  is  not               considered  suitable,  a person  possessing  a               good  academic record, (weightage being  given               to  M.Phil. or equivalent degree  or  research               work of quality) may be appointed provided  he               has done research work for at least two  years               or  has  practical experience  in  a  research                             laboratory/organisation on the condition  that               he  will have to obtain a Doctor’s  degree  or               give  evidence  of research of  high  standard               within eight years of his appointment  failing               which  he  will  not be able  to  earn  future               increment until he fulfils these requirements.               EXPLANATION               For  determining  ’good academic  record’  the               following criteria shall be adopted :-               (i)   A  candidate,  holding  a  Ph.D.  degree               should possess at least               192                a second class Master’s degree; or               (ii)  A  candidate  without  a  Ph.D.   degree               should  possess a high second  class  Master’s               degree  and  second class  in  the  Bachelor’s               degree; or               (iii)a  candidate  not.  possessing  Ph.    D.               degree  but possessing second  class  Master’s               degree should have obtained first class in the               Bachelor’s degree.               2.    Persons  having secured marks more  than               the mid point of the prescribed minimum  marks               for  passing  an  examination  in  the  second               division and the prescribed minimum marks  for               passing  an examination in the first  division               by a university shall be deemed to have passed               that examination in the high second class’. It  will  be  apparent that there was a  divergence  in  the qualifications as per the University Ordinance (as quoted in the  written submissions on behalf of respondent No. 5)  and the qualifications as per the advertisement as stated in the rejoinder of the petitioner since in particular the Explana- tion  does not find place in the Ordinance.  The  University itself has produced before us neither the Ordinance nor  the advertisement  issued.   In  the absence of a  copy  of  the relevant Ordinance, however, it is not possible to say as to whether  the qualifications mentioned in  the  advertisement were at variance with those mentioned in the  advertisement. Be that as it may. 4.   It  will  thus be obvious from the requirement  of  the aforesaid   qualifications,  that  on  the  last  date   for submitting  the applications, a candidate applying  for  the said  posts  should have had (a) doctorate  Degree  (in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

relevant  subject),  or  research work of  an  equally  high standard  (in the relevant subject), and (b)  good  academic record with at least a second class Master’s Degree (in  the relevant subject).  However, if the Selection Committee  was of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either  from his thesis or from his published work was of  a very. high standard, the Scrutiny Committee could relax  the qualification that the candidate should have had at least  a doctorate  Degree  or  research  work  of  an  equally  high standard  and  good academic record with at least  a  second class   Master’s   Degree.   Secondly,  if   the   candidate possessing a doctorate degree or 193 equivalent  research  work  was not  available  or  even  if available, was not suitable, the candidate possessing a good academic  record (preferably M.Phil or equivalent Degree  or research work of quality) could also be appointed provied he had  done  research  work  for at least  two  years  or  had practical experience in a research  Laboratory/Organisation. However,  this  relaxation could be given on  the  condition that  the candidate would obtain a doctorate Degree or  give evidence of research of high standard within eight years  of his   appointment.   If  he  did  not  satisfy  the   second requirement,  all  that  he  could be  visited  with  was  a handicap that he would not be able to earn future increments until he fulfilled the said requirement.  It is,  therefore, obvious that a doctorate Degree was not a must and the  lack of  doctorate  Degree  could be made up  by  either  of  the qualifications  laid  down above.  None  of  the  candidates except  respondent  No.10 who had applied and  appeared  for interview (including the petitioner) possessed the doctorate Degree  by the last date of submitting the applications  for the posts. The   six  candidates  from  the  general   category   whose appointment is challenged before us and who are  respondents 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 before us had on the relevant date the following   qualifications   according   to   the   Scrutiny Committee: ------------------------------------------------------------ S.I  Name  Respon-  Doctorate Published Good Good    2year No.     dent No. Degree   works of   Record Record  research                               high      No.  no.                             Standard ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Dr.(Miss)    11   No.      No.    Yes     Yes    No. santosh Sharma    (Awarded                   on 4.1.85) 2.Shri Krishna  6    No.     No.     Yes     Yes    No. Gopal Sharma 3. Dr.(Mrs.)   10    Yes     No.     Yes     Yes    Yes Vibha Updhyaya 4.(Miss)Saroj   7    No.     No.     Yes     Yes    No. Sharma 5.Dr.Shyam      5    No.     Yes     Yes     No.    Yes Singh             (Awarded Ratnawat         on 14.12.84) 6.(Miss)        8    No.     No.     Yes     Yes     No. Pramila                           (Passed Sharma                           M.A in 1982) ----------------------------------------------------------- 194 It  is  apparent  that respondent No.  5  had  no  doctorate Degree.   He  had good academic record in M.A. but  did  not have  good  record  in B.A. He had published  work  of  high

