http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: DR. KUMAR BAR DAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UTKAL UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/12/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V.MANOHAR, K.VENKATASWAMI, M.JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT M.Jagannadha Rao.J. The appellant,  Dr.Kumar  Bar  Das  has  filed  this appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the High Court of Orissa dated 30.9.1993 in O.J.C.  No.  1910. By that judgment,  the High  Court  dismissed  the  said writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders of the  Chancellor  of  the Utkal  University  dated  21.5.1990.  The Chancellor, by the said order, had set aside the appointment of  the  appellant dated  3.2.1990  as  Porfessor  of  Economics (State Bank of India chair) (hereinafter called SBI  Chair),  holidng  that the   recommendation   of   the  Selection  Committee  dated 29.2.1984 was invalid. The said  order  was  passed  by  the Chancellor  on a representation filed by the 5th respondent, Dr. (Mrs.) Bedabati Mohanty. The Chancellor,  after  setting aside the appointment of the appellant further directed that the  Vice-Chancellor/Syndicate  shall  re-advertise the post and conduct the selection afresh to fill up the  vacancy  to the post of Professor (SBI Chair). The 5th respondent, being aggrieved   by   the  order  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  dated 21.5.1990 in so far as it directed  re-advertisement,  filed OJC  No.  2144  of  1990 of 1990. The High Court by the same common judgment, while upholding the order of the Chancellor to the extent it set aside the appointment of the  appellant allowed  the  5th respondent’s writ petition OJC No. 2144 of 1990 and directed that she, being the  next  person  in  the panel  prepared  by the Selection Committee, be appointed as Professor of Economics (State Bank of India Chair). The   appellant,   therefore,   filed   a   separate SLP)Civil)  No....(CC 7855 of 1998) questioning the judgment of the High Court dated 30.9.1993 in OJC No.2144 of 1990  to the  extent  it  set  aside  the  orders  of  the Chancellor directing re-advertisement and directing the appointment  of the  5th  respondent.  There  is  also  an  application  for condonation of delay. In that SLP notice had not been issued but it has been pasted before us. The facts of the case are as follows. The State Bank of India (hereinafter called the ’SBI’) created an Endowment for creation of a Chair called "State Bank  Chair  in  Rural Economics",  with  an  investment of Rs.6 lakhs in favour of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

the Utkal University so that with the interest accruing from the said amount, the salary of a professor  and  2  Research Associates  to the Chair, could be met. We are not concerned with  the  various  terms  of  the  endowment  except  those relating  to the selection and appointment of the aprofessor and a few toher relevant provisions. It is stated in  clause 2  of the amendment that the main objective of the endowment is ’to promote research’ in the applicability in  the  field of  Rural Economics which can be utilised for development of rural and tribal areas. Clause 13 of the endowment is titled ’Emphasis on Research’ and states that as the main objective in creating the Chair is to promote research in  the  fields mentioned   above,   the   professor’s  teaching  and  other assigments in the University shall be such as to provide him sufficient time  for  independent  research.  Clause  14  is titled ’Selection of topics of Research’ and states that the topics  for research work to be undertaken by the Chair will be selected in  consultation  with  the  Bank.  Thus,    the emphasis for the Chair is mainly ’research’ in Economics. Coming  to  the  mode of appointment of Professor to the Chair, this is contained in clauses 8, 9, and 10 of  the endowment. They read as follows:             "Clause  8:  Appointment  of  Professor  to  the             Chair: The University shall take steps to ensure             that the Chair does not remain vacant ordinarily             for more than six months at a time.             Clause 9:   Selection Procedure of Professor and             other Staff:  The procedure for selection of the             Professor to the Chair would be made as followed             by the University in other cases for appointment             of Professor of similar status.  The Bank  shall             be   associated   with   the  selection  of  the             Professor.  Regarding the 2 Research Associates,             the University would advise the Bank their names             and bio-data.             Clause 10:  The initial terms of  the  incumbent             of the Chair will not exceed five years and will             be  renewable  for  further  periods  as  may be             decided by the University." clause  11  deals  this  terms of appointment of the Professor.  It says that the Professor would be  subject  to all the rules and regulations of the University as any other Professor in the University etc. Soon after creation of this Endowment  by  the  SBI, the  Utkal University advertised the post on 18.5.87. clause 10 of  the  advertisement,  upon  whose  interpretation  the entire case depends, reads as follows:             "Clause 10:  Essential Quallifications:             (a)   Professor   :   An  eminent  scholar  with             prescribed  work  of  high   quality,   actively             engaged in research.             about  ten  years  experience of teaching and/or             research and experience of guiding  research  at             doctoral leave              OR             An    outstanding   scholar   with   established             requtation who has made significant contribution             to knowledge.             (c)..................................." For the post of Professor (SBI Chair), 14 candidates applied,  13  candidates  were called for interview and 8 of them appeared at the interview.  The appellant and  the  5th respondent were  among them.  The appellant’s application is dated 30.6.1987.    The  selection  Committee’s  proceedings dated 29.12.1989 stated that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

