Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu vs Union Of India And Anr on 29 November, 2019
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 636/2019 Reserved on: 27.11.2019 .
Decided on: 29.11.2019 Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu ...... Petitioner Vs. Union of India and anr. ..... Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vineet Vashisht, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan (oral) It was pursuant to the advertisement(Annexure P1) issued by respondent No.2Indian Institute of Advance Study that the petitioner applied for 2 years fellowship vide application dated 29.11.2016. The Fellowship Award Committee at the Institutes's Camp Office in New Delhi recommended the grant of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...2...
fellowship in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the Governing Body of respondent No.2Institute approved the grant .
of fellowship for a period of two years to the petitioner to pursue research on the project entitled "Speaking Subjects: Life writing in India from below". Offer letter, dated 19.6.2017 (Annexure P2) was accordingly sent to the petitioner, wherein it was made clear that fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done by the petitioner during the first year is found to be positive.
2 Along with offer letter, list of Rules pertaining to the submission of manuscript, leave conditions, fellowship continuation, stay at the Institute were forwarded to the petitioner with a request to join within six months from the date of issuance of the letter.
3 The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of the award of fellowship and joined on 1.12.2017. The petitioner submitted her first first seminar to respondent No. 2Institute on 12.12.2017. She availed study leave w.e.f. 16.12.2017 to 28.2.2018 and thereafter, since she was in family way, she applied for maternity leave, which was sanctioned in her favour w.e.f. 1.3.2018 to 27.8.2018. The petitioner resumed fellowship ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...3...
on 17.8.2018 and thereafter presented her second seminar. On 8.2.2019, respondent No.2 granted six months' time to the .
petitioner, however she filed representation for reconsidering her fellowship extension for second year upto the tenure of fellowship i.e. 30.11.2019, however respondent No.2 rejected the same and ordered recovery of fellowship grant from the month of February 2019 onwards constraining the petitioner to file a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, however the same was dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction vide order dated 25.3.2019.
4 It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming therein following substantive reliefs:
1. That the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to issue necessary directions to the respondent No.2 for according full term extension for second year fellowship to the petitioner.
2. That the respondent No.2 may also be directed to grant full term extension for second year fellowship to the petitioner after setting aside the letter dated 8.2.2019 whereby the extension for second year fellowship has been curtailed by six months in case of petitioner.
3. That respondent No.2 may further be directed to pay the arrears of fellowship grant to the petitioner along with interest w.e.f. 1.3.2019 onwards with further directions to the respondent No.2 to keep on paying the fellowship ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...4...
grant to the petitioner till the completion of tenure/period of fellowship.
.
5 A perusal of the reliefs claimed would reveal that the petitioner has assumed that she has already successfully completed her fellowship for first year and, therefore, respondent No.2 could not have curtailed fellowship for second year from one year to six months. Whereas, on the other hand, case of respondent No.2 is that since external evaluation report of the work done by the petitioner during the first year was not found to be positive by the evaluator, therefore, extension for the second year had not been recommended by the Governing Body of respondent No.2 and extension of only six months to complete first year was recommended being purely academic and based on the recommendations of external expert to enable the petitioner to complete her work.
6 Therefore, only question which requires consideration of the Court is that whether the petitioner had successfully completed her first year and had in fact been pursing second year of fellowship, which essentially had to be of one year and could not have been curtailed.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP...5...
7 Clause 4 of the advertisement reads as under: "The terms of Fellowship for independent and retired .
scholars would initially be for a period of one year, allowing continuation for another year after evaluation of the work done during the first year. In no case will this continue beyond two years. However, for inservice scholars who want to come for two years, the Fellowship would be awarded for a period of two years subject to the condition that continuation of the Fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external Evaluation Report of the work done by the Fellow during the first year is positive."
8 The terms and conditions of the letter of appointment also make it evidently clear that the award of fellowship is subject to the condition that continuation of the fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done by the petitioner during the first year is found to be positive. The relevant portion of letter of appointment reads as under: "I am delighted to inform your that on the recommendation of the FAC, the Chairperson, Governing Body of IIAS has approved the grant of Fellowship to you for a period of two year to pursue research on the project entitled Speaking subject: Lifewriting in India from below. This award is subject to the condition that continuation of the Fellowship ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...6...
for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done by you during the first .
year is positive."