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

standard  and also two years’ research work to  his  credit. Respondent  No.6 had no doctorate Degree.  He had,  however, good academic record both in M.A. and B.A.; but had  neither any  published work of high standard nor two years  research experience, to his credit.  Respondent No.7 had no doctorate Degree.  She had, however, good academic record both in M.A. and R.A. She had not published work of high standard nor had she two years’ research work to her credit.  Respondent  No. 8 had no doctorate Degree.  She had, however, good  academic record  both in MA. and B.A. though she did not have to  her credit  published  work of high standard  nor  two  research work.  Respondent No.10 had doctorate Degree and also a good academic  record  both  in  M.A.  and  BA.   She  had   also experience  of two years research work though there  was  no published  work of high standard to her credit.   Respondent No.11  had  no  doctorate Degree.  She  had,  however,  good academic  record both in M.A. and B.A. She had no  published work  of  high standard or two years’ research work  to  her credit. It  is on record that respondent Nos. 5 and 11 were  awarded doctorate  Degree  on 14.12.1984 and  4.1.1985  respectively which  is of course irrelevant since the qualifications  had to be judged with reference to the last date for  submitting the applications for the posts. Thus   except   in  the  case  of  respondent   No.10,   the qualifications  of the other selected candidates had  to  be relaxed  by  the scrutiny Committee.  However, there  is  no record  of  the  minutes of the  meetings  of  the  Scrutiny Committee  to show whether and in what manner  the  Scrutiny Committee   had   applied  its  mind   and   relaxed   their qualifications.   The  affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the University shows that the minutes, if kept, were destroyed. It was sought to be argued by Shri Manoj Swarup on behalf of the  University  that since at the time  of  the  selection, respondent  Nos.  5  and 11  had  obtained  their  doctorate Degrees   they   could  be  said  to  have   fulfilled   the qualifications.  He also argued that since respondent Nos. 6 and  7 were registered for Ph.D. on 22.1.1982 and  26.5.1982 respectively,  by the time of the selection they had put  in research  work connected with their thesis and  in  February 1985,  viz., the date of selection, they had about 3  years’ experience  in research work.  As regards respondent No.  8, she had good 195 acadamic  record  both  in M.A. and  BA.  and  the  Scrutiny Committee could under the Ordinance relax the qualifications as  admittedly  sufficient  number of  candidates  with  the doctorate Degree were not available.  He also urged in  this connection  that  even  the  petitioner  did  not  have  the doctorate Degree.  He further submitted that it was open  to the Scrutiny Committee to weigh the over-all  qualifications of  the candidates and relax the required qualifications  in favour  of the deserving and suitable candidates  which  the Scrutiny  Committee  did or should be deemed to  have  done. The Scrutiny Committee was a high power Committee and  after interviewing   65  candidates,  it  had  selected   only   8 candidates  and had placed them in the order of merit.   The Court  should  not,  therefore,  interfere  with  the   said selection.   He further pointed out that the candidates  had already  been appointed in February 1985 and they have  been working eversince till date.  Some of them are also due  for promotion  to  the higher posts in the near  future.   Their record   of   teaching  so  far  has  been   excellent   and unblemished.  Whatever may be the defects in the selections, this  Court  may  not interfere with  the  said  process  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

