http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DR. H.S. GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNORS,I.I T, DELHI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1997

BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present:                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. B. Pattanaik Appellant in person. Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate for the respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                       J U D G M E N T G.N. RAY, J      Leave granted.  heard the appellant appearing in person and the  learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal is directed against  the order dated January 15, 1988 passed by the Division  Bench of  Delhi High Court in C.W.P No. 109 of 1988.      The appellant  moved a  writ petition under Article 226 of the  Constitution of  India in Delhi high Court which was numbered as C.W.P NO . 109 of 1988 assailing the decision of the Indian  Institute of  Technology, Delhi  as Contained in memo  No.   1303  dated   April  17,   1986  rejecting   the representation of  the appellant  for  the  post  of  Senior Scientific Officer  (Grade I)  and Memo  No 8553 dated March 25, 1987  and Memo  No. 1639  dated 18.5.1987  rejecting the appellants’s further  representation and  also assailing the decision of the respondents in not calling the appellant for interview on  January 15,  1988 for  the post  of  Assistant professor  in  the  civil  engineering  department.  By  the impugned order,  the Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition.      The  appellant   applied  for  the  post  of  Assistant Professor on  July 20,  1987  in  the  department  of  Civil Engineering of  I.I.T Delhi in response to the advertisement No. 11/87  (E-1). The appellant was not called for interview because his  name was  not short  listed  by  the  concerned authority. The  appellant had  also applied  earlier for the post of  Senior Scientific  Officer (Grade  I) in  the  said department pursuant  to the advertisement No. 12/85 for such post. He  has not  called for interview for the said post of S.S.O (I)  as he  was not  short listed.  The appellant made representations for  being excluded in the short listing for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

which he  was not called for interview. Such representations were rejected.  The appellant  sought for personal interview with the Governor of the Board of management of I.I.T. Delhi but such request was turned down.      The appellant is M.Sc in Mathematics and also a Ph.D in Mathematic. He is serving as Senior Scientific Officer Grade II in  I.I.T. Delhi  since 1982  in  the  Civil  Engineering Department.  The   appellant  joined  in  Civil  Engineering Department  of   I.I.T,  Delhi   in  1979   under  Indo-U.K. Collaboration Project on flood forecasting and the appellant has averred  in the  writ  petition  that  he  was  selected through  open   advertisement  and   competing  with   other candidates including  candidates having  engineering degree. The  appellant   has  stated  that  he  has  contributed  in developing  mathematical   models  in   the  area  of  Water Resources which  according to  the appellant,  was  possible with the  background training and skill in the discipline of mathematics  coupled   with  computer  and  technology.  The appellant  has  contended  that  on  line  Real  Time  flood forecasting model  developed by him is known internationally and the  Institute has earned name for such model. According to the  appellant, he  has already  taught core  courses  at M.Tech level  of  water  Course  Engineering  and  has  also supervised Projects  at the  level of  B.Tech.  and  M.Tech. students of  Civil Engineering. The appellant also claims to have served  the Civil Engineering Department of I.I., Delhi as its  officer in  charge of  one of  its laboratories  for several years  and has  also held  assignment  for  computer counselling to  graduate  students,  research  students  and faculty colleagues.  It may be indicated that the experience of the appellant as indicated by him has not been disputed.      It appears  that the  appellant’s grievance is that the appellant is  M.sc. and Ph.D. in Mathematics and even though he does  not possess  degree in  engineering,  he  is  fully qualified backed  by long  experience in  the department  of Civil engineering in I.I.T. Delhi to hold the post of Senior Scientific Officer  grade I  and also  the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Civil Engineering.      The appellant  is aggrieved  because  although  as  per advertisement for  the post  of  Senior  Scientific  Officer Grade  I   (Advertisement  No   12/85(E.I)  in   the   Civil Engineering   Department    of   I.I.T.    Delhi,    minimum qualification  needed   was  good   bachelor’s   degree   in appropriate field  of Science with five years’ experience in research  and   development  and   the  appellant   squarely fulfilled the  criteria, he  was not short listed and called for interview  even though candidate not having Ph.D  degree was called  for interview  and selected  for the  post.  The appellant is  also aggrieved  for not being short listed and called for  interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the Civil  Engineering Department  although he was qualified for the said post.      The contention  of the  appellant  has  been  seriously disputed by  the respondents  by filing  a counter-affidavit before this  Court. It has been contended by the respondents that the  posts in I.I.T, Delhi are advertised and filled up depending on  the actual  need of  the particular department and in  the particular specialisation. It has been contended in   the    counter   affidavit    that   the    posts    of Proffessor/Lecturer/  SSO     in  the  department  of  Civil Engineering   were    advertised   under    the    following specialisation "Structural  Engineering including  off shore structure  solid   and  rock   machanics,  water   resources engineering,   transpiration    systems   and    engineering surveyings, construction  management". It has been stated in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

