Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G.L. Reddy vs University Of Hyderabad, Rep., By Its ... on 19 October, 2001
Author: G. Rohini
Bench: G. Rohini
ORDER G. Rohini, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the constitution of selection Committee for promotion to the post of Readers in Mathematics under the provisions of Career Advancement Scheme of the University Grants Commission (UGC) which interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000 is in violation of Clause 20 of the Statute of the University of Hyderabad and the recommendations of the UGC on selection committees and seeking a consequential direction to the first respondent to constitute a proper committee in accordance with the University Grants Commission recommendations (U.G.C. Notification-1998) on Selection Committees for the post of Readers and Clause 20 of Statute of the University of Hyderabad for considering the petitioner's case for promotion as Reader in Mathematics under the provisions of Career Advancement Scheme of the University Grants Commission.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he passed M.Sc. in Mathematics in the year 1976 in 1st Class from Osmania University and joined the very same Department as a research student. In October, 1977 he got admission for Ph.D. in Ramanujam Institute for Advance Study in Mathematics, University of Madras, Chennai. He completed his M. Phil in the year 1980 from the same Institute and also got his Ph.D. in Mathematics (Complex Analysis) in the year 1982. Subsequently, he joined the Department of Mathematics & Statistics, School of MICS, University of Hyderabad as a Lecturer on 12.6.1985. Since then he has been working in the said Department as a Lecturer. After completion of five years as a Lecturer, the petitioner was placed on Senior Lecturer Scale i.e. from June 1990. The petitioner continued as Senior Lecturer (Senior Scale) in the University of Hyderabad since June, 1990 and that the petitioner was put in more than 15 years of service and his area of specialization is 'Complex Analysis' and 'Applications'.
3. While so, the University Grants Commission issued a notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards, 1998 which came into effect from 1.1.1996. Under the said Notification, the Scheme of Career Advancement was introduced with regard to promotion from Senior Scale Lecturers to Reader. Under the said Career Advancement Scheme the eligibility required is as follows:
" 7.4.1 A Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader if she/he has (i ) Completed 5 years of service in the Senior Scale;
(ii ) Obtained a Ph.D. decree or has equivalent published work;
(iii ) .......
(iv) Made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced e.g. by self-assessment, reports of referees, quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula and extension activities.
(v) After placement in the Senior Scale participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes of approved duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the University Grants Commission and (vi ) Possess consistently good performance appraisal reports "
The above said promotion will be through the process of selection by a Selection Committee to be set up under Statute/Ordinances and basing on the guidelines issued by the U.G.C. for constitution of Selection Committee. As the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of a Reader and has satisfied all the requirements as mentioned in the Notification issued by the University Grants Commission, the petitioner sought promotion to the post of Reader and submitted the required pro-forma along with all his publications which are to be assessed by the external experts. Thereafter, the Dean School of MCIS has issued proceedings dated 12/13/10-1998 requesting the petitioner to submit the panel of Four Referees to judge the petitioner professionally in connection with the application for promotion to the post of Reader and in response to the same the petitioner furnished a panel of Referees on 13.10.1998. Similarly, a panel of four Referees has been submitted by the Dean to the University. The case of the petitioner is that his publications were circulated to external experts selected from the above stated panels for assessment.
4. The petitioner states that by letter dated 22.8.2000 he was informed that interview for promotion to the post of Reader under Career Advancement Scheme was fixed on 24.8.2000 and accordingly the petitioner attended the interview on 24.8.2000. The selection committee which conducted the interview on 24.8.2000 consists of 8 members out of which 3 members are external experts in the subjects of Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Statistics with specialization in Algebra, Fluid Mechanics and Quantum Statistics. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the University issued orders dated 21.9.2000 appointing one Sri C. Raghavender Rao on promotion as Reader in statistics under the provisions of Career Advancement Scheme of the University Grants Commission with effect from 15.6.1997. As the petitioner did not receive any such order he made enquiries with regard to the assessment of his publications by the external experts in the selection committee. He came to know that the assessment of publications by the external experts was positive, however, the same were not placed before the selection committee on 24.8.2000 and the external experts who assessed the petitioner's publications were not in selection committee as required under the U.G.C. recommendations. The petitioner also states that none of the experts in the selection committee were experts in the concerned subject/field of the petitioner i.e. Complex Analysis. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the constitution of the selection committee on the ground that it was not made in accordance with the recommendations of the UGC nor as per the clause 20 of the Statute of the University.
