Bombay High Court
Vasant Ganu Patil Of Thane vs The Chancellor on 9 August, 2010
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Mohit S. Shah
srk 1 pil-92-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.92 OF 2010
Vasant Ganu Patil of Thane,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at 14/b/11, Ground floor,
Gopal Nagar, Bhiwandi,
Dist. Thane, Pin-421 302 .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chancellor,
University of Mumbai, having his office
At Raj Bhawan, Malabar Hill,
Mumbai-400 036.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through the Govt. Pleader, High Court,
(O.S.), having his office at P.W.D.
High Court Compound,
Mumbai-400 032.
3. University of Mumbai
having its office at Madam Cama Road,
Fort, Mumbai-400 032.
4. The Registrar,
University of Mumbai, having his office
at Madam Cama Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400 032.
5. Dr. A.S. Kolaskar, the Vice Chancellor,
KIIT University, At & Post Kalinga
Institute of Industrial Technology,
Bhubaneshwar- 751024.
6. Prof. P. Balaram
Director, Indian Institute of Sciences,
Bangaluru - 560012
Karnataka.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 2 pil-92-10
7. Shri J.S. Sahariya,
Principal Secretary,
Rehabilitation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.
8. Dr. Rajan Welukar,
of Mumbai now appointed as the
Vice-Chancellor,
University of Mumbai,
Fort, Mumbai. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.96 OF 2010
Nitin Deshpande,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
Residing at 1/C-108, Adarsh Nagar,
Kolbad, Thane- 400601.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar,
University of Mumbai, having his office
at Madam Cama Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400 032.
2. University of Mumbai
Having its office at
Madam Cama Road,
Fort, Mumbai-400 032.
3. Chancellor,
University of Mumbai, having his office
at Raj Bhawan, Malabar Hill,
Mumbai- 400 036.
4. State of Maharashtra,
through Shri J.S.Saharia,
Principal Secretary,
Rehabilitation and Former Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 3 pil-92-10
5. Dr. Rajan Welukar,
Vice-Chancellor, University of Mumbai,
Fort, Mumbai. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1901 OF 2010
A.D. Sawant, age 60 years,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing at C/2, Gandhar, Khed Gully,
Off Sayani Road,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025.
ig ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through The Ministry of Education,
having office at the
New Secretariat, Nariman Point,
Mumbai- 400 01.
2. The University of Mumbai
Through its Registrar,
having his Head Office at
Mumbai University Building,
Fort, Mumbai-400 001.
3. Search Committee for Vice-Chancellor,
through its Member
Mr. J.S.Saharia, Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher and Technical
Education, Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.
4. Dr. Rajan Welukar,
Vice-Chancellor, University of Mumbai,
Fort, Mumbai.
5. Chancellor of University of Mumbai,
Raj Bhawan, Mumbai. ... Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 4 pil-92-10
Ms. Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kowli i/by M/s. Sunil &
Co. for the petitioner in PIL No.92 of 2010.
Mr. Anil V. Anturkar with Mr. L.M. Acharya i/by Mr. Ranvir S. Shekhawat
for the petitioner in PIL No.96 of 2010.
Mr.S.M. Sakhardande with Mr. H.E. Dharmadhikari for the petitioner in
W.P.No.1901 of 2010.
Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. D.A.Nalawade, Government
Pleader and Mr. Ravi Lokhande, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent Nos.1,3 and 5 in PIL Nos.92 of 2010 and 96 of 2010.
Mr. R.A. Dada, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naushad Engineer i/by Mr. Sagar
Talekar for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.1901 of 2010, for respondent No.8
in PIL No.92 of 2010 and for respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 in PIL No.96 of
2010.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for University of Mumbai.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND
GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 16 JUNE 2011
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09 AUGUST 2011
JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice)
In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 7 July 2010 of the Chancellor, University of Mumbai- respondent No.1 (exhibit `F') appointing Dr. Rajan Welukar, Incharge Director, Sydenham Institute of Management Studies & Research, Entrepreneurship Education, Mumbai as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai for a term of five years.
2. The petitioner in PIL No.92 of 2010 (Mr. Vasant Ganu Patil of Thane) claims to be the President of an NGO operating in social field. PIL No.96 of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 5 pil-92-10 2010 (Mr. Nitin Deshpande) is filed by a person claiming to be a social activist and working with various NGOs.
These petitioners have prayed for a writ of quo-warranto and have challenged the appointment of Dr. Rajan Welukar (respondent No.8 in PIL No.92 of 2010) the ground that respondent No.8 did not possess the essential qualification and experience for being recommended as a suitable person for appointment of Vice-Chancellor as prescribed in the schedule to the order dated 27 May 2009 of the Government of Maharashtra under section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 14 of 2009.
3. Writ Petition No.1901 of 2010 is filed by Dr. A.D. Sawant, aged about 60 years, who had himself applied in response to the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai. The said petitioner was one of the 20 candidates called by the Search Committee for making presentation, but his name was not recommended by the Search Committee in the panel of five suitable names recommended for the post of Vice Chancellor as forwarded to the Chancellor.
This petitioner has, apart from praying for a writ of quo-warranto against Dr. Rajan Welukar, also contended that the petitioner holds and possesses the essential required qualifications and experience for being appointed as Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai and that, between the petitioner and Mr.Rajan Welukar, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai.
4. Since the petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they have been heard together.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 6 pil-92-10
5. The post of Vice-Chancellor, University of Mumbai fell vacant on 28 September 2009 after expiry of the term of Dr. V.V.Khole. Dr. Smt. Chandra Krishmurthy, Vice-Chancellor of SNDT Women's University was appointed as Acting Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai on 28 September 2009 till the regular Vice-Chancellor was appointed. In the meantime, on 20 July 2009, the then Chancellor had constituted a Search Committee headed by Dr. Andre Beitelle, Padma Awardee and Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Delhi for recommending the panel of suitable names for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of University of Mumbai.
6. In January 2010, the constitution of the Search Committee was challenged in PIL (l) No.9 of 2010 on the ground that Dr. Beiteille was connected with the University till 24 July 2009 and that the appointment of Prof. M.S. Ananth, Director, IIT, Chennai as the nominee of the Management Council and the Academic Council was not in accordance with law.
7. On 20 March 2010, the present Chancellor reconstituted the Search Committee of the following persons for recommending the names of suitable persons for appointment of Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai:-
1. Dr. Ashok Kolaskar, Vice-Chancellor, KIIT University, Bhubneshwar, Orissa- Nominee of Chancellor- Chairman of the Committee.
2. Dr. P. Balaram, Director, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore appointed jointly by the Management Council and Academic Council of University of Mumbai.
3. Mr. J.S. Saharia, Principal Secretary to Government, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 7 pil-92-10
8. The Chancellor convened a meeting on 30 March 2010 with members of the Search Committee to brief them and discuss about the procedure to be adopted by the Search Committee. Pursuant to the said meeting, Chairman of the Search Committee issued an advertisement which was published in many newspapers dated 31 March 2010 inviting applications/nominations for the post of Vice-Chancellor, giving detailed resume, alongwith justification for his/her candidature, vision statement for the University and names of three distinguished individuals well acquainted with his/her work.