selection at this late stage. 5.The contention that the required qualifications of  the candidates should be examined with reference to the date  of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected.  The date of  selection  is invariably uncertain.  In the  absence  of knowledge  of  such date the candidates who  apply  for  the posts  would be unable to state whether they  are  qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the  qualifications.   Unless the advertisement  mentions  a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be  judged,  whether  the  said  date  is  of  selection  or otherwise,  it would not be possible for the candidates  who do  not  possess the requisite qualifications  in  praesenti even to make applications for the posts.  The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those  candidates  who  do not have  the  qualifications  in praesenti  and  are likely to acquire them at  an  uncertain future  date,  may  apply for the posts  thus  swelling  the number  of applications.  But a still worse consequence  may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for  malpractices. The  date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as  to entertain  some applicants and reject  others,  arbitrarily. Hence,  in  the  absence of a fixed date  indicated  in  the advertisement/notification   inviting   applications    with reference  to which the requisite qualifications  should  be judged,  the  only  certain date for  the  scrutiny  of  the qualifications  will  be  the  last  date  for  making   the applications.  We have, 196 therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the  selection Committee  in  the  present case, as argued  by  Shri  Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date  of preferring  applications, it acted with  patent  illegality, and  on  this ground itself the selections in  question  are liable to be quashed.  Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service  Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarat Chandra  & Ors.,  (1990)  4  SLR  235  and  The  District  Collector  & Chairman,  Vizianagaram (Social Welfare  Residential  School Society)  Vidanagaran  & Anr. v. M.  Tripura  Sundari  Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237. 6.However,  for  the  reasons which follow,  we  are  not inclined  to set aside the selections in spite of  the  said illegality.   The selected candidates have been  working  in the  respective  posts since February 1985.  We are  now  in January  1993.  Almost eight years have elapsed.   There  is also  no  record before us to show as to how  the  Selection Committee  had proceeded to weigh the respective  merits  of the  candidates and to relax the minimum  qualifications  in favour  of  some  in exercise of  the  discretionary  powers vested  in  it  under  the  University  Ordinance.   If  the considerations which weighed with the Committee in  relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, ’it would result in injustice  to  those who have been selected.   We,  however, feel  it necessary to emphasise and bring to the  notice  of the  University that the illegal practices in the  selection of candidates which have come to light and which seem to  be followed  usually at its end must stop forthwith. it is  for this  purpose that we lay down the following guidelines  for the future selection process:               A.    The   University  must  note  that   the               qualifications  it  advertises for  the  posts               should   not   be  at  variance   with   those

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

             prescribed by its ordinance/Statutes.               B.    The   candidates   selected   must    be               qualified  as  on  the last  date  for  making               applications for the posts in question, or  on               the  date to be specifically mentioned in  the               advertisement/notification  for  the  purpose.               The qualifications acquired by the  candidates               after  the said date should not be taken  into               consideration, as that would be arbitrary  and               result   in   discrimination.   It   must   be               remembered        that        when         the               advertisement/notification represents that the               candidates  must  have the  qualifications  in               ques-               197               tion,  with  reference to the  last  date  for               making  the applications or with reference  to               the  specific date mentioned for the  purpose,               those  who do not have such qualifications  do               not  apply for the posts even though they  are               likely  to acquire such qualifications and  do               acquire  them  after the said  date.   In  the               circumstances,  many  who would  otherwise  be               entitled  to  be considered and  may  even  be               better  then  those  who  apply,  can  have  a               legitimate  grievance since they are left  out               of consideration.               C.    When  the  University or  its  Selection               Committee   relaxes   the   minimum   required               qualifications,  unless  it  is   specifically               stated in the advertisement/notification  both               that  the qualifications will be  relaxed  and               also  the  conditions on which  they  will  be               relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal.               D.    The University/Selection Committee  must               mention  in its proceedings of  selection  the               reasons  for  making relaxations, if  any,  in               respect  of  each of the candidates  in  whose               favour relaxation is made.               E.    The  minutes  of  the  meetings  of  the               Selection Committee should be preserved for  a               sufficiently  long time, and if the  selection               process  is challenged until the challenge  is               finally disposed of.  An adverse inference  is               liable   to  be  drawn  if  the  minutes   are               destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not               available. 7.Although, therefore, for reasons stated above, we  deem it  inadvisable to interfere in the selections made  in  the present  case,  we  direct  that  the  University  and   its Selection  Committee should observe the above norms  in  all future selections. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed subject to the above directions. G.N.                              Petition dismissed. 198