5. The contentions of the petitioner are that the selection committee which interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000 did not consist of the external experts from the subject/field of the petitioner i.e., 'Complex Analysis'. Further, the petitioner contends that the evaluation process adopted by the selection committee is also not proper. According to him whereas the selection committee ought to have assigned marks a) on the details given in the Bio Data b) Major publications and c) interview, the selection committee failed to assign the marks to the petitioner on the reports of the external experts and therefore the process adopted is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also contends that the external experts who assessed his publications do not form part of the selection committee to conduct interview and therefore constitution of the selection committee is in violation of the UGC recommendations and adversely affected the case of the petitioner. It is further contended that there are no external experts in the field of Complex Analysis to which the petitioner belongs as required under the UGC recommendations and also clause 20 of the Statute of the University.
6. On the aforesaid reasons the petitioner contends that constitution of the selection committee itself is irregular and therefore recommendation of the selection committee is defective and the evaluation made by it is arbitrary, illegal and cannot be acted upon by the executive council. He accordingly sought a declaration in this writ petitioner that constitution of selection committee is violative of clause 20 of the Statute of the University of Hyderabad and the recommendations of the U.G.C. and seeks to set aside the same.
7. It is also brought to my notice that after filing of the writ petition the Registrar of University of Hyderabad by letter 14.11.2000 informed the writ petitioner that Executive Council in its meeting held on 7.9.2000 took a decision that the case of the petitioner for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme be reviewed after one year.
8. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed on 12.2.2001 stating that the selection committee being common for direct recruitments as well as career advancement scheme it is not possible for having experts in each of the sub divisions of three fields of Pure Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, and Statistics. However, an attempt is made to make sure that there are at least three people familiar in each of the three fields i.e., Pure Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Statistics. The respondents also denied the contention of the petitioner that some external experts to whom the petitioner's publications were sent, were not included in the selection committee, which interviewed the petitioner. It has been explained in the counter affidavit that the publications of the petitioner and Bio-Data were sent to two external Referees for the purpose of determining the candidates' eligibility and thereafter the publications were sent for assessment to the external experts who form part of the selection committee. While contending that the said two aspects cannot be mixed up, it is stated that in the case of petitioner after receiving the reports from the referees, the publications of petitioner and bio data were assessed by two external experts who are members in the selection committee. However, the external experts who interviewed the petitioner along with other members of the selection committee took a different view and did not recommend the case of the petitioner for promotion and instead it has been recommended that his case may be considered after one year. Thus the respondents contended that the process of selection adopted by them is in accordance with the UGC guidelines and the constitution of the selection committee is in accordance with the University Statute and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought and the Writ Petitions is liable to be dismissed.
9. The Registrar, University of Hyderabad, Central University, representing the 1st respondent herein, also filed an additional counter-affidavit dated 22.2.2000 stating certain more details about the constitution of the Selection Committee. While furnishing the profiles of the two external experts, it is specifically stated that the two external experts viz., Professor M.S. Ragunathan and Professor K.R. Parthasarathy belonging to the field of Mathematics were included in the selection committee. It is stated that incidentally Prof. M.S. Raghunatham was also the Visitor's nominee. The publications and other material of the petitioner were circulated to the said two external experts viz., Prof. M.S. Raghunathan and Prof. K.R. Parthasarathy in advance before the interview took place. The said two external experts have assessed the publications and other material of the petitioner and then interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000 as prescribed under the UGC guidelines. After a comprehensive evaluation of the merit of the petitioner, the selection committee recommended that his case may be considered one year later afresh. It is also categorically stated in the additional counter affidavit that the said two external experts have a deep knowledge of 'Complex Analysis' i.e., the specialization with which the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the respondents pleaded that the constitution of the selection committee as well as selection process adopted are in accordance with the UGC guidelines as well as Clause 20 of the Statute of the University of Hyderabad, and therefore, the decision of the University accepting the recommendations of the selection committee does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court.
