REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6057  OF 2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9473/2006)

DR. BASAVAIAH          …Appellant

                VERSUS

DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS.                                …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6058  OF 2010 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9474/2006)

DR. MANJUNATH …Appellant

                VERSUS     

DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS.                                 …Respondents

J U D G M E N T Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

order dated 2.8.2005 passed in Writ Appeal No. 5014 of 2004  

and dated 22.3.2006 passed in Review Petition Nos. 593, 594

and 632 of 2005 in Writ Appeal No. 5014 of 2004 by the High  

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore  

3. By this judgment, we propose to decide the cases of both  

the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. D. Manjunath, because  

exactly similar issues have been raised in both the appeals.  

But, for the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Appeal No.  

6057 of  2010 arising  out  of  SLP (C)  No.  9473 of  2006 are  

recapitulated.

4. The short controversy which needs to be adjudicated in  

these cases is whether the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr.  

D.  Manjunath were qualified to be appointed as Readers in  

Sericulture?   

5. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeals  

are recapitulated as under:

6. The  appellants  in  both the  appeals  were  appointed  as  

Readers in Sericulture in the year 1999 on the basis of the  

qualifications  possessed  by  them  in  accordance  with  the  

vacancy Notification  No.  ET.8/335/98-99 dated 12.11.1998.  

2

As  per  the  notification,  the  qualifications  necessary  for  

appointment as Readers as per the said notification are set out  

as under:

“READER:  Prospective  candidates  shall  have  consistently good academic record with a Doctorate  Degree or equivalent published work.  Candidates  from  outside  the  university  system,  in  addition,  shall  also  possess  at  least  55%  marks  or  an  equivalent grade at Master’s degree level.

Applicants  shall  possess  eight  years  experience of teaching and/or research including 3  years for a Ph.D. Degree, and shall have made some  mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by  quality of publications, contribution to educational  innovation, design of new courses, curricula, etc.”   

(emphasis supplied)

7. Dr.  Basavaiah  obtained  M.Sc.  and  Ph.D.  degrees  in  

Botany.  Thereafter, he served as  Senior Research Assistant in  

the  Central  Sericultural  Research and Training  Institute  (for  

short  CSRTI),  Mysore  from  the  years  1986  to  1992.    Dr.  

Basavaiah,  the  appellant  herein  while  working  as   Senior  

Research  Assistant,  joined  the  Karnataka  State  Sericulture  

Research  and  Development  Institute  (for  short,  KSSRDI)  at  

Bangalore as  Scientific Officer-II and continued to work there  

3

till 31.1.1994.  In addition to the research work he had taught  

many  training  courses  and  also  worked  as  the  examiner  of  

M.Sc. Sericulture.    

8. The appellant was selected to the higher post of Scientific  

Officer-I  (Scientist-D).   The  appellant  had  also  undergone  

Overseas  Training  in  Sericulture  for  two  months  in  the  

Department of Sericulture at Zhejiang Agricultural University,  

Hangzhou,  China and had also  passed certificate  course in  

Genetic  Engineering  from  the  Indian  Institute  of  Science,  

Bangalore.

9. The appellant had 18 years of research experience and  

out of that, 13 years was directly in the field of Sericulture.  

He also worked for six years at CSRTI, Mysore, which is an  

internationally  renowned  Sericulture  Research  and  Training  

Institute and seven years at KSSRDI, Bangalore.   

10. The  appellant  had  more  than  five  years  of  teaching  

experience.   The  appellant’s  twenty  Research  Papers  were  

published  on  Sericulture  in  Journals  of  national  and  

4

international  repute.   The appellant  was the  first  author  in  

twelve Research Papers and in other eight Research Papers he  

was  the  second  author.  The  appellant  possessed  the  

equivalent  qualification  prescribed  in  the  said  vacancy  

notification dated 12.11.1998.   

11. The  appellant,  Dr.  Basavaiah  was  M.Sc.  and  Ph.D.  in  

Botany.  He had also got sixteen years of Research experience.  

He  also  possessed postgraduate  diploma in  Sericulture  and  

worked as Sericulture inspector in the State Government and  

also  worked  as  Senior  Research  Assistant  at  the  CSRTI,  

Mysore.  He worked as the Scientific Officer II with effect from  

29.5.1992  to  31.1.1994  and  he  worked  as  the  Scientific  

Officer-I with effect from 1.2.1994 till his appointment as the  

Reader in the University of Mysore.  In addition to these, he  

had about twenty publications to his credit.