The applications were to be sent to the Nodal Officer Mr. L.C. Amarnathan, Registrar, KIIT University, Bhuwaneshwar within one month of the publication of advertisement. It was indicated that, if needed, short-listed candidates may be invited for personal interaction with the Search Committee. The advertisement also mentioned that University offers over 296 programmes through 672 affiliated colleges catering to over 6.5 lakh students every year. The advertisement gave the names of all three members of the Search Committee.
9. It appears that when this process was going on, Mr. J.S. Saharia was transferred as Principal Secretary to Government (Relief & Rehabilitation) from 22 May 2010 but in view of his association with the Search Committee and the fact that his successor in Higher & Technical Education Department was of the rank of Secretary and not Principal Secretary, the State Government continued Mr. J.S.Saharia as its nominee on the Search Committee for selection of Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai, as informed by the State Government through its letter dated 29 May 2010.
10. In all, 98 applications were received in response to the said advertisement, out of which 94 applications were received by the stipulated date and out of those candidates who had applied within the stipulated time ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 8 pil-92-10 limit, 20 candidates were short-listed by the Search Committee on 12 June 2010 for making presentation before the Search Committee. The petitioner of Writ Petition No.1901 of 2010 was one of the 20 candidates who made their presentation before the Search Committee. The Search Committee recommended the names of five candidates (including respondent No.8) as suitable candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai. The name of petitioner in Writ Petition No.1901 of 2010 was not included in the panel of five suitable persons.
11. The relevant extract of minutes of the Search Committee meeting held on 2 July 2010 (exhibit `B') reads as under:-
"On the basis of these interactions, their past experience, their vision document, the Committee decided unanimously that the following candidates in the alphabetical order (not in order of merit) be included as the member of the panel to be forwarded to his Excellency, Shri K. Sankaranarayan, Governor of Maharashtra and the Chancellor of Mumbai University.
(emphasis supplied)
12. After interaction with each of the five recommendees individually on 7 July 2010, the Chancellor made a note (exhibit "E") indicating the following reasons for selecting respondent No.8 for the post of Vice- Chancellor and then signed the impugned order dated 7 July 2010 (exhibit "f") appointing respondent No.8 Dr. Rajan Welukar as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai :-
"I had personal interaction with all the members in the panel individually on 7th July 2010 and discussed about their views and ideas about challenges being faced by the Higher & Technical Education as well as the need for reforms to face the same. During the interaction, I tried to assess the familiarity of every panelist about the University system and his capabilities to handle the challenges associated with the job of the Vice-Chancellor.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 9 pil-92-10 On the basis of the bio-data, academic qualification, experience & career profile and the individual interaction with the panelists, I find Dr. Rajan Welukar to be the most suitable person, amongst all the panelists, to be the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai.
Further, I feel that the Mumbai University has deteriorated in terms of administration. I find that Dr. Welukar demonstrated necessary skills and administrative acumen in his past postings. I therefore found Dr. Welukar suitable for the said position on this count also."
Sd/-
Chancellor
13. Since common contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in each of these three petitions in support of the prayer for a writ of quo-warranto, we will first set out the relevant statutory provisions and then enumerate the challenges levelled by the petitioners.
14. In the first place, the petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of Regulation No.7.3.0 (i) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (exhibit `G') (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations) which reads as under:-
7.3.0 VICE CHANCELLOR:
i. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization."
(emphasis supplied by petitioners) It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.8 had never held the post of Professor in a University or an equivalent position, that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 10 pil-92-10 respondent No.8 was only holding the post of Lecturer and therefore, was ineligible for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
15. Learned Advocate General appearing for the Chancellor and members of the Search Committee submitted that the above Regulations were notified on 30 June 2010 and published in the Official Gazette dated 18 September 2010. Hence they did not apply to the selection process which had commenced with the publication of advertisement on 31 March 2010 and culminated into issuance of the appointment order on 7 July 2010. Reliance is placed on section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 which reads as under:-
"26. Power to make regulations.- (1) The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations] consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder-
(a) to (d) ...............
(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instructions;
(f) to (j) ...............
(emphasis supplied)
16. In view of the above position, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the contention based on the UGC Regulations, more particularly when it was realised that UGC Regulations of 2009 with the same title bearing the number and date "No. F-3-2/2009 (PS) Sept.2009"
sought to be relied upon at the hearing were only draft Regulations.
17. Mumbai University is one of the Universities mentioned in Schedule 2 to the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or "the University Act"). Section 11 of the Act provides that there shall be Vice Chancellor appointed as provided in section 12 who shall be the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 11 pil-92-10 principal executive and academic officer of the university and ex-officio chairman of the Management Council, Academic Council, Board of Examinations, Finance Committee and Academic Services Committees.
Section 12 as substituted by Maharashtra Act No.XIV of 2009 reads as under:-
"(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in the manner stated hereunder:-
(a) There shall be a committee consisting of the following members to recommend suitable names to the Chancellor for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, namely:-
(i) a member nominated by the Chancellor, who shall be the retired Judge of the Supreme Court or retired Chief Justice of a High Court or an eminent scientist of national repute or a recipient of Padma Award in the field of education;
(ii) the Principal Secretary of Higher and Technical Education Department or any officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to Government nominated by the State Government;
(iii) the Director or Head of an institute or organization of national repute, such as, Indian Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of Management, Indian Institute of Science, Indian Space Research Organisation or National Research Laboratory, nominated by the Management Council and the Academic Council, jointly, in the manner specified by the State Government by an order published in the Official Gazette;
(b) The member nominated by the Chancellor shall be the Chairman of the Committee;
(c) The members nominated shall be the persons who are not connected with the university or any college or any recognized institution of the university;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 12 pil-92-10
(d) No meeting of the Committee shall be held unless all the three members of the Committee are present;
(2) ......................
(3) The Committee shall recommend a panel of not less than five suitable persons for the consideration of the Chancellor for being appointed as the Vice-Chancellor. The names so recommended shall be in alphabetical order without any preference being indicated. The report shall be accompanied by a detailed write up on suitability of each person included in the panel.
(3A)A person recommended by the Committee for appointment as a Vice-Chancellor shall,-
(a) be an eminent academician or an administrator of high caliber;
(b) be able to provide leadership by his own example;
(c) be able to provide vision and have ability to translate the same into reality in the interest of students and society; and
(d) possess such educational qualifications and experience as may be specified by the State Government, by an order published in the Official Gazette, in consultation with the Chancellor.
(3B) The eligibility conditions and the process for recommendation of names for appointment as Vice-Chancellor shall be given wide publicity to ensure the recommendation of most suitable candidates.
(4) The Chancellor may appoint one of the persons included in the panel to be the Vice-Chancellor;
Provided however, than if the Chancellor does not approve any of the persons so recommended, he may call for a fresh panel either from the same committee or after constitution of a new committee for the purpose, from such new committee.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 13 pil-92-10 (5) The person appointed as the Vice-Chancellor shall, subject to the terms and conditions of his contract of service, hold office for the contract period of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till attaining the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier and shall not be eligible for re-appointment.
(6) The person appointed as the Vice-Chancellor shall hold a lien, if any, on the post in which he is confirmed prior to the appointment.
..............
(emphasis supplied) Sub-sections (7) to (13) are not relevant for the present controversy.
18. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (3A) of section 12, the State Government issued order dated 27 May 2009 (exhibit "D") specifying the essential qualifications and experience as well as desirable experience etc. in the following terms:-
"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) sub-section (3A) of section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (Mah.XXXV of 1994); and of all other powers enabling it in that, the Government of Maharashtra, in consultation with the Chancellor, hereby;
(1) specifies that the person being recommended by the Committee shall possess the essential qualifications and experience as set out in part `A' of the Schedule appended hereto; and may possess desirable experience, expected skill and competencies as set out in Part B and part C, respectively of the said Schedule;
(2) directs that the manner in which the application shall be submitted shall be such as set out in Part D of the said Schedule.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 14 pil-92-10
Schedule
PART `A'
Essential Qualification and Experience-
(1) Earned Doctorate in any discipline and good academic record.
(2) Experience in the field of Higher Education of at least 15 years in teaching and research in a university/well-established institution of repute and/or at the undergraduate and post-
graduate level.
(3) Minimum of five research publications in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals after Ph.D and/or published quality books in a recognised discipline, referenced for study in higher education at the National/International level.
(4) At least 5 years of administrative experience in the field of Higher Education not below the rank of Professor and Head of the Department in a university/Principal (in Professor's Grade) of a Senior College/Head of a national/international institution of Advanced Learning.
(5) Execution of at least one major research project.
(6) Experience of working with international bodies or international exposure through participation in workshops, seminars or conferences held outside the country.
(7) Experience of organizing events such as workshops, seminars, conference at an international level within the country in the field of higher education.
(8) Demonstrated experience in leadership.
(emphasis supplied)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 15 pil-92-10
PART `B'
Desirable Experience-
(1) Experience of working on the Statutory Authorities of a
university such as Board of Studies, Academic Council, Management Council or Executive Council of Board of Management, Senate, etc.;
(2) Demonstrable experience of handling Quality issues, assessment and accreditation procedures, etc.;
(3) Experience to guide Ph.D students;
(4) Experience at the State or national or international level in
handling youth development work such as organizing student-
centric activities for their all-round development and for providing them rich campus life as envisaged in the Maharashtra Universities Act.
PART `C' Expected Skills and Competencies-
(1) Technical Skills-
(i) Openness towards technology and a deep conviction regarding its potential applications in a knowledge-based settings;
(ii) Reasonably high level of comfort in the use of technology;
(2) Managerial Skills- ..........................
(3) Alignment with corporate objectives and State as well as National level priorities-
(i) Ability to identify the needs of the communities in key sectors;
(ii) Deep understanding of the challenges before the Nation and how Higher Education can respond to developmental needs;
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 16 pil-92-10
(iii) Demonstrable understanding of curriculum development issues, especially those relating to widening participation and social inclusion;
(4) Leadership skills- .................................
(5) Interpersonal communication and collaborative skills-
(i) Demonstrable success in developing and executing National and International collaborative arrangements;
(ii) Ability to interact effectively and persuasively with a strong knowledge-base at senior levels and in large forums as well as on a one-to-one basis;
(iii) Evidence of being an active member of professional bodies and associations in pertinent fields.
PART `D' Procedure for the Search Committee for considering prospective candidates-
(1) The Search Committee may identify on its own or on recommendations of eminent academicians the prospective candidates.
(2) Apart from this, the Search Committee may also consider applications received by it.
(3) The prospective candidates/applicants must provide a detailed chronological Resume that reflects their qualifications experience and achievements. Additionally, they should provide a summary description of fulfilling the essential requirements and justifying their competency for the position of Vice-Chancellor in the context of the specific skills and competencies listed herein to facilitate the Search Committee to judge competency/suitability of the candidate.
(4) The Search Committee may relax any condition in case of deserving candidate."
(emphasis supplied)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 17 pil-92-10
19. Since all the petitioners have basically contended that Dr. Rajan Welukar (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.8) did not possess the essential experience as required in clauses (2) to (5) in Part `A' of the above Schedule, we will refer only to the relevant portion of the bio-data submitted by respondent No.8 alongwith his application and the relevant material referred to in the affidavit filed by respondent No.8 as under:-
"2. Educational qualifications Ph.D in Statistics (Notification issued on 15th September, 2004) Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) in Statistics Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Statistics Certificate in Information Technology
3. Professional experience A total of twenty five years of experience in the field of teaching (UG and PG), academic administration, training and capacity building, community service, youth development, programme planning, implementation, evaluation, supervision and monitoring of various programmes at the university, state, national and international levels.
Experience of liaising with various departments dealing with Higher Education, co-ordinating various programmes/activities and helping the government and the universities in framing/amending rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances and act of the universities in an environment of democratic participation and vision building in institutions.
Visiting Faculty for Bachelor of Management Studies (BMS) and Masters in Management Studies (MMS) in colleges under the University of Mumbai.
Teaching for the ICWA course, a professional course for becoming a Cost & Works Accountant.
Resource person for U.G.C./MHRD, Department of Youth Affairs & Sports and sponsored Orientation/Refresher courses/training programmes organised by:
(Various universities in Maharashtra and outside Maharashtra.) National Assessment & Accredited Council (NAAC), Bangalore.
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. TOC, Ahmednagar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 18 pil-92-10
4. Employment history and key responsibilities handled (Current backwards) ......................
Sept. 2009 onwards : Director, Sydenham Institute of Management Studies, Research & Entrepreneurship education. ............................
Sept. 2004 to Sept. 2009, Vice-Chancellor of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University.
.................................
October 2003 to Sept. 2004: Senior Programme Officer and HRD Lead officer for the Commonwealth Secretariat's Commonwealth Youth Programme (CYP) Asia region.
...............................
March 2002 to Oct. 2003 : Deputy Secretary (Education) to the Governor of Maharashtra and Chancellor of the Universities.
.....................................
July 2000 to February 2002 : Officer on Special Duty in the Higher and Technical Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra.
...................................
June 1996 to July 2000 : State Liaison Officer, National Service Scheme (NSS), and Officer on Special Duty in the Higher & Technical Education Department of the State Government. ....................................
June 1995 to June 1996 (on deputation) : NSS Programme Coordinator in the University of Mumbai.
.....................................
From June 1983 : Teaching experience (25 years of teaching experience to graduate and post graduate classes:
B.Sc., M.Sc., B.Com., B.M.S., M.M.S., ICWA I was appointed as lecturer in Statistics in the State Government's Institute of Science in the year 1983. Since then I have taught in the following colleges:
Institute of Science, Nagpur.
Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya, Amravati In between I spent one year to complete my M.Phil. in statistics.
5. Membership of Committees and Professional bodies National level ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 19 pil-92-10 Member, Working Group of the National Knowledge Commission, New Delhi (Committee constituted by the Prime Minister of India) Former Member, Distance Education Council, New Delhi.
Member, Working Group on Adolescents' Development for formulation of the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-2010) appointed by Government of India.
Member, Advisory Committee, Distance Education Programme under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Government of India, New Delhi (for a period of two years from 17.10.2005) UGC nominee on the Academic Advisory Committee of the Academic Staff College in Sant Gadge Baba Maharaj Amravati University and the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad.
..............................
Committees under the Assessment and Accreditation of college and Universities Honorary Quality Consultant to NAAC for colleges in the State of Maharashtra.
Member, State level Coordination Committee for Assessment and Accreditation of colleges in Maharashtra.
Member, Working Group for Assessment and Accreditation of colleges in Maharashtra.