10. Heard Sri P. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition vehemently contended that since the publications of the petitioner were not assessed by the external experts who were included in the selection committee and since the external experts who interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000 do not belong to the field of 'Complex Analysis', in which the petitioner had specialized, the entire selection process is vitiated. The learned counsel also contended that since the respondents have admitted in their additional counter affidavit that one of the experts Prof. M.S. Raghunathan is also a Visitor's nominee, it is clearly established that the selection committee is not properly constituted as provided under Clause 20 of the Statue of the University of Hyderabad. The learned counsel pointed out that since separate marks were not assigned to the petitioner on the details given in the major publications and as to the performance of the petitioner in the interview, the process of evaluation is also vitiated, and therefore, the University ought not to have accepted the recommendations of the selection committee and accordingly contended that this is a fit case where the constitution of the selection committee which interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000 is liable to be declared as violative of Clause 20 of the Statute of the University of Hyderabad as well as the guidelines prescribed by the UGC. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.V.L. Kameswari Vs. Andhra University, (DB). He also relied upon a ruling of the Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. B.S. Mahajan, , and contended that the decision of the selection committee can be interfered where illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the selection committee or in the process adopted for selection has been established.
12. On the other hand, Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that either in the guidelines issued by the UGC or under the Statute of the University of Hyderabad, there is no clause which prohibits a visitor's nominee to participate in the selection committee as an external expert. On the basis of the record placed before the Court, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that publications of the petitioner were assessed by the two experts namely Prof. M.S. Raghunathan and Prof K.R. Parthasarathy, who are having deep knowledge in 'Complex Analysis', and subsequently the selection committee which included the said two external experts interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000. He pointed out from the record that the publications of the petitioner were initially assessed by two Referees as required under Clause 7.4.1 (iv) of the UGC notification for the purpose of eligibility. Subsequently the same publications were assessed by the two external experts who are members of the selection committee. The learned counsel submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the two Referees who assessed the publications of the petitioner shall form part of the selection committee is misconceived and it is not in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the UGC. He further submitted that both the external experts separately assessed the publications of the petitioner and subsequently the said two external experts along with the other members of the selection committee interviewed the petitioner and found that the performance of the petitioner does not meet the standards and recommended his case may be considered after one year. He particularly pointed out that there are no allegations of mala fides against any one of the members of the selection committee and since the allegations of the petitioner as to the irregularities in the constitution of the selection committee are factually incorrect and without any basis, he contended that, as held by the Apex Court in several decisions, this is not a fit case where the interference of this Court is warranted while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Dalpat Abusaheb Solunke Vs. B.S. Mahajan (2 supra) and in Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan, . The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in K. Chinna Rajanna Vs. Vice Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad, .
13. Having heard both the learned counsel and taking into consideration the contentions raised by the respective parties, the question now arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the decision of the selection committee which interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000 warrants interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The law in this regard is well settled. When appointments are made on the basis of the recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee consisting of experts normally this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will decline to interfere unless the constitution of the selection committee itself is found to be in violation of any statutory provision or binding Rule or the selection process is vitiated by any patent material irregularity or where the allegation of mala fides are established. It is also well settled that this court will not sit in appeal against the decision of the selection committee and substitute its opinion to the one reached by the experts. The scope of judicial review is limited and it applies only to the decision making process and therefore, the Court will exercise its jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India only where there is any infirmity in the decision making process.
15. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of University of Mysore Vs. Govinda Rao, considered the scope of interference by this Court in academic matters and held as follows:
"Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them are challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be."
