http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: OSMANIA UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITSREGISTRAR, HYDERABAD, A

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ABDUL RAYEES KHAN & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Division  Bench of  the Andhra  Pradesh, made on October 11, 1995 in Writ Appeal No. 1183/88.      The admitted  position is that the first respondent and the second  respondent, G.Manohar  Rao, Lecturers  of Law in the Post  Graduation Department  of the  Faculty of  Law  of Osmania University  had staked their claims for promotion as Reader in the said Department of the Osmania University. The University Grants  Commission had  recommended the procedure for evaluation of the merits of the candidates for selection as Readers and Professors as under:      "Objectives      1.  The  basic  objectives  of  the      scheme should  he (1)  to recognise      outstanding  work   done   by   the      university teachers in the areas of      teaching and  research (2)  subject      such work  to objective  evaluation      by experts  in  the  subject  areas      concerned and  (3) to  provide  for      reasonable    opportunities     for      professional  advancement  to  such      teachers,   who    merit   academic      recognition on a competitive basis.      The scheme  should,  therefore,  be      appropriately   named   as   "Merit      Promotion  Scheme   for  University      Teachers". This  would  be  in  the      nature of a "flexible complementing      scheme"  as   prevailing  in  other      services,  wherein   no  additional      posts are created, and the existing      person on  the  basis  of  critical      assessment are promoted to the next      higher level  and the  position  is      held by such incumbents as personal      to them,  and no  resultant vacancy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

    is required  to be  filled. Such  a      Scheme would considerably encourage      the teachers  to engage in advanced      teaching  and   research  and  make      distinct      contribution      and      promotion.      The present scheme when compared to      similar schemes  operating in other      services,  it  is  in  fact  rather      conservative, keeping  in view  the      present pay scale structure and the      time  involved,   for  persons   to      advance their  profession, However,      even  this   limited  scheme   will      prevent, stagnation  and promote  a      better  climate   of  teaching  and      research.      2.  In   the  present   context  of      implementation   of   the   revised      scales of  pay in  the universities      and colleges since January 1973 and      the  provision  for  similar  merit      promotion  schemes   prevailing  in      CSIR, old  scheme, ICAR, DSRDO etc,      and the  opportunities available in      other services or the Government of      India for professional advancement,      it   is    imperative   that    the      universities    be    enabled    to      implement  merit  promotion  scheme      based upon  the evaluation  of  the      word of  the teacher made effective      from 1st April, 1980.      Method of implementation:      3. (a)  Teachers in  the university      departments  engaged   in  advanced      teaching  and  research  and  whose      contribution and  achievements  are      such as  to merit recognition , may      be considered  for merit promotion,      in  the   first   instance,   after      completing six  years of continuous      service in  their respective cadre,      of  which   at  least  three  years      should be  in the institution where      he/she is being considered for such      assessment and  merit promotion  in      the  initial   presentation   could      however submit  his work again only      after a  lapse of  three years, (c)      Teachers   interested    in    such      assessment  and   consideration  of      merit  promotions   should  present      their  work   to  the   University,      through their department, latest by      31st December  each year  or a date      stipulated by  the  university  (d)      The  university   should  generally      take   a    decision   before   the      beginning  of   the  next  academic      year, so  that such  promotions can      become effective  from the  date of      the beginning  of the next academic      session,  (e)   While   the   final      selection of persons to be promoted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    can be  made by  the university  in      accordance    with    its    normal      procedure, it would be necessary to      refer  to   the  work  (to  include      research    publications,    books,      reviews,  curriculum   development,      teaching   aids,    innovation   in      teaching     methods,     equipment      developed etc,)  presented  by  the      individual teachers-  at least  two      referees in  the subject/discipline      concerned. The  referees are  to be      selected by the Vice-Chancellor out      of  a   panel  of   names  set   up      according    to    the    procedure      prescribed yet  the university  for      Selection Committee. The evaluation      reports by these referees should be      made  available  to  the  Selection      Committee.  