the counter affidavit that the area of specialisation of the appellant has  been water  resources/forecastig and  not off shore structures.  Since the  post of  SSO  In  the    civil engineering department  was to  be filled  up  by  a  person having  specialisation   in   off   shore   structure,   the appellant’s name  was not  short listed  by the professorial Committee of  the institute duly approved by the Director of the Institute being the Chairman of the Selection Committee. It has  also been  contended in  the affidavit  that for the appointment to  the staff  posts in  the department of civil engineering,   the   candidate   should   have   engineering qualification. The  appellant does not possess any degree in engineering but  he is  holder of  M.Sc and Ph. D. Degree in Mathematics  and  has  specialised  in  the  area  of  Water Resources  Forecasting.   Hence,  he   was  not  called  for interview. It  has been stated in counter affidavit that the Selection committee  selected Dr.  N.K. Garg  and  Dr.  A.K. Gossain as  Assistant  professors  on  the  basis  of  their specialisation in  water resources.  Sri A.K.  Jain and  Sri Ashok  Gupta  were  selected  as  SSO  I  because  of  their specialisation of  structures including off shore strictures including off  shore structures. Hence, the appellant has no occasion to feel aggrieved for not being selected.      In the counter affidavit, it has been further indicated that the  appellant’s representation dated July 31, 1986 was addressed  to  the  Chairman,  Board  of  Governors  of  the Institute.  The   Board  of   Governors   is   the   highest governing/executive body  of the  Institute. As  a matter of procedure, representations  addressed to the chairman of the Board of  Governors or  to the  Board of Governors are first placed before  the Grievance  Committee and personal hearing is also  given before such Committee and personal hearing is also given  before such Committee. The appellant’s grievance committee consisting  of three  members and personal hearing was also  given to  the appellant. The representation of the appellant was thereafter forwarded to the Board of Governors with  the  notions  of  the  Grievance  Committee  and  such representation was  considered by the Board of Governors and was rejected. The appellant was informed about the rejection of his  representation. it  has  also  been  stated  in  the counter affidavit  that the  appellant was  given  one  more opportunity to  make further  representation for  placing it before the  Incharge of the Grievance Committee of the Board of Governors  as decided  by the  Chairman but the appellant failed to avail of such opportunity.      So  far   as  the   Advertisement  No.  11/87  for  the recruitment to  the post of Assistant professor in the Civil Engineering Department of the institute is concerned, it has been stated  in the counter affidavit that the appellant Dr. Gupta was  not called  for  interview  because  he  was  not possessing  he   basic  degree  in  Civil  Engineering.  The candidates in  the field of Structural Engineering including buildings  science  and  water  resources  engineering  were called for  interview as  per the  advertisement having  the following criteria  laid down  for  the  post  of  assistant Professor.      "Ph. D  with 8  years of  experience  after  B.Tech/BE. Degree in Civil Engineering inclusive of not less than three years experience  in teaching.  This experience will include the  period   spent  for   research  leading   to  Ph.D.  or M.Tech.M.E. with 10 years of experience after B.Tech. Degree in Civil  Engineering of  which not  less than  three years’ experience in  teaching." As   Dr.  Gupta was  not holder of either Bachelor  degree or Master Degree in Engineering, but he  was   holder  of   Master  Degree  and  Ph.D  Degree  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Mathematics, he  lacked  in  basic  qualification  and  also specialisation required  for the said post. It has also been stated in  the counter  affidavit  that  the  appellant  was advised that  he would  be required  to apply afresh for the post mentioned  in the  advertisement No.  13/89  and  17/89 which were in the specialisation of the appellant. A copy of the letter  by the  Director advising the appellant to apply afresh  for   the  post   of  Assistant   professor  in  the specialisation  of  water  resources  engineering  has  been annexed to  in the  counter affidavit  but the appellant did not apply  in response  to the  advertisement No.  13/89 and 17/89.      The case  of the appellant was initially represented by Mr. P.P.  Rao, Senior counsel, as requested by this Court in View of  the fact  that the appellant is appearing in person and is not fully conversant with the procedure of the court. The appellant,  however, later  on expressed  the desire  to address  the  Court  himself  and  he  has  been  given  the opportunity of being heard.      It appears  to us that the appellant was not called for interview on  two occasions  when he applied for the post of senior  Scientific   Officer  Grade   I   in   response   to Advertisement No.  12/85 and  for the  post of  a  Assistant Professor in response to Advertisement No. 12/85 and for the post of Assistant professor in response to Advertisement No. 11/87 because according to the department, the appellant did not possess  the requisite  expertise which was required for the said  post. It  is true  that for  the  post  of  Senior scientific Officer Grade I as contained in Advertisement No. 12/85,  the  appellant  had  requisite  minimum  educational qualification but  it is  the case of the department that he lacked in  the specialisation  in the  particular field  for which the Senior Scientific Officer Grade I was required. So far as  the second  Advertisment for  the post  of Assistant Professor is  concerned, the  qualification prescribe of the said post  was Bachelor  or post  Graduate degree  in  Civil engineering and  admittedly the  appellant does  not possess such degree.  From the  facts and  circumstances of the case placed before this Court, it cannot be held that arbitrarily or capriciously the appellant’s case had been considered and he was not short listed and called for interview on both the occasions in  a designed  manner.  Unfortunately,  when  the advertisement, Nos.  13/89 and  17/89 were  advertised,  the appellant did  not apply.  We may  however state that it has not been  correctly contended  in the counter affidavit that either  for   the  post  of  Senior  Scientific  Officer  Or Assistant  Professor,  unless  the  basic  degree  in  Civil engineering  is   not  possessed,   a  candidate  cannot  be considered for  interview. As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the advertisement No.  12/85 it  was specifically mentioned that the holder  of post  Graduate Degree in the field of Science was eligible to apply. therefore, we do not think that there would be any difficulty for the appellant to apply in future when suitable  posts with  expertise in  the  speciality  in which the  appellants has  long experience  are to be filled up.      It may  he indicated  here that  during the pendency of this appeal,  the appellant  was given  liberty to  apply in response to  further advertisements  for filling the post of senior scientific  Officer Grade I/Assistant Professor Civil Engineering Department,  I.I.T., Delhi  without prejudice to the rights  and contentions of the appellant in this appeal. the appellant  applied but has not been selected. The reason has been  indicated by  the respondents that he did not have the experience   or  expertise in  the particular  field for

