Karnataka High Court
Dr Subhas Yadawad S/O. Basappa vs Rani Channamma University on 30 May, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.85469/2013(S-RES)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.85596/2013(S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.108542/2014(S-RES)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.100707/2015(S-RES)
WP NOS.85469/2013 & 85596/2013:
BETWEEN:
DR.SUBHAS YADAWAD
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SAI NAGAR LAST CROSS,
HUBBALLI. ...PETITIONER
(SRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
2. THE BOARD OF APPOINTMENT/
SELECTION COMMITTEE,
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
VICE CHANCELLOR,
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
3. DR.M.C.YARRISWAMY
S/O M.K.CHANDRANNA (LATE),
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
4. DR.PURNIMA P.PATTANASHETTY
W/O PRAKASH PATTANASHETTY,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
5. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES),
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
(NCTE)
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS ROAD,
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
3
7. THE SECRETARY
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 002.
8. SRI SARVAJNA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
M.R.C.R.LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI ROAD,
VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.
9. VENKAT INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
10. J.S.S.INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
SUTTUR, NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 129.
11. JAIN MAHILA MANDAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SOMAWARPET,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
12. K.L.E.SOCIETY'S COLLEGE OF NURSING
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
JNMC CAMPUS,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 010.
13. K.L.E.SOCIETY'S INSTITUTE
OF NURSING SCIENCES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
JNMC CAMPUS,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 010.
4
14. SME SOCIETY'S
PHOENIX ENGLISH MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN CUM PRINCIPAL,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 010.
15. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
JNMC CAMPUS,
NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 010.
16. KIDS LAND
SHREE SIDRAMAPPA KALLUR
EDUCATION SOCIETY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
4560/2, SHETTY STREET,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
17. SHREE RENUKA SUGARS
DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,
BC 105, HAVLOCK ROAD,
CONTONMENT, BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND
R2
SRI F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI PRASHANT F.GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R5
SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R6
SRI M.T.BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7
SRI M.B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R12, R13 & R15
R6, R8, R10, R14 AND R17 ARE SERVED
VIDE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 NOTICE TO R9 AND
R11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
5
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPOINTMENT
ORDERS ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4
DATED 07.07.2012 AND DATED 16.07.2012
(ANNEXURE-K AND L) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO
RELIVE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 FROM THE POST
OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN EDUCATION WITH
EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF THEIR APPOINTMENT.
CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO IMPUGNED
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY 2ND RESPONDENT
RECOMMENDING THE NAMES OF RESPONDENT 3
AND 4 IN TERMS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
MEETING DATED 24.05.2012 (ANNEXURE-F) ETC.,
WP.NOS.108542/14 & 100707/15:
BETWEEN:
DR.VIJAYKUMAR S.EXAMBI
S/O SOMASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.346, MAHAVEER WILLOW,
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 060. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
6
2. THE BOARD OF APPOINTMENT/
SELECTION COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
VICE CHANCELLOR,
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
3. DR.M.C.YARRISWAMY
S/O M.K.CHANDRANNA (LATE),
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
4. DR.PURNIMA P.PATTANASHETTY
W/O PRAKASH PATTANASHETTY,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYA SANGAMA, P.B.ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 591 156.
5. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES),
M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
(NCTE)
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS ROAD,
NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
7
7. THE SECRETARY
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 002. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI PRASHANT F.GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R6
SRI MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7
R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPOINTMENT
ORDERS ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4
DATED 07.07.2012 AND DATED 16.07.2012
(ANNEXURE-J AND K) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO
RELIVE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 FROM THE POST
OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN EDUCATION WITH
EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF THEIR APPOINTMENT.
CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO IMPUGNED
RECOMMENDATION MADE BY 2ND RESPONDENT
RECOMMENDING THE NAMES OF RESPONDENT 3
AND 4 (ANNEXURE-F) AND THE PROCEEDING OF THE
MEETING DATED 24.05.2012 ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.02.2018
COMING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
8
ORDER
The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner praying to quash the appointment orders issued to respondents No.3 and 4 dated 7.7.2012 and 16.7.2012 as per Annexures-K and L passed by respondent No.1 and also issue a writ of Quo Warranto directing respondents No.1 and 2 to relieve respondents Nos.3 and 4 from the post of Associate Professor in Education from the date of their appointment. It is also prayed to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent University to issue an appointment order to the petitioner appointing him as Associate Professor of Education in place of respondents No.3 and 4.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the petitions are that Rani Channamma University issued Notification on 3.10.2011 from the eligible candidates to ten posts of Professors and twenty posts of 9 Associate Professors in different disciplines including Department of Education wherein, one Professor post and two posts of Associate Professor. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he applied to the post of Professor in Education and Associate Professor in Education in pursuance of Notification dated 3.10.2011 as per Annexures-A and A1.
3. As per the UGC Regulations, minimum qualification for the post of Associate Professor in Education has been stated vide para 4.4.7 of the UGC Regulations, which prescribes the method of awarding scoring points for the Academic Performance Indicator, scores for assessment of teachers and their services for research and academic contribution subject to finalization by the selection committee. The respondent No.1 Rani Channamma University has also got a statute which defines the qualifications and method of awarding API points and parameters 10 prescribed for teachers. The respondent University has also prescribed Academic Performance Indicator in their instruction for filling up of categories -I, II and III of the PBAS Proforma as per Annexures-B, B1, B2 and B3.
4. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he is a holder of Master's Degree in Education securing higher second class in the year 1987, Ph.D in Education from Karnataka University in the year 2002 and has also put in more than 26 years of experience in teaching in various capacity in private educational colleges and now he is working as a Professor and Principal in B.Ed. College affiliated to Karnataka University. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he has published more than 55 books for the benefit of students and has also guided one Ph.D students and four Scholars are currently pursuing their Ph.D. under his supervision. He further 11 contended that he has guided twenty students for their M.phil. Though he applied for the post called by respondent No.1 with above qualification, the same has not been considered by the respondent No.1. He further submitted that there were totally 27 candidates who were called for the interview to the post of Associate Professor in Education along with the petitioner. Respondent No.3 was also a candidate for the interview, he has passed M.Ed. with 68.20% of professional qualification from Bapuji College of Education, Davanagere in 1996, M.A. (history) with 52.80% from Karnataka State Open University, Mysore, in the year 1998 and has also completed Ph.D in Education from Kuvempu University, Shivamogga in the year 2007. It is further submitted that he has also enclosed experience certificate and other documents.
5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was also a candidate who has 12 completed her M.A. degree from Karnataka University by securing 58.09% in 1981, B.Ed degree from Karnataka University by securing 72.5% in 1989, M.Ed. from Karnataka University in the year 1992 by securing 59.8% and Ph.D from Gulbarga University in the year 2003. Respondent No.4 has also enclosed four teaching experience certificate and out of them she has furnished teaching experience in Under- Graduate (B.Ed.) college i.e. Jain Mahila Mandal, Belgaum and other documents. It is the contention of the petitioner that she also completed Nursing Course from KLE Society's College during July 1994 to April 1995 and Nursing Science from 2.9.1995 to 31.9.1996 and Pheonix English Medium Residential School, Belgaum from 1994-1995 and as a Honorary Lecturer in Physiotherapy from 1995-1999 from Jawaharlal Negru Medical College, Belgaum. She has also enclosed certificates for having taken and completed 13 different projects to the tune of Rs.30.27 Crores. Keeping in view the said documents, API selection committee has given 220 API points and the certificates enclosed are Kids Land Nursery School and Curriculum Development project of Shree Sidramappa Kallur Education Society, Belgaum at the cost of Rs.5 lakhs per school for 9 nursery schools. It is further submitted that 1st respondent has conducted the interview for the post of Associate Professor in Education on 24.5.2012 and the proceedings of the meeting were held on 24.5.2012. The Committee constitution under Section 53(2)(a) of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000 and as per the UGC Regulations on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges and Measures for maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010, the names of respondents No.3 and 4 were recommended under General category. It is 14 the further contention of the petitioner that the interview and details about API scores awarded to the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 are produced as per Annexures F, G, H and J. It is further contended that on the basis of the recommendations made by second respondent, the first respondent University approved the recommendations on 7.7.2012 and though there is a Descent Note by five members of the syndicate against the selection of the respondents, in spite of the same, first respondent University issued appointment orders to respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is further contended that though the petitioner is more meritorious and was better qualified than respondents No.3 and 4, respondent No.1 has not selected the petitioner, but appointed respondents No.3 and 4 as per Annexures- K and L. 15
6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Southern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education Bengaluru, after noticing the irregularities committed by respondent No.1 has decided in the 235th meeting that Dr.Yarriswamy is not eligible for the post of Associate Professor, as he has only 51.7% in M.A. degree whereas, as per NCTE Norms minimum 55% of marks are required for eligibility as per Annexure-M. He further submitted that all these facts were brought to the notice of the Chairman, UGC, Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Director of NCTE, Director of Southern Regional Committee about the irregularities in appointment made by the 1st respondent. In spite of that, they have not cancelled the appointment of respondents No.3 and 4. He has further submitted that he has also addressed a letter along with the copies of the proceedings of 250th meeting as per 16 Annexures-Q, R, S, but no action has been taken. It is further submitted that the respondent University has given insufficient information. It is further submitted that efforts made by the petitioner to draw the mass irregularities committed by respondent No.1 University, it has became futile exercise and no appropriate action has been taken against the said illegalities. As such, challenging the same, he has filed the present writ petitions.
7. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that respondent No.3 has not secured the minimum eligible marks which is mandatory as per NCTE Regulations and even SRC- NCTE in its 235th meeting held on 20-21 November, 2012 has observed that respondent No.3 is not eligible. The respondent No.1 University bypassing all the rules and regulations has appointed respondent No.3. It is further contended that respondent No.3 is 17 not having any experience and the experience which have been produced are not in terms of NCTE Regulations, the same have been considered and an illegal appointment order has been issued appointing respondent No.3. The said selection is not sustainable in law. He further contended that respondent No.4 has never teach in any colleges, but however, he managed to collect the experience certificate and secured the appointment as an Associate Professor by influencing her previous possession as a sitting syndicate member of Rani Channamma University. It is further contended that respondent No.3 has claimed 450 API points and University has assessed her API points to 325. The said assessment are wrong and on the basis of the fake consultancy projects and research consultation has obtained the said points though she has no academic contributions. The selection committees has awarded totally 437.5 API points out of which 220 18 points are awarded for research consultancy without taking the cognizance of UGC Regulations in assessing API scores as per the category-III(Research and academic contributions). It is further contended that respondent No.3 was a sitting Syndicate Member till the date of interview and she has participated in previous syndicate meetings wherein in the said meeting they have approved the list of Board of Appointment members before whom the candidates have to appear. It clearly indicates that the appointment itself is biased and preconceived one. It is further contended that as per NCTE Regulations, approval of NCTE is mandatory, whereas in this case the Government without consulting the NCTE has given its green signal to issue appointment orders, the same are not sustainable in law. It is further contended that there are so many irregularities while appointing respondents No.3 and 4 and as such the 19 same are liable to be quashed. He further submitted that by relying upon the decision in the case of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajputh Vs. Gulbarga University represented by its Registrar and Others in Civil Appeal No.9866 of 2013 of the Hon'ble Apex Court that when the petitioner is the eligible candidate, the appointing authority which has kept absolute power with it has misused the power and has appointed. He further contended that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is applicable to the present facts of the case on hand. He further contended that the selection committee and the respondent University by throwing the mandatory provisions of the Constitution and by playing the fraudulent techniques have appointed the respondents No.3 and 4 and as such the same are liable to be quashed. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the writ petitions.
