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
ORDER
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
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
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 teachersat 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
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 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 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 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.