12. In the counter affidavit of the University it was asserted  

that  the  appellant  in  C.A.  No.6058/2010  @  SLP  (C)  

No.9474/2006 Dr. Manjunath was M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Zoology  

and  also  had  teaching  experience.   He  had  got  research  

5

experience  of  about  twenty  two  years.   He  had  joined  the  

CSRTI as  Senior Research Assistant on 28.3.1981.  He was  

promoted to the post of Senior Research Officer on 15.10.1986  

and he had worked in that Institute till his appointment in the  

University  of  Mysore.   He  had also  published  a  number  of  

Papers in Sericulture and number of  connected subjects as  

per the certificate produced by him.   He was also teaching  

M.Sc.  Sericultural  Technology  course,  in  addition  to  other  

courses.      

13. Dr.  H.  L.  Ramesh, the respondent in both the appeals  

challenged  the  appointments  of  both  the  appellants  in  the  

High  Court  on  the  ground  that  the  appellants  were  not  

qualified  to  be  appointed  as  Readers  in  Sericulture.   The  

learned  single  Judge  on  11.10.2004  after  examining  the  

pleadings  and  scrutinizing  the  arguments  of  the  parties  

dismissed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent (Dr. H.L.  

Ramesh) in the Writ Petition No. 24300 of 1999.     

14. Respondent  Dr.  H.  L.  Ramesh,  aggrieved  by  the  said  

judgment preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of  

6

the  High  Court.   The  writ  appeal  was  allowed  and  the  

appointments of the appellants were set aside leaving it open  

to  the  University  of  Mysore  to  make  fresh  selection  in  

accordance with the law.   

15. The appellants aggrieved by the said judgment have filed  

these  special  leave  petitions  against  the  judgment  of  the  

Division Bench of the High Court.   

16. In  the  Writ  Petition  No.   24300/99 before  the  learned  

Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, the University of  

Mysore filed a separate counter affidavit.  It was contended in  

the  said  counter  affidavit  filed  by  the  University  that  the  

qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader, according to  

the Advertisement issued on 12.1.1998, are as under:

“…..According  to  notification  prospective  candidate  shall  have  consistently  good  academic  record  with  a  doctorate  degree  or  equivalent  published work.   

It further specified that applicant shall possess  8  years  experience  of  teaching  and/or  Research  including 3 years of a Ph.D. degree and shall have  made  some  mark  in  the  areas  of  scholarship  as  evidenced by quality of publication, contribution to  educational innovation, design of new courses etc.   

7

Therefore,  it  is  very  clear  that  the  advertisement does not specify that only those who  possess M.Sc. in Sericulture are eligible for the post  of Reader in Sericulture.   It is submitted that the  candidates with the Master Degree and Ph.D. are  also  qualified  to  apply  for  the  post  and  for  consideration  for  the  post.   Therefore,  the  contention of respondent, Dr. H.L. Ramesh that the  qualification  required  for  the  post  of  Reader  in  Sericulture in Master Degree and Ph.D. Degree only  in  Sericulture  is  not  correct.   It  is  needless  to  mention that Botany, Zoology and Sericulture are  all interrelated subjects.”

17. The University of Mysore further submitted that there was  

no  merit  in  the  contention  of  Dr.  H.L.  Ramesh  that  the  

appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. Manjunath were not qualified  

to be appointed as Readers in the Sericulture.   

18. We deem it  appropriate  to  mention  that  the  University  

had constituted an Expert Committee consisting of the leading  

experts.   The  said  Committee  consisted  of  the  following  

eminent experts:

(a) Prof. Y. Srinivasa Reddy Chairman, DOS in Sericulture Manasagangothri, Mysore – 6.

8

(b) Prof. M. C. Devaiah, Dept. of Sericulture. University of Agri. Sciences Bangalore.

(c) Prof. S. Govindappa, Dept. of Sericulture Sri Venkateswar University Tirupati.

(d) Dr. S. B. Dandin, Director Karnataka State  Sericulture  Research and Development  Institute,  Bangalore

(e) Prof. V. Subramaniam Dept. of Textile Technology Anna University Chennai.

19. The  Committee  appointed  by  the  University  thoroughly  

scrutinized the qualification, experience and published works  

of  both  the  candidates  and  made  its  unanimous  

recommendations  in  favour  of  their  appointments.    The  

University  also  clearly  stated  that  the  appointments  of  the  

appellants  were  made  in  consonance  with  the  terms  of  the  

provisions of the Act.  Admittedly, for the selections to the post  

of  Readers,  an  Expert  Committee  was  constituted  and  

thereafter,  its  recommendations  were  accepted  by  the  

University  and issued orders accordingly.    No one had any  

9

grievance so far as the constitution of Experts Committee was  

concerned and no  mala fides have been levelled against any  

member of the expert committee.   