.....................................
State level/Under the Govt. of Maharashtra .....................................
Chairman of a committee to suggest the anti ragging draft bill appointed by Government of Maharashtra.
.....................................
Member-Secretary, "Education Reforms Committee" of the Government of Maharashtra, Chairman, Committee for suggesting measures for the development of a Corpus for higher education.
Member, Admission Regulatory Committee (Pravesh Niyantran Samiti), constituted by the Government of Maharashtra.
Member of the Board of Directors, Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd.
....................................... Member, Reforms Committee to improve the Quality of Higher Education in Maharashtra.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 20 pil-92-10 Member, Committee to suggest methodology for giving Grants to Arts, Science & Commerce Faculties of colleges in each Taluka in Maharashtra.
University level .................................
Member, Academic Audit Committee of the University of Mumbai. ...............................
As Vice-Chancellor, Ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Management, Academic Council, Planning Board, Board of Examinations, Board of University Teaching and Research, Building and Works Committee and Finance Committee of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University.
6. Research Projects and Collaborations Guided two Research Projects Study on Attrition in Distance Learning in Partner Institutions spread across 4 countries (Undertaken jointly by the Commonwealth Youth Programme of the Commonwealth Secretariat, London and IGNOU.
Tracer Study of Commonwealth Youth Programme Diplomats from Malaysia, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka.
International Collaborations Some of the important collaborations worked out during my tenure as Vice-Chancellor were with the following :
Wawasan Open University, Malaysia Athabasca University, Canada Commonwealth Secretariat, London International Food Policy Research Institute for the Global Open Food and Agriculture University, USA.
In the offing : Microsoft Corporation, India with HQ in USA
7. Publications Research papers /problems in Peer-reviewed Journals Wimbledon results re-analysed : A Probabilistic Model, Teaching Statistics, June 1990, Vol. 12, Issue 2 from UK. Mathematical identity : The American Mathematical Monthly, Oct. 2003, Vol. 110, No.8 from USA.
A Coin tossing experiment and nineteen distributions, Teaching Statistics, 2005, Vol. 28 Issue 2 from UK (Related to my Ph.D).
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 21 pil-92-10 Expansion by Inclusion-Exclusion, The American Mathematical Monthly, May 2005, Vol. 112, No.5 from USA.
A result on Fibonacci number, Mathematical Gazette, Nov. 2005, Vol. 9, No.5/6 from USA.
Problem on Lucas number, School of Science and Mathematics, Jan. 2009, Vol. 109(1) from Israel.
Redefining Distance Learning, Journal of Distance Education, University of Jammu, 2002, Vol. IX, No.1 from India. A result on Fibonacci numbers, pi-mu-epsilon, fall 2009 from USA. Fibonacci numbers, submitted for publication in Fibonacci Quarterly, a research journal published in the USA.
Satellite-based education in YCMOU, submitted for publication to The Australian Journal "Distance Education".
Presently working on a paper tentatively titled, `Innovative reforms in student assessment in Higher Education'.
A waiting type model and associated results, submitted for publication in The Mathematical Gazette.
Other Academic Articles Best Practices in Distance Education, published in Four Decades of Distance Education in India : Reflections on Policy and Practice, New Delhi, 2006 pp 362-369.
Human Rights Education : A vehicle for social transformation, University News, pub. Association of Indian Universities, 2004, No.
48. Growing through Consortium, University News, pub. Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, 2002.
Some schemes for fund raising for higher education in India, sent for publication in University News, pub. Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi.
Male-female Ratio published in the SNDT Women's University's souvenir.
A Call to Youth to Wake Up (in regional language viz. Marathi), published in Lokrajya, a monthly publication of the Government of Maharashtra.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 22 pil-92-10
8. Organisation of Seminars/workshops/conference International level Organised Strategic planning and Review meeting on Youth Work Education and Training and Youth Enterprise Development in which 12 countries participated ( 19 to 22 April 2004 at Trivendrum) Organised Annual Progress meeting of Asia region partner Institutions from 5 countries (11 to 13 April, 2004) Organised Asia regional workshop on Empowering Youth Against High Risk Behavior at Chennai (23 to 30 August, 2003).
National/State level Organised more than 50 Seminars/workshops/conferences on issues related to higher education
9. Participation and Presentations in Workshops & Conferences ..................................
10. Extension and Youth Development activities ................................................
11. Extra-curricular interests and achievements ........................................................
Sports ....................
Socially-oriented initiatives .......................................................... Cultural activities ..........................................................
Clause (4): 5 years of Administrative Experience
20. For the sake of convenience, we may first consider the challenge based on the contention that respondent No.8 did not have five years of administrative experience in the field of higher education as required by clause (4), because the petitioner was not holding the rank of professor and head of the department in university. The petitioner was only holding the post of lecturer in Sydenham College at the time of his appointment as Chancellor of Yashwantrao Chavan Open University in September 2004.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 23 pil-92-10
21. In reply, the learned Advocate General appearing for the Chancellor and the Search Committee as well as Mr.Rafiq Dada, learned senior counsel for respondent No.8 pointed out that as per the provisions of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Act, 1989, the Vice Chancellor is the principal executive as well as academic officer of the university much above the Dean of Faculty. Only a professor is appointed as the Dean of Faculty and therefore, respondent No.8 did have five years of administrative experience in the field of higher education.
22. Clause (4) reads as under:-
(4) At least 5 years of administrative experience in the field of Higher Education not below the rank of Professor and Head of the Department in a university/Principal (in Professor's Grade) of a Senior College/Head of a national/international institution of Advanced Learning.
(emphasis supplied) A bare perusal of the above clause indicates that what the clause requires is minimum 5 years of administrative experience in the field of higher education and the candidate must have gained such administrative experience while holding the rank of Professor and Head of the Department in a university or on a higher post. It is not at all necessary that the administrative experience must have been gained while holding the post of a Professor. Respondent No.8 did hold the post of Vice Chancellor of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University for a period of 5 years from September 2004 to September 2009. Section 9 of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Act, 1989 provides that the following shall be the officers of the University viz.-
(i) Vice Chancellor;
(ii) Directors;
(iii) Registrars;
(iv) Finance Officers; and
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 24 pil-92-10
(v) Such other officers as may be declared by the Statute to be the officers of the University.
Section 10(2) provides as under:-
"The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal academic and executive officer of the University, and shall exercise supervision and control over the affairs of the University and give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the University."
(emphasis supplied) The second schedule of the above Act contains the Statutes of the University and Statute 2(1) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall be ex- officio Chairman of the Board of Management, the Academic Council, the Planning Board and the Finance Committee. Statute 2(9) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall have the powers, inter alia, to appoint such professors, readers, lecturers and other teachers as may be necessary, with the prior approval of the Board of Managements. It is, thus, obvious that when the Vice-Chancellor is holding such higher post that he has even the powers to appoint professors, it would be irrational to suggest that 5 years administrative experience gained by respondent No.8 as Vice-Chancellor of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University will not meet the requirements of clause (4).