The   final   selection      comments and  the unanimous opinion      of the  outside experts  (at  least      two outside  experts in the case of      promotion  to   readers  and  three      outside experts  for  promotion  to      professors)   on    the   Selection      Committee. (f) The post of a reader      given to a lecturer or the position      of a  professor given  to a reader,      through merits  promotion, would be      personal to the incumbent concerned      (g) the main criteria for promotion      under  this  scheme  would  be  the      merit of the academic contributions      and  not   the  seniority   of  the      teachers."      The primary  step required  to be  taken  is  that  the academic achievements of papers, monograms etc. are required to be  referred to  a committee  of two  members of academic experts to  evaluate the  merits of  the teachers  with  the objective of  the finding out the meritorious candidates for selection as  a Reader or Professor, as the came may be. The members  of   the  Committee   are  required   to   consider outstanding word done by the University Teachers in the area of teaching  and research.  The objective evaluation is done by the  experts in  the subject  area engrafted  as members. They have  to be  outsiders to the University and evaluation has to  be done  by these experts to find out the candidates for promotion  on merits  as per  the scheme.  The method of implementation has been stated in para 3 thus:      " Method of implementation:      3 (a)  Teachers in  the  university      departments  engaged   in  advanced      teaching  and  research  and  whose      contribution and  achievements  are      such as  to merit  recognition,  in      the    first     instance,    after      completing six  years of continuous      service in  their respective cadre,      of  which   at  least  three  years      should be  in the institution where      he/she is being considered for such      assessment and merit promotion. (b)      Any teacher who has been considered      and   not    selected   for   merit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    promotion    in     the     initial      presentation could  however  submit      his work  again only  after a lapse      of  three   years,   (c)   Teachers      interested in  such assessment  and      consideration of  merit  promotions      should present  their work  to  the      University,      through      their      department, latest by 31st December      each year  or a  date stipulated by      the university  (d) The  university      should generally  take  a  decision      before the  beginning of  the  next      academic   year,   so   that   such      promotions  can   become  effective      from the  date of  the beginning of      the next  academic  session  ,  (e)      While  the   final   selection   of      persons to  be promoted can be made      by  the  university  in  accordance      with its normal procedure, it would      be necessary to refer to the work (      to include  research  publications,      books,     reviews,      curriculum      development,     teaching     aids,      innovation  in   teaching  methods,      epuipment developed etc.) presented      by the individual teachers at least      two      referees       in      the      subject/discipline  concerned.  The      referees are  to be selected by the      Vice Chancellor  out of  a panel of      names  set   up  according  to  the      procedure   prescribed    yet   the      university for Selection Committee.      The  evaluation  reports  by  these      referees     should     be     kept      confidential, and  should  be  made      available    to    the    Selection      Committee.  The   final   selection      would be  based  upon  the  referee      evaluation   comments    and    the      unanimous opinion  of  the  outside      experts  (at   least  two   outside      experts in the case of promotion to      readers and  three outside  experts      for promotion to professors) on the      Selection Committee.      It is  seen that  the Vice Chancellor of the University had nominated  out of  the panel  (i) Dr.  P.Koteswara  Rao, Professor and  Head of  the P.G.Department  of Law,  Dean  , Faculty of  Law, Shri  Venkateswara University  and (ii) Dr. T.S. Rama  Rao,  Professor  and  Head  Department  of  Legal Studies, University  of Madras  for evaluation  of the works presented by the first respondent and G. Manohar Rao. After consideration  of respective  papers placed before the Expert Committee,  Dr. P.  Koteswara Rao recommended both G. Manohar Rao  as well  as Abdul Rayees Khan for consideration of merit  promotion as  Readers. While  Dr. Rama  Rao stated that the  first respondent  was prima  facie  qualified  for promotion, as  regards G. Manohar Rao, stated that Selection Committee may  go into  the  articles  and  other  material, research papers  placed for consideration by G. Manohar Rao; if they  are found  to be based on any substantial research, he may  be promoted. Thereafter, the Committee consisting of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