           "Taking  into consideration the academic record,             teaching   experience,   research    activities,             teaching  experience of the candidates and their             performance  at  the  interview,  the  Committee             recommends in order of preference:--             (i)  Dr. Kumar Bar Das             (ii) Dr. (Mrs.) Bedabati Mohanty." In  other words, the appellant was placed at No. 1 while the 5th respondent was placed at NO. 2. Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University approved the  same  on  2.2.1990  and  directed  appointment  of  the appellant.  Consequently  the  appellant  was  appointed  as Professor (SBI Chair) on 3.2.1990. The  appellant  gave  his joining report on 10.4.1990. Thereafter, it appears that the 5th respondent filed a  representation before the Chancellor of the University in February, 1990 stating that the appellant was  not  eligible to  be considered for the post of Professor as he had only 7 years and 7 months of teaching experience on the date of his application though the required period was  10  years.    On that  a  show-cause  notice was issued in April, 1990 by the chancellor to the appellant stating that on  a  "preliminary enquiry and on scrutiny of the papers, it was found that the appellant  had  only  7  years  and  8  months  of  teaching experience  by  the  last  date  of   application   and   no outstanding  academic  career  and,  as  such, the appellant could not be said to be eligible for  consideration  to  the post  of  professor  as  per qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post and  in  the  UGC  (qualification requires  of  a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and other  institutions  affiliated  to  it) Regulations.     1982    which    stipulates   the   minimum qualification for appointment to the post  of  Professor  as follows:             "An eminent scholar with published work of  high             quality, activity engaged in research, About ten             years  of experience of teaching and/or research             and experience of guiding research  at  doctoral             level; or             An    outstanding   scholar   with   established             reputation who has made significant contribution             to knowledge." The  show-cause  notice  further  stated  that   the appellant  was  awarded  4 marks under the heading ’teaching experience’ which was not in conformity with the  provisions contained   in  Schedule  ’A’  of  the  Orissa  Universities Employees (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1988 and had  he not been awarded such marks deviating from the principles of marking provided in the Statute above-stated, the merit list of  the  candidates would have been materially affected. The Chancellor, in exercising his powers under section 5(10)  of the  Orissa  Universities  Act,  1983 asked the Syndicate to show cause why its decision appointing the appellant  should not  be  annulled.  A  copy  of  the  same  was  sent to the appellant for his statement in writing. Accordingly,  the  Syndicate   sent   its   detailed explanation and so did the appellant. We shall advert to the details thereof at the appropriate stage. The  Chancellor  rejected  these  replies and passed orders on 21.5.1990 annulling the appellant’s appointment on the ground that the appellant was ineligible. He stated:             (i)  that the appellant was not  eligible  to  be             considered  for  the post inasmuch as by the date             of   application    as    per    the    essential             qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