9 Now, adverting to the terms and conditions of the fellowship for inservice fellows, the relevant conditions (1 and 5) thereof read as under: "1. The obligation of the Fellows are as follows:
a) A Fellow will give a seminar two months after joining the institute in which he/she would present his/her Peers, the work that he/she intends to undertake at the institute and the methodology that would be adopted.
b) A Fellow will present a second seminar after 910 months where he/she would present the draft research paper monograph based on his/her research at the institute. If a fellow is at the IIAS only for one year, he/she would then submit the final monograph/research paper to the institute before completion of the term (at least one month prior to the end of the tenure of fellowship.)
c) When a fellow seeks an extension for the second year, his/her research paper and work plan for the second year as per the form would be submitted to an expert for evaluation . Only on the positive recommendation of the evaluator, will an extension be given to a Fellow and the draft research paper/monograph would be uploaded on the institute's Website. Before the end of the 2 nd year, the Fellow will give the final seminar before the peers, where the Fellow would present his/her complete work.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP...7...
Thereafter, the Monograph (submitted at least two months prior to the end of the tenure of Fellowship) would be sent .
to an evaluator for assessing its suitability of its publication.
d) Participate in the Weekly Thursday Seminar of Fellows which is mandatory.
e) Submit a manuscript at the end of the Fellowship which the Institute will have evaluated and, if suitable, published.
5. Three months prior to completion of one year, a Fellow is required to submit a Progress Report (work done till date, papers presented, publication etc.) which shall be sent to an external evaluator to determine whether the fellowship can be extended. This timeline must be strictly followed to have the Report evaluated in time."
10 A combined reading of the advertisement, letter of appointment along with terms and conditions, as reproduced above, makes it evidently clear that for inservice scholars, who want to come for two years, the fellowship would be awarded for a period of two years subject to the condition that continuation of the fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done by the fellow during the first year is found to be positive.
11 Further reading of condition No. 5 of fellowship would make it abundantly clear that three months' prior to completion ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...8...
of one year, a fellow is required to submit a progress report work done till date, papers presented, publication etc. which .
have to be sent to the external evaluator to determine whether the fellowship can be extended. The time line has to be strictly followed to have the report evaluated in time.
12 As observed above, the petitioner availed study leave w.e.f. 16.12.2017 to 28.2.2018 and thereafter availed maternity leave w.e.f. 1.3.2018 to 27.8.2018. The progress report, which was required to be submitted three months' prior to completion of one year of fellowship, as per condition No.5 (supra), was submitted by the petitioner only on 5.11.2018 and the same was forwarded by the Director of respondent No.2Institute for external evaluation immediately. One year of fellowship was to expire on 30.11.2018 and conscious of this fact, respondent No.2Institute in order to protect interest of the petitioner and to avoid break in service, granted two months' provisional extension in her favour w.e.f. 30.11.2018 to 31.1.2019. The said extension was given on account of nonsubmission of progress report within time. Noticeably, the petitioner has not assailed the extension so given to her.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP...9...
13 The progress report, which was submitted on 5.11.2018 was received back after evaluator's report on .
10.1.2019. The relevant portion of the evaluator's report reads as under: "As is typical of work by scholars still in training, the project labours under the burden of having to survey the field at the same time as it is clearly eager to begin talking about the specific texts that it has in mind. There is therefore a lack of fit between the heavy lifting of the survey and the nuance and care that the specific literary analyses would require. The draft chapter shows again that the author has not as yet developed a sound philosophical point of entry into the questions at hand. And if we move from the draft chapter and the proposal to the chapter outlines, there is a sudden shift in vocabulary and perspective. All of a sudden we are in the arena of gender , labor and sexuality which is to say in the realm of ideologycritique propelled by Marxist, feminist and postcolonial approaches. I am not of course questioning the legitimacy of these approaches. It is almost as though the author is unable to decide between three different modes of inquiry a relatively tedious survey of everything everyone has about autobiography; an analyic and forensic account of gender, sexuality and class and their interplay in specific texts; and (very occasionally) a recourse to the pathos and subtle shifts in the historical experience of life writing itself. The thirds instance is I believe the best way for the author to go, since at this late stage I cannot ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...10...