23. Contrasting the provisions of Section 12(3A)(d) of Maharashtra Universities Act read with the statutory order dated 27 May 2009 issued thereunder, with the provisions of section 13(2) of the same Act prescribing the eligibility criterion for the post of Pro Vice Chancellor also makes it clear that while a candidate for the post of Pro Vice Chancellor must have held the post of Professor or Principal of a college, no such requirement is prescribed for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 25 pil-92-10 Clause (5) Execution of one Major Research Project
24. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No.8 did not "execute" at least one major research project, because respondent No.8 had merely "guided" two research projects as mentioned in his bio data submitted alongwith the application in response to the advertisement.
25. The learned Advocate General as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.8 have submitted that the petitioner had clearly given the details of the two research projects and had mentioned the other international collaborations in the following terms:-
"6. Research Projects and Collaborations Guided two Research Projects Study on Attrition in Distance Learning in Partner Institutions spread across 4 countries (Undertaken jointly by the Commonwealth Youth Programme of the Commonwealth Secretariat, London and IGNOU.
Tracer Study of Commonwealth Youth Programme Diplomates from Malaysia, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka.
International Collaborations Some of the important collaborations worked out during my tenure as Vice-Chancellor were with the following :
Wawasan Open University, Malaysia Athabasca University, Canada Commonwealth Secretariat, London International Food Policy Research Institute for the Global Open Food and Agriculture University, USA. In the offing : Microsoft Corporation, India with HQ in USA"
It is submitted that the aforesaid material was more than sufficient to indicate that the petitioner has executed more than one research project.
26. Since the file of the office of the Chancellor was made available for our perusal, we noticed that the office of the Chancellor had sought ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 26 pil-92-10 clarification from respondent No.8 via e-mail dated 6 July 2010 and respondent No.8 had given the following clarifications in his e-mail reply dated 6 July 2010:-
"I was working in Commonwealth Secretariats CYP Asia Centre as Sr. Programme Officer and HRD lead Officer looking after Youth Development division. I have mentioned in my Biodata about guiding two research projects. One was independently undertaken and one in Collaboration. I was leader and Principal guide in one project. I had appointed one research assistant for both the projects.
Generally the major research projects are done in a team and the minor research projects are done individually. Our project was major as it included four countries."
It was after the above clarification that respondent No.8 was called for interaction with the Chancellor on 7 July 2010.
In our view, the above clarification is sufficient to dispel the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, which is merely playing with the words "to execute" and "to guide". It depends on the kind of leadership and the type of project under consideration. If a leader imposes his decisions on members of the team, he will be said to have "executed" the project. On the other hand, a democratic leader with persuasive style of leadership may draw the best out of the members of his team by guidance and may like to say that he had "guided" the research project. The petitioners' contention must, therefore, be rejected.
Clauses (2) and (3) "15 years experience in Higher Education and 5 Research Publications"
27. We may now take up the two contentions pressed more seriously by the petitioners. It is contended by the petitioners that respondent No.8 did not fulfill the following essential experience:-
"Experience in the field of Higher Education of at least 15 years in teaching and research in a university/well-established institution of repute and/or at the undergraduate and post-graduate level."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 27 pil-92-10 It is contended that the petitioner has shown only 14 years of teaching experience but such experience was mere teaching experience and could not be considered as experience in both teaching and research. In any case, the petitioner did not have the basic qualification of "at least 15 years" in teaching and research.
28. On behalf of respondent No.8, it is pointed out in his affidavit in reply that apart from 14 years of actual teaching at under-graduate and post- graduate level in Government Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya, Amravati (1 year), Institute of Science, Nagpur (5 years) and Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai (8 years), the petitioner had, during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor of Yashwantrao Chavan Open University, Maharashtra done research for five years between 2004 and 2009 during which period five research publications were published and some more were submitted for publication which signifies a continuing research being carried out.
Therefore, the actual teaching and research experience cumulatively amounts to 19 years as against required 15 years. Over and above this, the petitioner had six to seven years of experience in University administration when the petitioner was on deputation on various posts, all connected with university education. It is submitted since for all these seven years, the petitioner had retained his lien on his substantive post, which was a teaching post, the entire period of 25 years should be taken into consideration.
29. The next challenge is that the petitioner did not have minimum of five research publications as required by clause (3) in Part A of the Schedule which reads as under:-
"Minimum of five research publications in peer/reviewed/referred international research journals after Ph.D and/or published quality books in a recognised discipline, referenced for study in higher education at the National/International level."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 28 pil-92-10
30. Although the petitioner's bio-data submitted with the application in response to the advertisement mentioned as many as 12 publications and 6 articles, with the relevant years specifically mentioned against each item, there were some research papers which were published before 15 September 2004 when notification awarding Ph.D to the petitioner was issued. Besides, on the date of submitting the application by respondent No.8, some research papers were not yet published. The following 5 publications were, however, after Ph.D.:-
1. A Coin tossing experiment and nineteen distributions, Teaching Statistics, 2005, Vol. 28, Issue 2 from UK (Related to my Ph.D).
2. Expansion by Inclusion-Exclusion, The American Mathematical Monthly, May 2005, Vol..112, No.5, from USA *3. A result on Fibonacci numbers, Mathematical Gazette, Nov.
1005, Vol.9, No.5/6 from USA.
4. Problem on Lucas number, School of Science and Mathematics, Jan. 2009, Vol. 109(1) from Israel.
*5. A result of Fibonacci numbers, pi-mu-epsilon, fall 2009 from USA.
[*Two publications are different "Fibonacci number" is defined in Oxford English Dictionary as under:-
"(Fibonacci number) is the sum of the two preceding numbers e.g. the series 1,1,2,3,5,8, etc.)]
31. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that respondents have not placed anything on record to show that the journals in which the research papers/problems were published were peer- reviewed/referred international research journals referenced for study in higher education at the National/International level. It is further contended that some of the above items were mere problems which cannot be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 29 pil-92-10 considered as research papers. In support of this contention, the petitioners have relied on an affidavit of Prof. (Dr.) Neeraj Hatekar, Professor of Econometrics in the Mumbai University. It is stated in the said affidavit that "Most of these so called publications are problems, which are meant for undergraduate students to solve. None of the publications of the Respondent No.8 can be considered and are not research publication." The deponent of the affidavit has relied on e-mail communications, to the effect that publication of the problems cannot be considered as research articles. It is also contended by Prof. Hatekar that "teaching statistics" cannot be considered as a research journal.
32. Relying on the aforesaid affidavit dated 5 February 2011 of Dr. Neeraj Hatekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently submitted that petitioner did not fulfill the essential experience of 5 research publications as required by Clause (3). Though initially, it was contended that the research publications of respondent No.8 must themselves be referenced for study in higher education in the national/international level, it was contended that even otherwise the publications in question did not fulfill the criteria of research publications in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals referenced for study in higher education at the National/International level.
33. It was also vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioners that nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the Search Committee short-listed the number of candidates from 94 to 20 for personal discussions with the Committee. It is further submitted that neither the minutes of the Search Committee meeting held on 2 July 2010 (exh. `B')nor its write up on respondent No.8 indicate that respondent No.8 had minimum 15 years of teaching and research experience and that respondent No.8 had minimum 5 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 30 pil-92-10 research peer-reviewed/referred international research journals after Ph.D referenced for study in higher education at the National/International level. It is also submitted that note of the Chancellor (exh. `E') in support of the impugned appointment order dated 7 July 2010 also does not state in so many words that the above essential legal requirements were fulfilled and, therefore, there was non-application of mind to the essential experience prescribed for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
34. Apart from dealing with each individual challenge, on behalf of the Chancellor and the members of the Search Committee (respondent Nos.5 to
7), it was submitted by the learned Advocate General that the Search Committee consisted of experts and that when selection or recommendation for selections for any post in an academic institution is made by a committee of experts, this Court would not sit in appeal over such selection/recommendations nor substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the experts, particularly when no allegations of malafides have been made against any member of the Search Committee.. After referring to the bio data of the said three experts, strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others (2010) 8 SCC 372, particularly paras 21, 25,26,31 and 38.
35. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that Chairman and two other members of the Search Committee were not experts in statistics in which discipline, the petitioner had written his publications and, therefore, the decision of the Apex Court does not support the petitioner's case.
36. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length on all the challenges levelled by the petitioners to the eligibility of respondent No.8 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 31 pil-92-10 for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Before dealing with each individual challenge not dealt with earlier, it is first necessary to look at the settled legal position as regards the role of this Court in such matters, the bio-data of members of the Search Committee and then the minutes of the Search Committee at the meeting held on 12 June 2010 at which the decision was taken to short-list 20 candidates as eligible.
DISCUSSION
37. In paras 22, 31 and 38 of the decision in Basavaiah (Dr.)'s case (2010)8 SCC, 372, the Apex Court has laid down the following principles:-
"22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in English in Central College, Bangalore in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fies against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board. The Court further observed that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.
31. In Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar, (1994)1 SCC 169, the Court observed thus: (pp. 174-75, para 9) "9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the Selection Committees concerned which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection."
38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 32 pil-92-10 and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."
(emphasis supplied)
38. The Search Committee consisted of the following experts:-
1. Prof. Ashok S.Kolaskar, Vice-Chancellor, KIIT University, Bhubaneshwar.
Vice-Chancellor of University.
Advisor to the National Knowledge Commission of India. Member/Chairman of several committees of Government of India and special committees of Maharashtra State Government in the field of higher education.
One of the few scientists in the world to pursue research in bio-
informatics and awarded a national and international patent for the peptide vaccine candidate against Japanese Encephalitides virus.
Extensive international experience as researcher, teacher, administrator and member/chairman of International Scientific Committees including Director of the Division of Bioinformatics at the American Type Culture Collection in Virginia.
Worked as member/chairman of various committees of CODATA (An interdisciplinary Committee of Scientific Data) of International Council of Scientific Union.
Worked as an expert member of the committee to evaluate open educational resources developed by MIT, Boston and use of technology in education.
Working closely with the US Academy of Sciences.
Felicitated by the International Institute of Information Technology at the hands of Hon'ble President of India Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam for valuable contributions to the discipline of bioinformatics, 2002.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 33 pil-92-10
2. Prof. P. Balaram,
Director,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
Obtained Master's degree in Chemistry from IIT, Kanpur. Ph.D from Carnegie Mellon University. Postdoctoral research at Harvard University with Nobel laureate Robert Burns Woodward. Has authored more than 400 research papers and is a fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences.
He was awarded Padma Shri
3. Shri J.S. Saharia, Principal Secretary to Government, Higher & Technical Education Dept. From 23 May 2008 to 21 May 2010 And was holding the post of Principal Secretary to the Government, (Relief & Rehabilitation) from 22 May, 2010 onwards
39. Since the University had received in all 98 applications and 20 candidates were short-listed for the presentation before the Search Committee, we called for the file containing the minutes of meeting of the Search Committee held on 12 June 2010. After referring to the fact that in all 98 applications were received (Annexure `A') out of which 94 were received in time, the Committee recorded as under:-
"(2) The committee reviewed each and every application received and prepared the list of candidates having all essential qualifications as mentioned in the Maharashtra University Act (Amended in 2009) order No.Rajabh-2009/(71/09/VE-2 dated 27th May, 2009 issued by the State Government in the Higher and Technical Education Department. The list of all the candidates who have satisfied essential qualification and experience is given as Annexure-B. It can be seen that only twenty candidates satisfy essential qualifications.
(3) Remaining 74 candidates are not considered for further deliberations as they lack essential qualification. List of these candidates is given in Annexure-C. It can be seen that the committee members have given specific reasons as to why the candidates in Annexure-C are rejected.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 34 pil-92-10 (4) Further, all four candidates, whose applications were received after due date, did not have essential qualifications.
(5) It was decided that all the 20 candidates listed in Annexure-B and who have minimum qualification be called for personal discussions with the members of the committee on 2nd July, 2010 from 10.00 a.m. onwards at the J.P.Naik Centre Conference Room, University of Mumbai, Kalina Campus, Mumbai.
The members thanked the Nodal Officer Mr. L.C. Amarnathan for his meticulous work and all support.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (12/6/10)
J.S. Saharia P.Balaram A.S.Kolaskar
Member ig Member Chairman"
(emphasis supplied)
40. We have also looked at the list of the eligible candidates in Annexure "B" to the minutes of the said meeting. The relevant portion of the said Annexure "B" in so far as respondent No.8 Rajan Welukar and Dr. A.D. Sawant (petitioner in Writ Petition No.1901 of 2010) are concerned, read as under:-
Sl. Date of Name/DoB Educa Exper- Research Admini- Major Experi-ence Experience Remarks No Receipt -tional ience Publicat- strative Rese- of Working in Qualifi in ion in Experien arch with organizing
-cation Higher Interna- ce Projec International Events (Ph.d) Educa tional t bodies or ti-on Journal attending Seminars/wor kshops/Confe
-rences 7 26/4/2010 Dr.A.D.Sawant Ph.D 30 61 23 11 51 50 V(Off) VC-
(01/06/1950) 1979 Rajasthan/
(60 yrs,) Ex PVC,
MU)
15 1/5/2010 Dr.Rajan Ph.D 25 12 6 2 171 311 V
Welukar
(22/08/1959)
(51 yrs,)
41. The relevant extracts of minutes of the Search Committee meeting held on 2 July 2010 (exhibit `B') read as under:-
"Prof. Kolaskar welcomed the members and informed that as per the decision of the Committee, 20 (twenty) candidates have been invited for personal discussions with the Committee. Each candidate was requested to send his/her presentation (five slides). All the 20 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 35 pil-92-10 (twenty) candidates have responded and have sent their representations. He further informed that 10 (ten) candidates have been called for discussions in the morning session while remaining 10 (ten) candidates have been called in the post-lunch sessions from 2.00 p.m. onwards.
On the basis of these interactions, their past experience, their vision document, the Committee decided unanimously that the following candidates in the alphabetical order (not in order of merit) be included as the member of the panel to be forwarded to his Excellency, Shri K. Sankaranarayan, Governor of Maharashtra and the Chancellor of Mumbai University.
1) Dr. Naresh Chandra
2) Dr. N.S. Gajbhiye
3) Dr. Alka Gogate
4) Dr.Nilima Kshirsagar
5) Dr. Rajan Welukar Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
J.S.Saharla P. Balaram A.S. Kolaskar
Member 2/7/10 Member Chairman 2/7/10."