20.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

21. According  to  the  advertisement,  a  relevant  portion  of  

which has been set out in the preceding paragraph it is clearly  

indicated that the qualification for appointment to the post of  

Reader was that candidates must possess consistently  good  

academic  record  with  a  Doctorate  Degree  or  equivalent  

published work.   

22. According  to  respondent  no.1,  the  appellants  were  not  

eligible to be appointed because they had degrees in Zoology  

and  Botany  respectively  whereas  only  respondent  no.1  was  

eligible because he was the only one who had the Doctorate  

degree in the subject of Sericulture.   

23. In the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2005, the Division  

Bench did not properly comprehend the qualifications for the  

appointment of the Reader given in the advertisement.  It is  

10

clearly indicated in the advertisement that the qualification for  

appointment as Reader was a Doctorate degree or equivalent  

published  work.   Admittedly,  both  these  appellants  had  

extensive  published  work  in  the  national  and  international  

journals of repute to their credit.  This is clearly indicated in  

extenso in the application forms which they had filled for the  

appointments for the posts of Readers.

24. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed  

by respondent no.1 on the ground that selection had taken  

place  in  1999  and  the  appellants  were  working  in  their  

respective  teaching  posts  and  the  court  did  not  deem  it  

appropriate to disturb the existing arrangement and dismissed  

the petition.   

25. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment allowed  

the appeal filed by Dr. H.L. Ramesh, respondent no. 1 herein,  

on the short ground that the appellants herein did not have  

Doctorate  degree  in  Sericulture.   Therefore,  they  were  not  

qualified for appointment as Readers in Sericulture.   In the  

impugned judgment, the court did not properly comprehend  

11

the advertisement in which it was clearly mentioned that the  

prescribed  qualification  was  Doctorate  degree  or  equivalent  

published work.   According to the affidavit  which has been  

filed  by  the  University,  the  Expert  Committee  consisting  of  

highly  qualified  five  distinguished  experts  evaluated  the  

qualification,  experience  and  the  published  work  of  the  

appellants.   They  found  them  eligible  and  suitable.   The  

relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:-

“All the abovesaid members of the committee are  experts  in  the  field  of  Sericulture.   The  said  selection  committee  thoroughly  scrutinized  the  relative merits and demerits of each candidates  and made its recommendations.  It is needless to  mention  that  the  selection  and appointment  of  teachers is to be made in terms of Section 49 of  the Act.  This respondent University has strictly  followed the Government orders issued from time  to time regarding reservations.  After taking into  consideration  the  orders  issued  by  the  Government  and  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  University,  the  recommendation  of  the  expert  selection  committee  has  been  accepted  by  the  University and accordingly impugned orders have  been issued.”

26. It  is  abundantly  clear  from  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  

University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined  

and  scrutinized  the  qualification,  experience  and  published  

12

work of the appellants before selecting them for the posts of  

Readers  in  Sericulture.   In  our  considered  opinion,  the  

Division Bench was not justified in sitting in appeal over the  

unanimous  recommendations  of  the  Expert  Committee  

consisting of five experts.  The Expert Committee had in fact  

scrutinized  the  merits  and  de-merits  of  each  candidate  

including qualification and the equivalent published work and  

its  recommendations  were  sent  to  the  University  for  

appointment which were accepted by the University.

27. It  is  the  settled  legal  position  that  the  courts  have  to  

show deference and consideration to the recommendation of  

an Expert  Committee  consisting  of  distinguished  experts  in  

the  field.   In  the  instant  case,  experts  had  evaluated  the  

qualification, experience and published work of the appellants  

and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were  

made.   The Division Bench of  the  High Court  ought not  to  

have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made  

by the country’s leading experts in the field of Sericulture.  

13

28. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding  

appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader  

in English in the Central College, Bangalore,  in the case of  

The University of Mysore and Anr.  v. C.D. Govinda Rao  

and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491, in which the  Constitution Bench  

unanimously held that normally the Courts should be slow to  

interfere  with  the  opinions  expressed  by  the  experts  

particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides  

against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board.  

The court further observed that it would normally be wise and  

safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters  

to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they  

face than the courts generally can be.   

29. We  have  been  called  upon  to  adjudicate  the  similar  

matter of the same University almost after half a century.   In  

a  judicial  system  governed  by  precedents,  the  judgments  

delivered by the Constitution Bench and other Benches must  

be respected and relied on with meticulous care and sincerity.  