Vice-Chancellor, Justice  Sardar Ali  Khan, Dean, Faculty of Law, Professor  E. Gupteswar,  Andhra University,  Professor T.S. Rama Rao, Madras University, Dr. K. Srinivas Rao, Head, Department of  Law and  Shri A.  Narasimha Reddy,  Chairman, Board of  Studies, Osmania  University was  constituted  for selection. They have stated as under:      " The  candidates were summoned for      the  interview  of  the  candidates      interviewed,     the      Committee      recommend for  appointment  to  the      post  (s)   in  question   in   the      following persons. The order of the      reference being  (1) G. Manohar Rao      (2) V.  Krishnamachary  subject  to      the  condition   that  they  obtain      their ph.D. within three years from      the  date   of  their   joining  as      Reader."      From this  material, the  learned single  Judge came to the  conclusion   that  evaluation   committee  of  the  two Professors  hat   not  adopted  any  objective  criteria  in evaluating the papers presented by the respective candidates while  giving   their  opinion   for  consideration  by  the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee has not adopted any  procedure   in  awarding   marks  for  considering  the respective claims.  Therefore, the  selection of  G. Manohar Rao, the  second respondent  in the writ petition was bad in law. That  was upheld  by the  Division  Bench.  Thus,  this appeal by special leave.      Shri H.S.  Gururaja Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contends that as per the procedure prescribed by the  University Grants  Commission,  the  University  was required to  refer to the respective papers submitted by the intending candidates  to the two member Expert Committee who has to  evaluate the  respective  papers  submitted  by  the intending candidates  to the two member Expert Committee who has   to   evaluate   the   respective   merits   and   make recommendations for consideration for promotion. Thereafter, as per  the statute,  the Committee  consisting of 7 persons was required  to consider their cases for promotion. In this case, six  members, out  of seven  members, of the Committee participated  in  the  selection,  they  unanimously,  after interviewing the  candidates,  considered  and  selected  G. Manohar  Rao,   the  Lecturer  as  a  Reader  for  the  Post Graduation Department  of the  Faculty  of  Law  of  Osmania University. The  High Court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that evaluation committee had to adopt systematic set procedure  of giving marks and was also required to give marks for the respective candidates in selection them. It is contended by  the learned  counsel for  the respondents that the view  taken by  the learned  single Judge  is correct on law. A  reading of the expert panel‘s finding would disclose that  they   did  not   adopt  any   objective  criteria  in recommending  the  candidates  for  consideration  of  merit promotion. Record,  as placed  before the  court as regards, selection is  not complete.  Even that report on record does not indicate  any method  by which  the selection came to be made by the Committee. Therefore, the selection is obviously arbitrary being  without any  material. In support thereof , the learned counsel places reliance on State Bank of India & Ors. vs.  Mohd. Mynuddin  [(1987) 4  SCC 486]  and Dr.  J.P. Kulshrestha &  Ors. vs.  Chancellor, Allahabad  University & Ors. [(1980) 3 SCC 418]      In view  of the  respective contentions,  the  question that arises for consideration is: wheather the view taken by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

the High  Court is  correct in  law? It  is not necessary to reiterate what  we have  already stated  with regard  to the merit procedure prescribed by the UGC and the steps taken by the Osmania University in nominating two external experts on the subject  to evaluate  the respective papers presented by G.  Manohar   Rao,  the  second  respondent  and  the  first respondent  for  consideration  of  their  claim  for  merit promotion as  Reader and  the subsequent selection. It would be selfevident  to show  that the appellant had followed the procedure in accordance with the guidelined laid down by the UGC  in   referring  the  respective  claims  of  the  first respondent and  G. Manohar  Rao, the  second respondent  for evaluating their  papers. As seen, both Dr. P. Koteswara Rao and Dr. P. Koteswara Rao recommended the cases of G. Manohar Rao as  well as  the first  respondent for consideration for merit promotion  as Reader.  