           the   minimum   qualifications  set  out  in  UGC             Regulations 1982.             (ii)  that in  contravention  of  the  provisions             mentioned  in  the  Schedule ’A’ prescribed under             Statute 5 of the  Orissa  Universities  Employees             (Conditions  of  Service) Statutes, 1988 (then in             force), the appellant had been  awarded  4  marks             under the heading ’teaching experience’.             (iii)    that  had the illegality mention in para             (ii) above was not committed, the select list  of             the   candidates   would   have  been  materially             affected." The further reason  (iv)  given  by  the  Chancellor concerns the 5th respondent. It says that there was lapse in "awarding marks to the candidates including the candidate in the  2nd  position"  i.e. 5th respondent", under the heading "teaching experience" without reference to the  Honours  and PG  teaching  experience  as  provided  in Schedule A of the Statutes. Thus the Chancellor found  that  the  mistake  was common  to the selection of the appellant as well as the 5th respondent.  Consequently  the  Chancellor  set  aside   the appointment    of   the   appellant   and   directed   fresh advertisement. It may be noticed that the Chancellor did not conclude that, in addition, the appellant did  not  have  an ’outstanding  career’, though such a reason was mentioned in the earlier show-cause notice. Questioning the above order of the  Chancellor,  the appellant   filed  OJC  No.  1910  of  1990  while  the  5th respondent filed OJC No. 2144/90 in so far as the  direction for  fresh  advertisement  was concerned. As already stated, the High Court by judgment dated  30.9.1993,  dismissed  the appellant’s  writ  petition and allowed the one filed by the 5th respondent. The  appellant  contended in the High Court that his experience was in fact 9 years and 1 month and not  7  years and 8  months as stated in the show cause notice.  The award of 4 marks to  the  appellant  was  right  inasmuch  as  the appellant  had research experience at the pre-doctoral stage as Junior research scholar from June 1978 to November  1979, teaching  experience  from November 1979 to September, 1984, and as Reader from September 1984 till date of  application, 30.6.1987.    The  total  Research  experience  by  date  of application was 1 year, 5 months and 14  days  and  teaching experience by that date was 7 years, 7 months and 14 days in all  9  years and 28 days, which came within the word "about 10 years teaching and/or research experience"  as  mentioned in the advertisement. The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court held that assuming that the appellant had experience of 9 years and  1 month,  which  assertion  was disputed by the University and the 5th respondent- it could not be said that the  appellant had ’about’ ten years of experience. On the contrary, at the most,  it  could  be  said  that  he  had ’about 9 years’ of teaching experience on  the  date  of  application  but  not ’about 10 years’. The High Court further held that "there is no  material  in  support  of  Kumar  Bar’s plea that he had acquired 9 years and 1 month experience.  ON  the  contrary, materials  considered  by  the  Selection  committee and the Chancellor would show that it was 7 years and 8  months  and hence appellant was ’not eligible’.

       Having held that the appellant was not eligible, the Division  Bench  of  the High Court proceeded to go into the teaching experience of  the  5th  respondent.  There  was  a difference of opinion between the two Judges. The matter was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

then  referred  to  the  third  Judge.  He held that the 5th respondent had enough teaching experience and the Chancellor was not right in holding her ineligible and that too without giving notice to her. Consequently, the High Court held that the 5th respondent was eligible and her  writ  petition  OJC No. 2144/90 stood allowed. In   this   appeal   against  the  judgment  of  the appellant’s  writ  petition  OJC  1910/90  we   have   heard elaborate  submissions of Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and of Sri Pramod  Dayal  and  Sri Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents. The points that arise for consideration are: 1)Whether  the  appellant  was  not  eligible  to   be appointed  as  Professor  (SBI  Chair)  on  the basis of the qualifications possessed by him as  on  the  last  date  for filing application? 2)To what relief?

