Rameshwar Dass Mehta v. Om Prakash Saini, (SC) BS4681
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6301 of 2000 with C.A. No. 6302 of 2000. D/d. 7.2.2002

Rameshwar Dass Mehta - Petitioner

Versus

Om Prakash Saini - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Recruitment/Selection - Judicial review - Scope of - Selection - Selection of Appellant challenged on ground that he does not possess necessary qualification - High Court allowed claim of Petitioner holding Appellant to have obtained 54.8 percent marks instead of 55 percent as required - Held, it is not open to this court to interfere when matter falls within realm of academic matters - Hence view taken by experts would be final - Appeal allowed accordingly.

[Paras 7 and 8]

Cases Referred :-

S.C. Bajaj v. Kamal Singh Singhmar, 1998(6) Scale (SP) 3.

A.P. Public Service Commission v. G. Sankar, 1999 SCC (L&S) 993.

Jit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979(1) SLR 604.

University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, 1964(4) SCR 575.

Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar, 1994(1) SCT 524 (SC).

Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, 2001(4) SCT 818 (SC).

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - An advertisement was issued by Kurukshetra University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') inviting applications for appointment to several posts, including that of a university librarian. The prescribed qualification thereto reads as follows :

2. Appellant and the first respondent in each of these two appeals along with others, filed their applications and after the selection committee interviewed the candidates in question, the appellant's name was recommended and he was appointed to the post by an order made on 4.11.1997. The respondents filed two writ petitions challenging the appointment of the appellant on various grounds. The High Court examined the same and found that the appellant had obtained 54.8 marks in the master's degree which is not the same as 55 per cent of the marks fixed in the requisite qualification, as indicated by the advertisement and, therefore, he could not have been appointed as he did not possess the necessary qualification. The High Court incidentally noticed that in assessing whether any of the candidates have consistently good academic record did not round off 49.7 per cent marks in B.A. to 50%, obtained by one of the candidates while such exercise had been done in case of the appellant. Although the High Court has noticed that the two respondents did not possess the necessary experience and the respondents were ineligible to be appointed, still the matter has to be examined whether any illegality had been committed by the university.

3. In challenging this order made by the High Court on behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that -

4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents contended that :

5. In order to appreciate the contentious put forth on behalf of either side, first we will analyse as to what is the meaning of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The advertisement provided that a candidate must possess master's degree with at least 55 percent marks or its equivalent grade and consistently a good academic record. Such questions have after (often ?) come up before this Court for consideration as to find out the meaning to be attributed by the expressions used in fixing the qualification by the university. This Court in Govind Rao's case (supra) has dealt with the question as to whether a high second class master's degree from a university is equivalent to a qualification of a foreign university and when such qualification could be stated to be equivalent. It is also pointed out that the equivalence of the two qualifications is a question which pertains purely to an academic matter and courts would hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears to the experts that a candidate fulfils the qualification. If this test is adopted in the present case, the meaning to be attributed to the qualification has to take in both aspects of 55 per cent marks or its equivalent grade.

6. It is pointed out to us by the learned counsel that equivalent grade has been fixed by the university in the following manner :

Seven Point Scale

Grade Grade Point Percentage Equivalent
'O' = Outstanding 5.50-6.00 75-100
'A'= Very Good 4.50-5.49 65-74
'B'= Good 3.50-4.49 55-64
'C'= Average 2.50-3.49 45-54
'D'= Below Average 1.50-2.49 35-44
'E'= Poor 0.50-1.49 25-34
'F'= Fail 0-0.49 0-24

7. Even in this gradation, there is a gap between 54 per cent and 55 per cent and in what category such a candidate would fall above 54 per cent but less than 55 per cent would not be clear. Again equivalence in such a case will have to be found by the academic body. When the appellant has secured 54.85 marks in the master's degree and the selection committee is trying to find out as to who would be a suitable candidate and whether he possesses the necessary qualification with reference to the appointment to be made, they found the marks obtained by him is a good as 55 per cent. We do not think the view taken by the selection committee can be the subject matter of the judicial review as was held by this Court in Govind Rao's case. In academic matters, particularly pertaining to qualifications, the view taken by the experts would be final. If this approach had been adopted by the High Court, the High Court could not have interfered with the action taken by the university in this case at all. The argument that in the case of one of the candidates in assessing whether he had consistently good academic record or not, a view was taken that although he had secured slightly less marks than 50 per cent in one of the examinations that could have been rounded off, is neither here nor there because in his case, the objection raised by the university is to the effect that the said respondent is not having 10 years experience as a deputy librarian in a university or 15 years' experience as a college librarian and he is not having one year specialisation in the area of information technology/archives and manuscript making.

8. Similarly, in the case of other respondent, it has been stated that the concerned respondent is not having 10 years experience as a deputy librarian in a university or 15 years experience as a college librarian and he is not having one year specialisation in the area of information technology/archives and manuscript making and this fact found favour with the High Court. The High Court categorically stated that the petitioners in both the cases were not eligible for the post. That finding has been recorded on consideration of these aspects of the matter. If that is so, other questions need not have been examined in this case at all, though raised by either of the parties.

9. In that view of the matter, we allow these appeals, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.

Appeals allowed.