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

which advertisements  were given.  In  the  absence  of  any material on  the basis  of which Thais court can come to the finding  that  the  case  of  the  appellant  has  not  been considered deliberately and in a calculated manner to ensure that he  would  not  be  selected  to  the  post  of  Senior Scientific  Officer  Grade  I/Assistant  professor,  we  are afraid that  no relief can be given to the appellant in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.      Before we  part, we may indicate that the appellant has been serving  the Institute  in Civil engineering Department for a  number of  years and has been rendering a very useful service in the department by guiding under graduate and post graduate students  in the  Civil Engineering  department and also the research scholars. There is no manner of doubt that apart  from   his  qualification   as  M.Sc,   and  Ph.D  in Mathematics, the  appellant has  gained a long experience in the field  in watt  resources management.  It will  be  only unfortunate if his future career is blocked for ever only on the  score   that  he  does  not  possess  degree  in  civil engineering. The appellant has been selected for the post of Senior Scientific  Officer Grade  II by  competing with  the candidates having  engineering degree.  It will  not be fair and just  to deny  the appellant  an opening  or  chance  of future promotion  even though  the appellant was selected as senior Scientific  Officer Grade  II as far back as in 1982. We reasonably  expect that  the Board of Governors of I.I.T, Delhi  will  keep  in  mind  the  misfortune  and  prejudice suffered by  the appellant  for  not  getting  any  suitable avenue for  promotion despite  his long  years of service in the Institute.  We have no doubt that the Board of Governors would be  alive to the misery of the appellant and would see that the  experience of the appellant is properly recognised so that  he gets  an  opening  for  appropriate  posting  in promotional post  either in the civil engineering department or any  other  suitable  department  by  inter  departmental transfer where  his specialisation may be gainfully utilised in the best possible manner.