14

The  ratio  of  the  Constitution  Bench has  not  been properly  

appreciated by the learned judges in the impugned judgment.

30. In Dr. M.C. Gupta & Others v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta  

& Others  (1979)  2 SCC 339,  somewhat similar  controversy  

arose  for  adjudication,  in  which  the  State  Public  Service  

Commission invited applications for two posts of Professors of  

Medicine in the State Medical Colleges.  The two appellants as  

well as respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post.  

Appellant no.1 had teaching experience of about 6 years and 6  

months  as  a  Lecturer  in  Cardiology  in  the  department  of  

medicine  and  about  3  years  and  2  months  as  Reader  in  

Medicine in S. N. Medical College, Agra.  Since there was no  

separate Department of Cardiology in that College, Cardiology  

formed part of general medicine and as such he was required  

to teach general medicine to undergraduate students and to  

some  post-graduate  students  in  addition  to  Cardiology.  

Similarly,  appellant no.2 had one year’s experience as post-

doctoral teaching fellow in the Department of Medicine, State  

University of New York, Buffalo, one year’s teaching experience  

15

as  Lecturer  while  posted  as  a  Pool  Officer  and 15 months’  

teaching  experience  as  post-doctoral  research  fellow  in  the  

Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur  

and  about  4  years’  and  6  months’  teaching  experience  as  

Assistant Professor of Medicine, State University of New York,  

Buffalo. The cardiology is a part of medicine and the teaching  

experience  acquired  while  holding  the  post  of  Lecturer  in  

Cardiology,  was  teaching  experience  in  a  subject  which  

substantially  formed part  of  general  medicine and over  and  

above  the  same.   The  Commission  was  amply  justified  in  

reaching to the conclusion that he had the requisite teaching  

experience.  The  High  Court  was,  therefore,  in  error  in  

quashing his selection of the appellant in this case.

31. The teaching experience of foreign teaching institutions  

can be taken into consideration if it is from the recognized and  

institution  of  repute.   It  cannot  be  said  that  the  State  

University of New York at Buffalo, where appellant no.2 served  

as  an  Assistant  Professor  would  not  be  an  institution  of  

repute.  The experts aiding and advising the Commission must  

16

be quite aware of institutions in which the teaching experience  

was acquired by him and this one is a reputed University.

32. According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the  

appellants  had  requisite  qualification  and  were  eligible  for  

appointment.  If  they were selected by the Commission and  

appointed by the Government, no fault can be found in the  

same.  The High Court interfered and set aside the selections  

made by the experts committee.  This Court while setting aside  

the judgment of the High Court reminded the High Court that  

it would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to leave  

the  decision  of  academic  matters  to  experts.   The  Court  

observed as under:

“7. ….When selection is made by the Commission  aided  and  advised  by  experts  having  technical  experience and high academic qualifications in the  specialist  field,  probing  teaching  research  experience in technical subjects, the Courts should  be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by  experts  unless  there  are  allegations  of  mala  fides  against  them.  It  would  normally  be  prudent  and  safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic  matters to experts who are more familiar with the  problems they face than the Courts generally can  be…”  

17

33. In  Dr.  J.  P.  Kulshrestha  &  Others  v.  Chancellor,  

Allahabad University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418, the court  

observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for  

that of academicians:

“17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us  to hammer home the  point  that  the court  should  not substitute its judgment for that of academicians  when  the  dispute  relates  to  educational  affairs.  While  there  is  no  absolute  ban,  it  is  a  rule  of  prudence  that  courts  should  hesitate  to  dislodge  decisions of academic bodies. … … …”

34. In  Maharashtra  State  Board  of  Secondary  and  

Higher  Secondary  Education  &  Another  v.  Paritosh  

Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others (1984) 4 SCC 27, the court  

observed thus:

“29. … As has been repeatedly pointed out by  this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant  to  substitute  its  own  views  as  to  what  is  wise,  prudent and proper in relation to academic matters  in  preference  to  those  formulated  by  professional  men  possessing  technical  expertise  and  rich  experience  of  actual  day-to-day  working  of  educational  institutions  and  the  departments  controlling them. .. … …”

18

35. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others  

(1990)  2  SCC  746,  the  court  relied  on  the  judgment  in  

University of Mysore (supra) and observed that in the matter  

of appointments in the academic field, the court generally does  

not interfere.  The court further observed that the High Court  

should  show  due  regard  to  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  

experts  constituting  the  Selection  Committee  and  its  

recommendation on which the Chancellor had acted.  