imagine that the author is in a position to undertake a genuinely painstaking and rigorous inquiry into the .
question of the writing of a life (this would require a complete immersion in Ricoeur, Heidegger, the bhakti and sufi tradition, the work of Pierre Hadot on Marcus Aurelius, the ancient tradition of Buddhist lifewriting and so on:. Instead of using philosophy merely as an occasion to paraphrase other people's ideas, the author is advised to take social history seriously. Here social history would imply the point of convergence between a genuinely empathetic and critical engagement with lifewriting on the one hand, and a nuanced account of class, gender and sexuality that does not reduce the latter to phenomena in the realm of ideologycritique. In short the author would do well to think in the manner of a feminist literary critic who is also a feminist social historian, but in a way that would entail a much greater mode of patience, a kind of listening in on what a hidden or silent in the texts that one reads, than merely signposting what one has read or displaying one's critical skills in one's ability to depict the contradictions in subaltern subjectivity. In short what I am saying is: there is an urgent need to temper ideology critique with a phenomenology of time and life (the writing of a living of a life), without losing sight of the urgent questions of gender and sexuality. The author must pay attention to the 'how' of one's writing, not just to the 'what'. Here again, the work of authors such as Steedman is a fantastic fall short of the amazing formal achievement of a text such as the mammoth 'Smrutichitre' by Lakshmibai ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...11...
Tilak (the author of this project cites its English translation, 'I follow After;). Finally, I want to underline here the need .
for scholars to write with some responsibility and accountability, both formal and material, to the texts they study. If we do not attend to this methodological issue, we will wind up merely as a kind of scholarly BPO servicing the AngloAmerican knowledge machine. ( I have attempted in my own work to do something different; and will be happy to share this material with the author.) I recommend a complete stylistic revision of the text, in keeping with what I would prescribe as a 180degree turnaround in philosophical and philological acuity. The author must learn to think and write with nuance, tact and carestaying close to the lineaments of lifewriting itself."
14 Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vineet Vashisht, Advocate, would argue that the report of the Evaluator nowhere indicates that the same was "negative".
15 However, I really find no merit in this contention as the advertisement, letter of appointment and terms and conditions of the fellowship use the expression "positive" and not "negative" therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot twist and turn the true import and meaning of the words used in the advertisement, letter of appointment along with terms and conditions of the fellowship to her advantage.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP...12...
16 In fact the petitioner ought to appreciate and be grateful to respondent No.2Institute for not using expression .
"negative" in place of "positive" or else that can play havoc with the carrier of those seeking fellowship because any negative assessment is bound to affect the carrier and life of a fellow.
17 It is not in dispute that the report of the evaluator was placed before the governing body of the respondent No.2 Institute, who in its meeting held on 22.1.2019 considered the said report and decided as under: "Item No. 7: To consider and approve the action taken by the Director in granting provisional continuation of two months to Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu and to consider continuation of Fellowship for the second year to Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu.
The Governing Body considered and resolved to approve the action taken by the Director in granting provisional continuation for two months to Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu.
However, after discussion of the evaluation report, it was resolved by the Government Body to approve continuation of Fellowship for six months only. The Fellow may be asked to revise the work in accordance with the suggestions made by the Evaluator."
18 It was after the decision of the governing body that letter dated 8.2.2019 was sent to the petitioner informing her ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...13...
about the fellowship term being continued for a period of only six months w.e.f. 1.12.2018 to 31.5.2019 (A/N) on existing terms .
and conditions to enable her to continue the work on the research project undertaken by her at the Institute.
19 It was further clarified that this was in view of the remarks and suggestions made by the Evaluator. Lastly, she was advised to revise the work accordingly. The relevant portion of the letter dated 8.2.2019 reads as under: "I am directed to inform you that a Governing Body of Institute has granted continuation of your Fellowship term for a period of only six months w.e.f. 1.12.2018 to 31.5.2019 (A/N) on existing terms and conditions to enable you to continue the work on the research project undertaken by you at the Institute.