42. The Search Committee write up on respondent No.8 Dr. Rajan Welukar, which was annexed to the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd July, 2010 (exh. `B') read as under:-
"Dr. Rajan Welukar Dr. Rajan Welukar is a trained statistics expert with his Ph.D in that area and several publications even though he is young (born 1959) he has very good experience as teacher and administrator. Dr. Welukar has worked with Mah. State Govt. as OSD in the Dept. of Higher Education, in the office of Governor as Joint Sec. and as the Vice- Chancellor of YCMOU for five years. During his tenure as Vice- Chancellor he tried to take distance mode of education to those who need most and introduced several new academic and skill development programs. He has thus proved his leadership qualities. He has a good knowledge of Mumbai University and will be able to resolve some of the current issues by forming a team. He is very sincere and hard working. His international exposure and experience of working at different level will be immensely useful. The Committee therefore unanimously includes the name of Dr. Rajan ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 36 pil-92-10 Welukar in the panel of candidates for the post of Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai.
Sd/-
A.S. Kolaskar (emphasis supplied)
43. We find from the communication dated 6 July 2010 sent by the office of the Chancellor to respondent No.8 that on scrutiny of the bio-data of respondent No.8, the office of the Chancellor had a query regarding the length of teaching experience of respondent No.8. In response to the same, respondent No.8 had sent e-mail reply dated 6 July 2010 giving particulars of his teaching experience and also various other assignments during which period he continued to hold lien on his teaching post in Sydenham college. It was thereafter that Chancellor had interaction with respondent No.8 and four others on 7 July 2010.
44. The Chancellor made the following note dated 7 July 2010 before issuing the impugned order dated 7 July 2010 in favour of respondent No. 8(Dr.Rajan Welukar):-
"The Search Committee for the selection of Vice-Chancellor of University of Mumbai submitted a panel of following five names to me:-
1) Dr. Naresh Chandra, Principal, Birla College, Kalyan, Dist. Thane.
2) Dr. N.S. Gajbhiye, Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Harishingh Gour Central University, District Sagar (M.P.)
3) Dr. (Smt.) Alka Gogte, Ex-Professor and Dean, Lokmanya Tilak Medical College and Hospital, Sion, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 37 pil-92-10
4) Dr. (Smt.) Nilima Kshirsagar,
Professor and Dean,
P.G. Institute of Medical Science and Research, MGM Hospital, Mumbai.
5) Dr. Rajan Welukar, In-charge Director Sydenhan Institute of Management Studies & Research, Entrepreneurship Education, Mumbai.
I had personal interaction with all the members in the panel individually on 7th July 2010 and discussed about their views and ideas about challenges being faced by the Higher & Technical Education as well as the need for reforms to face the same. During the interaction, I tried to assess the familiarity of every panelist about the University system and his capabilities to handle the challenges associated with the job of the Vice-Chancellor.
On the basis of the bio-data, academic qualification, experience & career profile and the individual interaction with the panelists, I find Dr. Rajan Welukar to be the most suitable person, amongst all the panelists, to be the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai.
Further, I feel that the Mumbai University has deteriorated in terms of administration. I find that Dr. Welukar demonstrated necessary skills and administrative acumen in his past postings. I therefore found Dr. Welukar suitable for the said position on this count also.
Sd/-
Chancellor"
45. The petitioners' contention is that respondent No.8 did not have 15 years experience in teaching and research, but had only 14 years of such experience. The list at Annexure `B' to the minutes of the meeting dated 12 June 2010, however, indicates that the Search Committee had considered that as far as respondent No.8 is concerned, his experience in higher education was of 25 years. This appears to have been based on the bio-data submitted by respondent No.8 in response to the advertisement.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 38 pil-92-10
46. The submission made on behalf of respondent No.8 that his 25 years experience in the field of Higher Education included experience of 6 to 7 years while on deputation which should also be considered as his experience in teaching and research because he was holding a lien in the substantive post of Lecturer need not detain us. We may not be treated to have expressed any opinion as regards that submission, but in our view, the very fact that respondent No.8 had 5 years of experience as Vice Chancellor in Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University and during which period he did have some research publications to his credit, is sufficient to hold that respondent No.8 had academic experience of 5 years between September 2004 and September 2009 in his capacity as Vice-Chancellor of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University. Section 10(2) of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Act, 1989 reads as under:-
"10(02) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal academic and executive officer of the University, and shall exercise supervision and control over the affairs of the University and give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the University."
The term "academic" is defined as under in Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, Revised:-
Adjective - relating to education and scholarship........... Noun - a teacher or scholar in a university or college.
Since respondent No.8 was, thus, the principal academic officer of the University, it cannot be said that respondent No.8 did not gain any academic experience during the said 5 year period from September, 2004 to September, 2009. Once this academic experience of 5 years including experience in research is added to the 14 years of experience as Lecturer in three institutions (1 year in Government college at Amravati, 5 years in Institute of Science in Nagpur and 8 years in Sydenham College of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 39 pil-92-10 Commerce and Economics, Mumbai), it can be said without hesitation that respondent No.8 did have the requisite 15 years experience of teaching and research. We do not accept the petitioners' contention that in each of these 15 years, the candidate must have done both teaching and research simultaneously.
47. It is true that the Courts are not supposed to substitute their opinion for the opinion of the academic experts. However, while giving the above finding that respondent No.8 did have the requisite experience of 15 years in teaching and research, we are not substituting the opinion of the Search Committee. Merely because the Search Committee did not give specific break-up of different periods of teaching and research experience of respondent No.8 or for that matter of any other candidate in table `B' to the minutes of its meeting held on 12 June 2010, it cannot be said that our dealing with the break-up of such experience of respondent No.8 amounts to substituting our opinion for the opinion of the Search Committee. So also, it cannot be said that because the Search Committee had not indicated such break-up in minutes of meeting of 12 June 2010 or 2nd July, 2010, the Search Committee cannot be permitted to justify its decision of having considered respondent No.8 as eligible.
We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Search Committee did not commit any error in forming opinion that respondent No. 8 had 'Experience in the field of Higher Education of at least 15 years in teaching and research in a University"
48. Now we consider the question whether the Search Committee had formed the opinion that respondent No.8 had "minimum of five research publications in peer reviewed/referred international research journals after Ph.D". Annexure `B' to the minutes of the Research Committee meeting ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 40 pil-92-10 held on 12 June 2010 indicating that respondent No.8 had 12 research publications, does not seem to have considered (as already discussed in para 30 hereinabove) that there were only 5 publications during the period between issuance of notification of Ph.D in favour of respondent no.8 on 15 September 2004 and the last date of making applications in response to the advertisement i.e. 3 May 2010.
49. The learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued, particularly on the basis of the affidavit of Prof. (Dr.) Neeraj Hatekar, Professor of Econometrics in the Mumbai University that so-called research publications were problems meant for under-graduate students to solve and not research publications.
50. This Court, however, would not call upon the members of the Search Committee to respond to such affidavit because in the first place, this Court does not sit in appeal over the recommendations of the Search Committee or the selection made by the Chancellor. We have already noted the settled legal position enunciated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions that the Courts have a very limited role in the academic matters particularly when no malafides have been levelled against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board and that it would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe to leave the decision of academic matters to the academicians and experts. The Apex Court has gone so far as to lay down that whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the Selection Committees consisting of experts vide Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda, 1994 (1) SCC 169 (Para 9).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::
srk 41 pil-92-10
51. Secondly, the petitioners have not made any allegations of mala fides against the Chairman and members of the Search Committee, two of the three are experts of international repute, as indicated in para 38 hereinabove.