Point 1:- It will be seen from the statement of facts that the show-cause notice issued in April,  1990  proceeded  on  the footing that (i) the appellant had only 7 years, 8 months as teaching   experience   as  on  the  last  date  for  filing application  and  also  that  (ii)  he  did  not   have   an ’outstanding  career’  and  therefore was not eligible to be appointed as Professor.  But in the impugned  order  of  the Chancellor,   it  is  not  stated  that  the  appellant  was ineligible  on  the  ground  that  he  had  no  ’outstanding career’.   In  our  opinion, it is clear that in view of the elaborate  explanation  given  by  the  Syndicate  and   the appellant before the Chancellor and the material produced by them,  the  Chancellor  was satisfied that the appellant was possessing an  ’outstanding  career’.      Learned   counsel appearing  for  the  University and the Chancellor made some attempt to contend  that  the  appellant  did  not  have  an ’outstanding career’ but we cannot permit them to raise this question in  this  appeal.    It  does  not arise out of the Chancellor’s order.  We may also state to the credit of  the learned  counsel  for the 5th respondent that he stated that he was not arguing that the appellant  did  not  possess  an ’outstanding career’. That leaves us to consider the sole question whether the  appellant was not having "about ten years experience of teaching and/or Research" as mentioned in clause 10  of  the advertisement  which  qualifications,  as per the show cause notice, are also the  qualifications  required  by  the  UGC Regulations, 1982.    We  may  here  point out that the show cause notice refers to  the  UGC  regulations  as  also  the advertisement as requiring about 10 years experience. During  the course of arguments, learned counsel for the University sought to raise a point that  the  candidates must   have  a  minimum  of  ’full  10  years’  of  teaching experience  as  per  the  "qualifications   prescribed   for Recruitment to      the  teaching  posts"  accepted  by  the University Administration on 29.1.1976, which  in  its  turn was   based   on  the  recommendations  of  a  Committee  of Professors. We find that no such point  was  argued  in  the High  Court  and  therefore we cannot allow this point to be raised for  the first time in this appeal. Further, the order of the  Chancellor  in  para  (i) referred   to   earlier,  speaks  of  ineligibility  of  the appellant as per the "advertisement and the UGC Regulations, 1982 " regarding the need to  have  ’about  10  years  etc.’ experience.  So  far as the mode of awarding a marks towards ’teaching marks’ is concerned, the  chancellor  stated  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

that  was  in  contravention  of Schedule A prescribed under Statute 5 of the Orissa Universities  Employees  (conditions of  Service)  Statute, 1988 (then in force). This is another reason as to why we should not permit  the  learned  counsel for  the university to arise a question that the requirement is of  ’full  ten  years’  experience  (and  not  ’about  10 years’). Before we advert to the reasons as to why, according to us, the order of the Chancellor is bad in law, we have to refer to the constitution of the Selection Committee and the high qualifications of the experts. We shall then also refer to  the  elaborate  reply submitted to the Chancellor by the Syndicate on 10.5.1990. Now the Selection  Committee  consisted  of  eminent persons, namely,   Dr.     T.Pradhan,  Vice-Chancellor;  Dr. G.S.Das, director; Higher  Education,  (who  is  an  eminent Economist); Dr.    (Mrs.) Shiela Balla, Expert (Chancellor’s nominee) J.N.U.  University;  Prof.    P.Kumar;  Export  and Former V.C.   of  Calcutta  Unitersity  and Mr.  N.Muranjan, Representative of S.B.I., Bombay,  Obviously  it  was  their view  that  the appellant was eligible and that he satisfied all the requirements for selection and  that  he  should  be placed at Serial No.  1. In  the  reply  of  the  Syndicate, the basis of the eligibility  and  reasons  which  must  have  prompted   the selection  Committee  to  select  the  appellant  have  been explained, - namely that the experience of the appellant was not 7 years and 8 months but  was  ’about  10  years’  i.e.9 years and  1  month.  The Syndicate pointed out in its reply that so far as this Chair was concerned,  the  emphasis  was more on ’research’.  It stated that the Selection Committee, on  the  basis  of  the  Schedule  ’A’  under  Statute  5 of University Statutes, had issued a proforma under  six  heads namely General career, Research degree, Teaching experience, Research  publications,  Viva-voce and CCR carrying 90 marks in the aggregate.  These headings did not correspond to  the qualifications  laid  down in clause 10 of the advertisement because there was no column there  regarding  experience  in research.   But,  as  per  the  advertisement, the essential qualification in  the  advertisement  was  ’about  10  years experience  of  teaching  and/or  research",  that  is  both research and/or teaching.  The proforma did not  assign  any marks   to  research  experience  though  the  advertisement required that the candidates could be selected on the  basis of their  research  experience also.  The proforma proceeded on the assumption that 10 marks were meant only for teaching experience, likewise the  Schedule  ’F’  under  Statute  258 referred  to  teaching  experience covering only Honours and P.G.  classes.  There was no division of  marks  as  between Honours and for P.G.  In addition for the SBI chair in Rural Economics,  experience in Institutional Finance, publication of some research works of high standard  in  the  field  and experience  of  guiding  research  work  in  the  subject of institutional finance, were also  desirable  qualifications. The  Syndicate  pointed  out  that  the  Selection Committee awarded to the appellant, 16 out of 19.5  marks  in  General career,  8  out of 10 in Research publications, 18 out of 25 in Viva voce.  The 5th respondent was awarded only 15,6  and 12 in  respect  of these items.  All candidates were awarded 10 marks out  of  twelve  for  research  degree.    The  5th respondent  got  10  out  of  10  for  ’teaching experience’ whereas appellant got 4 marks only.  The  Syndicate  pointed out  that  the  contention  of  the  5th respondent that the appellant should have been awarded zero marks for  ’teaching experience’   was   based  on  a  misinterpretation  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