This is in view of the remarks and suggestions made by the evaluator. You are also advised to revise your work accordingly. A copy of the report of evaluator is enclosed herewith for your information.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
20 From the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is under an illusion and misconception that she is pursuing second year of fellowship, rather she has been granted six months' time to enable her to continue the work on the research project undertaken by her in the respondent No.2 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...14...
Institute keeping in view the remarks and suggestions of the Evaluator and has further been advised to revise her work .
accordingly.
21 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would then want this court to review the report of the Evaluator and also sit in appeal over the decision taken by the governing body of respondent No.2Institute; little realizing that such decisions of the experts having technical experience and higher academic qualifications in the specialist field are not open to judicial review.
22 In The University of Mysore and another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC 491, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 fides 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.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP...15...
23 In Dr. M.C. Gupta & others Vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta & Others (1979) 2 SCC 339, while setting aside the .
judgment of the High Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court reminded the High Court that it would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts. It is apt to reproduce para the following observations: "7. ....When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be..."
24 In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshta & Others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of the academicians. It is apt to reproduce the relevant observation, which reads thus: "17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...16...
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. ... ... ..."
25 In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others (1994) 4 SCC 27, the Hon'ble Supreme held as under: "29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual daytoday working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. .. ... ..."
26 In Neelima Mishra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others (1990) 2 SCC 746, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying on the judgment of University of Mysore (supra) observed that in the matter of appointments in the academic field, the Court generally does not interfere. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...17...
Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor had acted.
.
27 In Bhushan Uttam Khare Vs. Dean, B.J. Medical College & Others (1992) 2 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of Mysore (supra), reiterated the same legal position and observed as under: "8. ... the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. ..."
In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others Vs. Dr. 28 B.S. Mahajan & Others (1990) 1 SCC 305, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in somewhat similar matter observed thus: "12... It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...18...
limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its .
procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
29 In The Chancellor & Another etc. v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Others (1994) 1 SCC 169 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "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 concerned selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection...."
30 In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others (2000) 3 SCC 59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...19...
body observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from different walks of life who were engaged in or interested in .
the field of education and had wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts.
31 In Medical Council of India v. Sarang & Others (2001) 8 SCC 427, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated the legal principle that the Court should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and should instead leave the matter to the experts in the field.
32 In B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v.
Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Others (2008) 14 SCC 306, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated legal principles and observed regarding importance of the recommendations made by the expert committees.
33 In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Another (2008) 9 SCC 284, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP...20...
34 In All India Council for Technical Education v.
Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726, the .
Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterate the legal position that it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.
35 In Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372, the law on the subject has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been reiterated that the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench and other Benches must be respected and relied upon with meticulous care and sincerity. It was reiterated that in academic matters Courts have very limited role, particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee.
36 In Rameshwar Dass Mehla Vs. Om Prakash Saini and others (2010) 15 SCC 790, after relying upon University of Mysore's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that equivalence of two qualifications is a question on purely an academic matter and the view taken by the selection committee cannot be subject matter of judicial review. It was further held ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP ...21...
that in academic matters, particularly pertaining to qualifications the view taken by the experts would be final.
.
37 Similar reiteration of law can be found in a very recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6102/2019, titled as Sridip Chatterjee vs. Gopa Chakraborty and ors., decided on 6.8.2019.
38Lastly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would then seek interference of this Court on the ground that the Evaluator has valued the work of the petitioner by taking the same to be pertaining to "Speaking Subjects: Life writing from below" instead of "Speaking Subjects: Life writing in Indian from below".
39 Even this contention is without merit as the main topic of the work was "Speaking Subjects: Life writing from below", which is wider subject and in the case of the petitioner, it was confined to India. However, that in itself would not have much bearing on the outcome of the report of the Evaluator for the reasons stated by the Evaluator (supra), which are otherwise immune from judicial review especially in absence of allegations of mala fides, bias or other like allegations against the expert.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP...22...
40 Even otherwise, the mere caption of the subject in the report of the Evaluator cannot by itself be a determinative factor .
to conclude that the Evaluator was unaware of the subject and had, therefore, erred in carrying out the evaluation.
41 In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
29.11.2019 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(pankaj) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:24:45 :::HCHP