52. The petitioners' contention that members of the Search Committee cannot be considered as experts, because they are not experts in the subject of Statistics (in which respondent No.8 had detained Doctorate and done his research) also cannot be accepted. With 94 candidates, each having a Doctorate in different subjects/fields, the Search Committee cannot be expected to have 94 members. Appointment of research scholars and administrators as experts in the Search Committee was certainly in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, as will be clear from their bio-data outlined in para 38 hereinabove.
53. At this stage, we may refer to one allegation of the petitioners that Dr. A.S. Kolaskar (respondent No.5)- Vice Chancellor of KIIT University, Bhubaneshwar and Chairman of the Search Committee had at one point of time applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University. However, since respondent No.5 had subsequently withdrawn his candidature and respondent No.8 was not in the Search Committee for that selection, it has no relevance to the issue at hand.
Even otherwise, the advertisement published in newspapers dated 31 March 2010 had given in clear terms the names and designations of the Chairman and Members of the Search Committee which recommended the panel of 5 suitable candidates on 2 July 2010. Nobody had ever objected to inclusion of respondent No.5 in the Search Committee.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 42 pil-92-10
54. Thirdly, in his bio data, respondent No.8 was entitled to include all his research publications- before acquiring Ph.D. degree in September 2004 and after setting the Ph.D. degree. Merely because, for the purpose of eligibility, only post Ph.D. research articles were to be considered, it did not wipe out the fact that he had done research before the Ph.D. degree as well. So also the fact that he had submitted research articles for publication and the articles were yet to be published did not make them irrelevant in his bio data. Even if the impugned order were to be interfered with and fresh selection were to be made, the articles of respondent No.8 submitted for publication by April, 2010 as mentioned in bio-data, might by now have been published.
55. The question, therefore, is whether the minutes of the Search Committee (quoted in para 39 hereinabove) to the effect that the Committee reviewed each and every application received and prepared the list of candidates having essential qualification as mentioned in the statutory order dated 27 May 2009 and that all the candidates, whose names were included in Annexure `B' to the minutes, satisfied essential qualification and experience could be said to have lost their efficacy merely on account of 12 research publications mentioned against the name of respondent No.8 in Annexure `B' to the minutes.
56. It appears from minutes of the Search Committee meeting held on 12 June 2010 (quoted in para 39 hereinabove) that while it was the Search Committee which reviewed each and every application received in response to the advertisement and prepared the list of 20 candidates (Annexure `B') having essential qualifications as mentioned in the order dated 27 May 2009 of the State Government laying down the essential qualification and experience for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor, it was the nodal officer Mr. L.C. Amarnathan who appears to have prepared Annexure `B' ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 43 pil-92-10 showing the experience and research publications of the 20 candidates in Annexure `B' and 64 candidates in Annexure `C' on the basis of their respective bio-data. The work of giving particulars in the tabular format in Annexure `B' cannot, therefore, be said to have been all that "meticulous", but on that ground alone, we are not inclined to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.8 to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai.
57. There is one more reason why we are not inclined to exercise our extra-ordinary prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The statutory order dated 27 May 2009 (exhibit `b') after laying down the essential qualification and experience in Part A of the schedule to the said order lays down desirable experience in Part B, expected skills and competencies in Para `C' and procedure for the Search Committee for considering prospective candidates in Part `D'. Clause 4 thereof specifically confers the following power on the Search Committee:-
"The Search Committee may relax any condition in case of deserving candidate."
This power would equally be available to the Chancellor.
58. Section 12(3A) besides providing that the educational qualifications and experience will be specified by the State Government, provides as under:-
"A person recommended by the Committee for appointment as a Vice- Chancellor shall,-
(a) be an eminent academician or an administrator of high caliber;
(b) be able to provide leadership by his own example;
(c) be able to provide vision and have ability to translate the same into reality in the interest of students and society;
and........."
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::srk 44 pil-92-10 It appears from the minutes of the meeting of the Search Committee held on 2 July 2010 (exhibit `B') and particularly the write up on respondent No.8 that the Search Committee found that respondent No.8 introduced several new academic and skill development programmes during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor, Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University for 5 years and had, thus, proved his leadership qualities, that he has a good knowledge of Mumbai University and will be able to resolve some of the current issues by forming a team and that his international exposure and experience of working at different levels will be immensely useful.
The Chancellor in the note dated 7 July 2010 (quoted in para 34 hereinabove) also gave the following reasons for selecting respondent No.8:-
"On the basis of the bio-data, academic qualification, experience & career profile and the individual interaction with the panelists, I find Dr. Rajan Welukar to be the most suitable person, amongst all the panelists, to be the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai.
Further, I feel that the Mumbai University has deteriorated in terms of administration. I find that Dr. Welukar demonstrated necessary skills and administrative acumen in his past postings. I therefore found Dr. Welukar suitable for the said position on this count also."
(emphasis supplied)
59. As was mentioned in the advertisement itself, Mumbai University offers 296 programmes through 672 affiliated colleges catering to over 6.5 lakh students every year. The Act has given the Chancellor the discretion to appoint "an eminent academician or an administrator of high caliber. The Chancellor was concerned about deterioration in administration of the University.
The Chancellor, besides finding respondent No.8 to be the most suitable person amongst all the panelists, also found that respondent No.8 demonstrated necessary skills and administrative achievement in his past ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 45 pil-92-10 postings which included a five year term as Vice-Chancellor of another University in Maharashtra in the very recent past. A bare perusal of the above note in light of the provisions of Section 12(3A)(a) and the skills and competencies expected of a Vice-Chancellor as indicated in Part `C' of the statutory order dated 27 May 2009 (set out in para 18 hereinabove) clearly indicate the application of mind by the Chancellor.
60. After all, what the petitioners in PILs 92 of 2010 and 96 of 2010 are seeking is a writ of quo warranto. As per the settled legal position, "unlike the writs of habeas corpus and prohibition which were issued ex debito justitiae, the issue of the writ in the nature of quo warranto is in the discretion of the court. So, it may be refused........... where there is mere irregularity in the election to the office.............. The illegalities brought to the notice of the court must be grave and manifest." (vide V.G. Ramachandran's Law of Writs, Sixth Edition, revised by Justice C.K. Thakker)
61. From the foregoing discussion, it is amply clear in the facts of this case that the petitioners' allegations regarding the procedure of the Search Committee, even if accepted, cannot be termed as "grave and manifest illegalities." Moreover, the discussion in paras 45 to 58 herein above would also justify this Court in taking the view in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be "prudent, wholesome and safe" not to interfere with the impugned order dated 7 July 2010 of the Chancellor.
62. As regards the challenge of Dr. A.D. Sawant (W.P.No.1901 of 2010), to non-inclusion by the Search Committee in the panel of five suitable persons recommended for the post of Vice-Chancellor, once it is found that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 ::: srk 46 pil-92-10 Dr. A.D. Sawant was included in the list of 20 eligible candidates, this Court cannot sit in appeal over recommendation of the Search Committee in favour of five other candidates, including respondent No.8. The challenge is, therefore, misconceived.
63. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 7 July 2010 of the Chancellor, University of Mumbai (exhibit "F") appointing Dr.Rajan Welukar as Vice Chancellor of University of Mumbai. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE G.S.GODBOLE, J.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:32 :::