Similarly, while  Dr. T.S. Rama Rao prima  facie found  the first respondent to be qualified for  consideration  for  promotion,  he  did  not  make  any specific recommendation as regards G. Manohar Rao leaving it to the  Selection Committee  to consider the research papers submitted by  G. Manohar  Rao  was  also  a  member  of  the Selection Committee as an outside expert. As stated earlier, he and  Professor E.  Gupteswar, an  eminent Professor  from Andhra University  Law College,  were outside Professors for selection of  the candidates.  It is seen that the Committee including two  outside  professors  unanimously  recommended promotion of  the G.  Manohar Rao as Reader. In other words, the outside experts were unanimous in recommending promotion of G.  Manohar Rao  as Reader.  The procedure  for promotion from the  post of  Lecturer to  Reader as  enjoined  in  the statute and  the guidelines  laid  down  by  the  University Grants  Commission,   was  scrupulously   followed  and  was strictly complied  complied  with.  After  interviewing  the candidates, the  Committee unanimously  found G. Manohar Rao to be eligible for promotion as Reader. In view of the above facts, the  learned single Judge was not right in concluding that there was no objective evaluation by the two experts on the subject,  namely, Dr. K. Koteswara Rao and Dr. T.S. Rama Rao. Equally,  the learned Judge was not right in concluding that the  Committee should  have adopted  the  procedure  of awarding marks  for selection  of  the  candidates.  When  a Lecturer is  selected for  promotion as a Reader, respective academic preferences  and performance,  teaching  experience and capacity  to teach  and other teaching material relevant to the  subject  in  that  behalf  were  considered  by  the Committee. It  is not  necessary, like in selection of class II and  Class III officers, to award marks to each candidate for  their  selection.  What  is  required  to  be  done  is dispassionate and  objective selection  but not arbitrary or colourable selection  . When  the University nominated seven members including  a High  Court Judge  and it  selected the Readers of  Professors on  objective test,  there emerges no arbitrary  selection.   As  held   by  this  Court  in  J.P. Kulshrestha‘s case,  ultimately, this  Court has to leave it to the  academic body to select the best candidates suitable and fit  to teach  the  subject.  As  held  by  this  Court. "Rulings of  this Court  were cited before us to hammer home the point  that the Court should not substitute its judgment for 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. But  University ongans, for that matter any authority in our system, is bound by the rule of law and cannot be  a law unto itself. If the Chancellor or any other

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

authority lesser in level deciders an academic matter, or an educational question,  the Court  keeps its  hands off;  but where a  provision of  law has to be read and understood, it is not  fair to  keep the  court out."  In view of the above statement of  law, with which we are in respectful agreement we hold  that generally the Court may not interfere with the selection, relating  to educational  affairs,  and  academic matters may be left to the expert body to select best of the talent on objective criteria. What is the objective criteria is a  question of  fact in each case. Each case depends upon its own  facts and the circumstances in which the respective claims   of   competing   candidates   has   come   up   for consideration. No  absolute rule  in that  behalf  could  be laid. Each  case requires  to be considered on its own merit and in  its own  setting, giving  due consideration  to  the views expressed by the educational experts in the affairs of their administration or selection of the candidates.      The two  decisions relied on by the learned counsel are of no  assistance to  the facts  of this  case. In the first case, the  Court had  considered that  the High Court has no power to  give direction  to  the  appointing  authority  to promote the  candidates. Instead  the Court  is required  to direct the  authority to  consider the  claims in accordance with law,  that is  settled  legal  position.  It  does  not require reiteration. That is not the situation having arisen in this  case. Even  the second case, which was relied upon, is not  of any  assistance. On  the facts  in that case, the finding which  was questioned  in this  Court was  upheld by this Court,  as it  was for  the University  to prescibe the grading in  awarding the Post Graduation degrees. Considered from this  perspective, we  are of  the view  that the  High Court was  not justified  in interfering with the selection. The order  of the  learned single  Judge and of the Division Bench stand set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed.      The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed,  but  ,  in  the cincumstances, without costs.