36. In  Bhushan  Uttam  Khare  v.  Dean,  B.J.  Medical  

College & Others (1992) 2 SCC 220, the court placed reliance  

on the Constitution Bench decision in  University of Mysore  

(supra) and reiterated the same legal position and observed as  

under:  

“8. … the Court should normally be very slow to  pass  orders  in  its  jurisdiction  because  matters  falling  within  the  jurisdiction  of  educational  authorities should normally be left to their decision  and the Court should interfere with them only when  it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. …  … …”

19

37. In  Dalpat  Abasaheb  Solunke  &  Others  v.  Dr.  B.S.  

Mahajan & Others (1990) 1 SCC 305, the court in some what  

similar matter observed thus:

“… … …It is needless to emphasise that it is not  the function of the court to hear appeals over the  decisions  of  the  Selection  Committees  and  to  scrutinize  the  relative  merits  of  the  candidates.  Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or  not  has  to  be  decided  by  the  duly  constituted  Selection Committee which has the expertise on the  subject.  The  court  has  no  such  expertise.  The  decision  of  the  Selection  Committee  can  be  interfered  with  only  on  limited  grounds,  such  as  illegality  or  patent  material  irregularity  in  the  constitution  of  the  Committee  or  its  procedure  vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting  the  selection  etc.  It  is  not  disputed  that  in  the  present  case  the  University  had  constituted  the  Committee  in  due  compliance  with  the  relevant  statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it  selected the candidates after going through all the  relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over  the selection so made and in setting it aside on the  ground of  the so called comparative merits of the  candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court  went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.”  

38.  The Chancellor & Another etc.  v.  Dr. Bijayananda  

Kar & Others (1994) 1 SCC 169, the court observed thus:

“9.  This  Court  has  repeatedly  held  that  the  decisions  of  the  academic  authorities  should  not  ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. Whether  a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not  

20

is  a  matter  which  should  be  entirely  left  to  be  decided by the academic bodies and the concerned  selection  committees  which  invariably  consist  of  experts on the subjects relevant to the selection….”  

39. In Chairman J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz  

Ahmed Malik & Others  (2000)  3 SCC 59,  the  court  while  

stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert body  

observed  that  the  expert  body  consisted  of  persons  coming  

from different walks of life who were engaged in or interested  

in the field of education and had wide experience and were  

entrusted with the duty of  maintaining higher  standards of  

education.   The decision of  such an expert  body should be  

given due weightage by courts.  

40. In  Dental  Council  of  India  v.  Subharti  K.K.B.  

Charitable Trust & Another  (2001)  5 SCC 486,  the court  

reminded  the  High  Courts  that  the  court’s  jurisdiction  to  

interfere with the discretion exercised by the expert body is  

extremely limited.

21

41. In Medical Council of India v. Sarang & Others (2001)  

8 SCC 427, the court again reiterated the legal principle that  

the court should not normally interfere or interpret the rules  

and should instead leave the matter to the experts in the field.  

42. In B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr.  

R. Venkatasubbaiah & Others (2008) 14 SCC 306, the court  

again  reiterated  legal  principles  and  observed  regarding  

importance  of  the  recommendations  made  by  the  expert  

committees.

43. In  Rajbir  Singh  Dalal  (Dr.)  v.  Chaudhari  Devi  Lal  

University,  Sirsa & Another  (2008)  9 SCC 284,  the court  

reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to  

sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.  

44. In  All  India  Council  for  Technical  Education  v.  

Surinder  Kumar  Dhawan & Others  (2009)  11  SCC  726,  

again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of  

prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of  

academic bodies.

22

45. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate  

and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters,  

the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala  

fide  has  been  alleged  against  the  experts  constituting  the  

selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome  

and  safe  for  the  courts  to  leave  the  decisions  to  the  

academicians and experts.  As a matter of principle, the courts  

should  never  make  an  endeavour  to  sit  in  appeal  over  the  

decisions  of  the  experts.   The  courts  must  realize  and  

appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.  

46. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has ignored  

the consistent legal position.  They were expected to abide by  

the discipline of the precedents of the courts.   Consequently,  

we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the  

Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of  

the Single Judge of the High Court.

47. The University of Mysore, respondent herein, is directed  

to  give  regular  pay-scale  to  the  appellants  from 1st August,  

2010.  To avoid any further litigation, we may make it clear  

23

that the appellants would not be entitled to claim any arrears  

or benefits for the past period.

48. The  appeals  are  allowed,  but,  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their  

own costs.

…………………………J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

………………………….J.                                                (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi; July 29, 2010

24