16. In National institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. K.K. Raman, , the Supreme Court held:
"It is not shown that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical or the Selection Committee did not act fairly. The fact that the respondent was placed second in the panel, that by itself indicates that there was proper consideration of the case and he had been treated fairly. When the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the subject for selection and they were men of high status and also of unquestionable impartiality, the court should be slow to interfere with their opinion."
17.In the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. B.S. Mahajan, , the Supreme Court held as follows:
" 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 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.,"
18. In the case of Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan (3 supra), while considering similar questions regarding the selection for the post of Reader in the faculty of law of Osmania University, the apex Court held as follows:
".....generally the Court may not interfere with the selection, relating to educational affairs, and academic matters may be left to the expert body to select best of the talent on objective criteria. What is the objective criteria is a question of fact in each case. Each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances in which the respective claims of competing candidates has come up for consideration. No absolute rule in that behalf could be laid. Each case requires to be considered on its own merit and in its own setting, giving due consideration to the views expressed by the educational experts in the affairs of their administration or selection of the candidates."
19. The courts have repeatedly held that the views of the experts are entitled to great weight and the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body cannot normally be interfered with unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown, vide J.P. Kulshrestha Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University, ; Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal, ; and Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University,
20. A Division Bench of this Court in K. Chinna Rajanna Vs. Vice-Chancellor, OU, Hyderabad, (DB) having considered in detail the scope of judicial review with the decision of the selection committee observed thus:
" In the sphere of reviewability is very restricted and limited. In the event there is some amount of substantial infirmity in the decision-making process, then only the courts can intervene and interfere, but not otherwise and the decision of the Selection Committee should be final and binding on all concerned. The Court cannot supplement its views, neither the Courts has the expertise to supplement its views. A Special Selection Committee has been constituted by the University having due regard to the need of the situation. The Court cannot either embark upon the efficacy of such appointment, neither the Court can go into the proceedings of the Selection Committee since it is a matter for the Selection Committee to decide as to who should be appointed and who not. Question of there being any bias in the contextual facts does not and cannot arise, neither the submission to that effect has any factual support. No whisper has been made against any one of the members of the Selection Committee, either in the petition or during the course of the submissions. Neither anything has been stated that the University acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the candidates. The principal grievance is that some of the candidates are not having sufficient Post Graduate teaching experience - In our view, however, question of going into the same by a Court of Law does not and cannot arise. The University is the authority which is to scrutinize the papers and the applications and the University upon scrutiny of the same and having due regard to the alternatives available in the qualifications as required in the notification, selected some candidates for interview and rejected some others. It is the University's decision that these would be the proper candidates and that in our view does not fall within the sphere of judicial reviewability. We do not find any infirmity in the decision-making process, which however commences with formation of the Selection Committee and comes to an end with the selection of candidates, or the decision taken in any way affected by reason therefore."
21. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it has to be examined whether the contention raised by the petitioner that the constitution of the selection committee, which interviewed him on 24.8.2000 is in violation of Clause 20 of the Statute of University of Hyderabad and the recommendations of the UGC is substantiated.
22. For the said purpose it is necessary to refer to the relevant clauses under the Statute of University of Hyderabad as well as the relevant Clauses under the UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards, 1998, so far as carrier advance scheme is concerned.
23. Clause 20 of the Statute of the University of Hyderabad which deals with the selection committees runs as follows:
"20 (1) There shall be Selection Committees for making recommendations to the Executive Council for appointment to the posts of Professors/Senior Fellows, Readers/Associate Professors/Associate Fellows, Lecturers/Assistant Professors/Fellows, Registrar, Finance Officer, Librarian and Principals of Colleges and Institutions maintained by the University.
(2) The Selection Committee for appointment to the posts specified in Column I of the Table below shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the Visitor and the persons specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the said Table:
TABLE (1) (2) Professor/ Senior Fellow
(i) .. .. ..
(ii) .. .. ..
(iii) ... ... ..
(iv) ... ... ...
Reader/Associate Professor/...