conditions of the advertisement.  It was not stated  in  the advertisement  that  a  candidate  for the post of professor should possess a minimum of 10 years’  teaching  experience. On  the other hand, the advertisement stated that one should have ’about 10 years’ teaching and/or  research  experience. The  appellant  was  admittedly  doing  research  as  Junior Research Fellow in Presidency College,  Calcutta  from  June 1978 to  Nov.  1979 (for one year, 5 months and 14 days) and adding the same to the teaching  experience  of  7  years  7 months  and  14  days,  the total experience in teaching and research would come to 9 years 1 month and this the  experts opined was  about  10 years.  The formate speaks of teaching experience for Honours and P.G.  classes.  The appellant had 4 years teaching experience in P.G.  classes at  Ravishankar University,  Raipur  and  thereafter  in  the  Department of Economics, Utkal  University.    He  had  Honours   teaching experience of  about  4 years in Spat College, Rourkela.  On the other hand, the 5th respondent had given on  details  of her teaching  experience  in  the application form.  She had merely stated she had experience of about 23 years under the Government of orissa in Education Department.  She  had  not specifically  stated  the names of institutions in which she had taught or whether, during this period, she  had  thought only  at  the  Intermediate level or at the Honours and Post Graduate Stages.    Again   the   appellant   had   Research experience  and  was  guiding  research work for Ph.D degree while the 5th respondent had left col.  14 blank.   Further, the  5th  respondent  gave  only a list of 5 publications in local papers and she published only and paper in the  Indian Cooperative Review.    On  the other hand, the appellant had given a list of 28 publications most of which were published in Standard  All  India  Journals.     The   appellant   had specialised  in international and Regional Economics and did his Ph.D in ’Economics of Indian Cement Industry’.  The  5th respondent  had  not  indicated  her  specialisation nor the subject of her Ph.D thesis.  She merely stated that she  had published   a  special  paper  in  ’International  Trade  in M.A.Career  and  that  she  specialised   in   Small   Scale Industries at   the   Research  stage.    According  to  the Syndicate,  all  these  facts  obviously  weighed  with  the Selection Committee.    Further,  in  all  8 candidates were interviewed and the Selection Committee  must  have  got  an overall view  of  comparative  merit.    The  appellant  had secured M.A.  in Economics in 1977, he joined as a  Lecturer in Nov.      1979,  he  attended  Summer  Institutions,  and Conferences and Workshops in Holland in 1980, in UK in  1981 and in Germany & Italy in 1984.  The Syndicate observed that there was defect in the proforma.  It observed:             "In  view  of the that the advertisements wanted             about 10 years  experience  in  teaching  and/or             research  and the Proforma in Schedule ’F’ under             Statute   258   wanted    only    Honours    and             P.G.Teaching, award of four marks for experience             wrongly  headed  as "teaching experience" in the             proforma does  not  appear  to  be  an  improper             assessment........    The   Selection  Committee             might  have  clubbed  there  two   items   under             teaching experience." The    Syndicate    stated   that   the   subjective considerations which weighed with the experts  in  assessing teaching/research   experience   were   known  only  to  the Vice-Chancellor and the Director of Higher  Education.  They referred  to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore vs. Govinda Rao [1964 (4) SCR  575]  which  stated that  the  views of experts in the subject ought not to have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