(i) The Dean of the School concerned;
(ii) The Head of the Department/Centre if he is not a Dean;
(iii) One Professor to be nominated by the Vice- Chancellor; and
(iv) Two persons not in the service of the University nominated by the Executive Council out of a panel of names recommended by the Academic Council for their special knowledge of or interest in the subject with which the Reader/Associate Professor/Associate Fellow, Lecturer/Assistant Professor/Fellow, as the case may be, will be concerned.
24. Apart from that, Clause 7.4.0 of the UGC Notification-1998, which deals with promotion to the post of Reader under the Career Advancement, reads as follows:
7.4.0. READER (PROMOTION) 7.4.2. A Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader if she/he has:
(i) Completed 5 years of service in the Senior Scale;
(ii) Obtained a Ph.D. decree or has equivalent published work;
(iii) .......
(iv) Made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced e.g. by self-assessment, reports of referees, quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula and extension activities.
(v) After placement in the Senior Scale participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes of approved duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified or approved by the University Grants Commission and (vi ) Possess consistently good performance appraisal reports "
25. It is also necessary to extract the relevant guidelines prescribed by the UGC regarding the constitution of the selection committee for the post of Reader is concerned.
"For the Post of Reader The process of selection should involve inviting the biodata and reprints of three major publications of the candidate before interview and getting them assessed by the same three external experts, who are to be invited to interview the candidate. The Selection Committee should have the following composition:
1. Vice Chancellor to be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee.
2. An academician who is the nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor.
3. Three experts in the concerned subject/field, out of the list recommended by the Vice-Chancellor and approved by the Executive Council/Syndicate.
4. Dean of the Faculty.
5. Head/Chairperson of the Department.
At least four members, including two outside experts, must constitute the quorum."
26. It is pertinent to note that Clause 20 of the Statute of the University of Hyderabad requires that the selection committee shall consist of two persons not in the services of the University nominated by the Executive Council for their special knowledge or interest in the subject , with which the Reader/Associate Profesor..as the case may be will be concerned.
27. Similarly the guidelines recommended by the UGC for constitution of the selection committee extracted above, also requires that the selection committee shall consists of three experts in the "concerned subject/field" out of the list recommended by the Vice Chancellor and approved by the Executive Council/Syndicate.
28. On a proper appreciation of the aforesaid two clauses, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner that since the external experts in the selection committee are not from the field of "Complex Analysis" i.e., the subject with which the petitioner is concerned, the constitution of the selection committee is contrary to Clause 20 of the Statute as well as the guidelines of the UGC is not correct. The said provisions do not mandate that the experts should be with the same specialization of the respective candidates, but what is required is that they should have special knowledge in the subject with which the candidate is concerned. In the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents it has been explained that Prof. M.S. Raghunathan and Prof. K.R. Pardhasaradhi, who assessed the publications of the petitioner and also interviewed the petitioner as external experts in the selection committee on 24.8.2000 are from the field of Mathematics with deep knowledge of "Complex Analysis" i.e., the subject with which the petitioner is concerned. The Profiles of those two external experts have been furnished in detail in the counter affidavit to show that they have got intimate knowledge about the subject "Complex Analysis" which is one of the specializations in the subject of Mathematics. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the several details furnished by the respondents in their counter affidavits to show that the said two external experts have special knowledge in the subject of "Complex Analysis" Further, it is not an issue for adjudication by this court since this Court has no expertise to assess the knowledge of the experts in the field of "Complex Analysis"..
29. So far as the contentions of the petitioner that his publications were initially assessed by two external experts positively but the said reports were not placed before the selection committee on 24.8.2000 and further that the two external experts who assessed his publications were not invited to the selection committee which interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000 are concerned, it is to be noted that the respondents have categorically denied the said allegations in their counter affidavits. It is stated in the counter affidavits that the reports of the Referees were placed before the two external experts along with the publications of the petitioner and Bio-Data and on assessment of the same the external experts took a different view and after the interview on 24.8.2000 they recommended that the case of the petitioner may be considered after one year.