been lightly interfered with. 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 experts’ views are entitled to great weight as stated in University of Mysore  vs.  Govinda Rao   (supra),  J.P.Kulshrestha  vs.  Chancellor.  Allahabad University [1980 (3) SCC 418], Neelima  Misra  vs.  Harinder Kaur  Paintal  [1990  (2)  SCC  746], Osmania University vs. Abdul Rajees Khan [1997 (3) SCC 124]. 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’s  case, above  referred  to,  this  Court observed, referring to the powers of the  Chancellors  in  matters  of  appointment  of Professors/Readers  as  being  purely administrative and not quasi-Judicial.  It was further stated:             "The  Chancellor,  however,  has to act properly             for the purpose for which the power is confered.             He must take a decision in accordance  with  the             provisions of  the Act and statute.  He must not             be   guided   by   extraneous   or    irrelevant             considerations.   He  must  not  act  illegally,             irrationally or arbitrarily.  ........  any such             illegal,  irrational  or  arbitrary  action   or             decision ....   is liable to be quashed as being             violative of article 14 of the  Constitution  of             India." In  the  present  case, the Chancellor falled to notice that the advertisement and the UGC Regulations - even as pen  the show  cause  notice  -  referred  only  to  "about  10 years experience in teaching and/or  research".    Hence,  it  was necessary  to  take  into  account  not  only  the  teaching experience but also the research experience.   The  proforma which  mentioned  the  marks under each of the six heads did not unfortunately refer to the  research  experience  though the advertisement  did.    Hence the Chancellor committed an illegality in omitting the research experience of 1 year and 5 months out of consideration.  If the  research  experience of  1  year  and  5 months and 14 days were added, the total teaching & research experience of the appellant  would  come to 9  years  1  month.    It  was  not  sufficient  for  the chancellor to just  go  by  the  proforma  inasmuch  as  the advertisement  did  refer  to research experience also apart from the teaching experience. No  doubt,  in  clause  9  of  the Endowment, it was stated that the procedure for selection would be the same as followed for Professor’s selection.  This in  our  view  was referable merely  to  the  procedure.   If the advertisement stressed on the research experience also and not merely  the teaching experience, the column in the proforma for awarding marks  when  it  referred to ’teaching experience’ has to be treated  as  one  meant  to  cover  teaching  and   research experience.   The  Selection  Committee  and  the  Syndicate followed the right procedure but the Chancellor’s went wrong in confining himself to the actual language of the  proforma and  in omitting to give effect to the words and/or research experience  contained  in  the  advertisement  and  the  UGC Regulations.   This,  in  our view, is a clear illegality in the order of the Chancellor.  The High Court ought to  have, therefore, come to the rescue of the appellant and set right the illegality. So far as the contention the even 9 years and one month does