30. As per Clause 7.4.1 (iv) of the UGC Notification-1998, the publications of the candidates for consideration of their eligibility for promotion under Career Advancement shall be assessed by the Referees. It is with regard to deciding the eligibility. So far as the selection is concerned either under the Statute of the University or under the guidelines, it is not required that the selection committee shall include the said two Referees. The only requirement is that the publications of the candidates should be assessed by the two external experts before interview and the same external experts shall be invited to interview the candidate. The respondents have strictly adhered to the said requirements and the publications of the petitioner were sent for assessment to Prof. M.S. Raghunadhan and Prof. K.R. Pardhasharadhi before the interview and subsequently the selection committee has been constituted with the two said external experts and they interviewed the petitioner on 24.8.2000.
31. The learned counsel for the respondents placed before me the record relating to the selection proceedings from which it is clear that the publications of the petitioner were assessed by Prof. M.S. Raghunathan and Prof. K.R. Pardhasaradhi and after such assessment, the interview was conducted on 24.8.2000 by the selection committee, which included the said two external experts. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact that the publications of the petitioner were assessed by the Referees in his favour has nothing to do with the selection process prescribed under Appendix-V to the UGC Notification as well as Clause 20 of the Statute. The selection of the candidates shall be as per the decision of the selection committee, which is based on the opinion of the experts who assess the publications of the candidates as well as their performance in the interview.
32. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised a contention that as per Clause 20 of the Statute of University of Hyderabad, the selection committee shall consist of two external experts apart from the nominee of the visitor and therefore, Prof. M.S. Raghunathan who is the visitor's nominee cannot assess the publications of the petitioner as an external expert and the selections conducted on 24.8.2000 by the selection committee treating Prof. M.S. Raghunathan also as an external expert is not in conformity with the requirement under Clause 20, and therefore, constitution of the selection committee is liable to be declared as illegal. In this context it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no provision under the Statute of the University of Hyderabad which prohibits inclusion of a visitor's nominee as an external expert if he happens to be an expert in a particular subject with which the candidate is concerned. I agree with the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and in my considered opinion the constitution of the selection committee cannot be declared as irregular merely on the ground that the visitor's nominee who is having a special knowledge in the subject "Complex Analysis" also acted as an external expert for assessing the performance of the petitioner.
33. Then coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since separate marks were not awarded by the selection committee on the details given by the candidate in the Bio-Data, Major Publications and Performance in Interview, the entire selection process is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside, it is pertinent to note that there is no provision either under the Statute of University of Hyderabad or under the guidelines prescribed by the UGC which requires allocation of marks under different heads at the interview. As held by the Apex Court in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, , the Courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive.
34. The same question has been considered by the Apex Court in Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees Khan (9 supra) it has been observed as follows:
" When a Lecturer is selected for promotion as a Reader, respective academic performances and performance, teaching experience and capacity to teach and other teaching material relevant to the subject in that behalf were considered by the Committee. It is not necessary, like in selection of Class II and Class III officers, to award marks to each candidate for their selection. What is required to be done is dispassionate and objective selection but not arbitrary or colourable selection. When the University nominated seven members including a High Court Judge and selected the Readers or Professors on objective test, there emerges no arbitrary selection."
35. Therefore, in my considered opinion the selection process cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on the ground that separate marks were not assigned under different heads in the interview held on 24.8.2000. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in K.V.L. Kameswari Vs. Andhra University (1 supra) and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. B.S. Mahajan (2 supra) are of no assistance to the facts of the case on hand.
36. For the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that the contentions of the petitioner are without any substance. The petitioner failed to establish any patent material irregularity either in the constitution of the selection committee or in the selection process adopted. As such and particularly in the absence of any mala fides, I am of the view that the interference of this Court is not warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
37. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
38. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the period of one year as recommended by the selection committee is already over, the respondents have not constituted the selection committee so far for consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh. If that be so, it is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not come in the way for consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh as recommended by the selection committee on 24.8.2000 in accordance with the recommendation of the selection committee as expeditiously as possible.