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

not amount to "about 10 years" We are of the view that  this cannot  and  should  not, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, be measured on  the  basis  of  a purely mathematical formula.  The High Court has referred to Cross vs.  Eglin  [1831]  (2)  B.    &  Ad.   106 and The Re Harrison and Micks, Lambert & Co.  1917 (1) KB 755 as to the meaning of the word ’about’.  These are cases  dealing  with contracts  of sale of goods and deal with the meaning of the word ’about’ in connection with  quantity  of  goods  to  be supplied.   The  High  Court has also referred to Morris vs. Levison [1870] CPD 155 [34.   L.T.576].    That  case  again deals  with the amount of Cargo to be carried out the matter of carriage of goods by  sea  and  as  to  what  extent  the carrier can  be  said to have performed his contract.  These cases, in  our  view  deal  with  the  usage  in  commercial transactions and cannot be of any relevance to interpret the condition of eligibility of a candidate for appointment of a ’Professor in a University.  Here we are concerned with view taken  by  experts  in  the  Selection  Committee  and as to whether experience of 9 years and 1 month falls  within  the word ’about 10 years’.  On the facts of the case, it was for the  Selection Committee to consider whether the appellant’s case fell on the right side of ’about 10 years’.  After  all they were considering the total length of experience both in teaching  and  research  and  in  conjunction with his other qualifications to find out whether he can occupy the post of Professor, a  post  which  was  merely  one  concerned  with research in Economics. In out view, the  opinion  of  the  experts  in  the Selection Committee must be taken to be that the appellant’s teaching   and   research  experience  satisfied  the  above condition of about 10 years".  In fact the chancellor in his final order did not expressly say that the  period  was  not "about  10  years",  though such a view was expressed in the show-cause notice.  He merely stated that award of  4  marks towards ’teaching   experience’  was  not  justified.    The appellant did have teaching experience of 7 years  7  months and  14  days and Research experience of 1 year 5 months and 14 days - in all 9 years 26 days and the Selection Committee gave him 4 marks out of 10 on this score.   Even  otherwise, if  the  view of the Chancellor was that the experience must be a minimum of 10 years and therefore Zero marks  ought  to have   been   awarded  to  the  appellant  toward  ’teaching experience’ we cannot agree.    That  would,  in  our  view, amount to ignoring altogether the words in the advertisement ’teaching  and/or  research  experience’  and to exclude the period of 1 year 5 months and 14 days.         For the above reasons, we are unable to sustain  the judgment  of  the High Court or the order of the Chancellor. The judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the writ petition OJCNo. 1910 of  1990  is  entitled  to  be allowed  and  the order of the Chancellor quashed, restoring the appointment of the appellant as Professor  (SBI  Chair). Point  1  is  decided accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the 5th respondent.

Point 2:- The question is about the nature of the relief to be granted to the appellant. From  the  above,  it  is  clear  that  there  is no question of the 5th respondent, who was at  serial  No.2  in the  Selection  list,  being  continued  as  Professor  (SBI Chair).  Obviously, she could not have been appointed unless the appellants’ appointment was cancelled.  Now that we  are restoring  the appellant’s appointment, the 5th respondent’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

appointment in his place automatically falls to  the  ground as an  immediate consequence.  It is not necessary for us to decide  whether,  if  there   was   a   vacancy,   a   fresh advertisement was  necessary  or  No.   2 in the select list could be appointed. Some argument was advanced by  the  learned  counsel for  the  5th respondent that even if the appellant’s appeal was allowed, the respondent’s appointment would still  stand inasmuch  as  that was made pursuant to a mandamus issued in the respondent’s writ petition No.  OJC 2144 of 1990.   This argument   cannot  be  accepted  in  as  much  as  once  the appellant’s appointment is restored, the consequence is that there will be no vacancy.  The mandamus in  OJC  No.2144  of 1990  automatically  ceases  to  operate as a consequence of allowing the Civil Appeal. We, therefore, set aside the Judgment  of  the  High Court  and  quash  the  Chancellor’s  order  and  direct the restoration of the appellant as Professor  (SBI  Chair)  and also  declare  that,  as  a  consequence, the 5th respondent ceases  to  be  Professor  (SBI  Chair)  forthwith.  In  the circumstances,  there  will  be  no order as to costs in the Civil Appeal. Point 2 is decided accordingly. Inasmuch as the Civil  appeal  is  allowed  and  the appellant  restored  to  office and as a consequence the 5th respondent is to vacate the office, there is no need to pass any orders in the SLP filed by  the  appellant  against  the orders in OJC No.  2144 of 1990 because the mandamus granted therein automatically  ceases  to  be operative.  Therefore, the orders  of  the  High  Court  in  OJC  NO.2144  of  1990 automatically stand vacated as a consequence of allowing the Civil Appeal  against  the judgment in OJC No.  1910 of 1990 and our quashing the order of the Chancellor.  No orders are necessary in the SLP.   SLP  is  dismissed  as  unnecessary, after condoning delay.