20
8. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 vehemently argued by contending that the petitioner has participated in the interview and at the time of attending the interview he has not pointed out any lacunas and now he is pointing out so many lacunas after he being an unsuccessful candidate. Such an unsuccessful candidate is estopped from challenging the selection process when without objection he participated in the interview. In order to substantiate his contention he relied upon a decision in the case of D.Saroja Kumari Vs. R.Helen Thilakom and Others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478. He further contended that the respondent No.4 has not participated in the selection process and there is no question of personal bias and even there is no bar to apply by a Syndicate Member to the post of Assistant Professors. By going through the Regulations the Appointing Authority has appointed respondent 21 No.4. He further contended that the expert committee verified and the said aspects has not been disputed by the petitioner and the committee constituted by the Government after considering all the facts and circumstances has interviewed and thereafter appointment orders have been issued. He further contended that the petitioner has not established the fact that he is qualified to be appointed in place of respondent No.4. For having failed to prove the same, now he cannot contend that the selection is not proper. He further contended that the candidate by taking part in the selection process consciously, subsequently he cannot turn around and question the very selection process that too when the selection has been made on merits. In order to substantiate the said contention he relied upon a decision in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another Vs. K. Shivasubramaniyan and Others 22 reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 and also another decision in the case of Basavaiah (DR) Vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh and Others reported in (2010)8 SCC
372. It is further submitted that the Court cannot endevour to sit in appeal over the decisions of experts committee. In the instant case on hand the experts after considering all the materials have rightly appointed respondents No.3 and 4 and even API points which have been given are by following NCTE Rules and Regulations. The petitioner has not made out any good grounds to quash the proceedings. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
9. Respondents No.1 and 3 have also supported the arguments of respondent No.4. The learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued by contending that there are no irregularity and illegality pointed out by the petitioner and in that light the 23 petitions which have been filed are premature and are not maintainable and the same are liable to be dismissed. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the said petitions.
10. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and I have also perused all the records. Before going to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents, I want to bring it on record some of the admitted facts. It is not in dispute that as per Notification dated 3.10.2011 as per Annexure-A applications were invited for the post of Assistant Professor and the qualifications prescribed are as per Annexure-B and B2 and even it is not in dispute that Statute Governing the appointment of Professors and Associate Professors and Assistant Professors will be in terms of Annexure-B1 and even the parameters prescribed for 24 the Associate Professors as stated therein are to be considered. It is also not in dispute that as per Annexure-B3, API scores are to be proposed for research and academic contributions and the minimum API score required is different for different levels of promotions by different colleges. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is also one of the applicant to the said post, so also respondents No.3 and 4.
11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of respondents No.3 and 4 is not in accordance with the Regulations NCTE and since from beginning so many irregularities have been committed by respondent No.1 University and has appointed respondents No.3 and 4 and the same is to be quashed. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 that the writ petitions are not maintainable 25 since the petitioner has participated in the interview and no lacunas have been pointed out at the time of attending the interview or before the interview, now he is estopped from challenging the selection process. By going through the records and submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties it is not in dispute that the petitioner applied to the post of Assistant Professor as per Annexure-C in Rani Channamma University and it is also not in dispute that he also appeared before the Selection Committee after following the UGC Regulations and NCTE norms and he is an unsuccessful candidate .
12. I have gone through catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even the decisions quoted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4, now it is well settled principle of law that when a candidate consciously takes part in selection process, he subsequently cannot turn around 26 and question very selection process even on merits. This preposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another quoted supra. For the purpose of brevity, I extract paragraph Nos.14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
"14.The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.
15. In G.Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow, a similar question came up for consideration before a three-
Judge Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Anthropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the 27 petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held: (SCC P.591, para 15).
"15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn around and 28 question the constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal Case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR P.432, para
9).
'9. ...It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.' 29
16. In Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p.493, para 9) "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent concerned. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged 30 successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
31
17. In Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC P.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from 32 questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
18. In Ramesh Chandra Shah Vs. Anil Joshi, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (SCC P.320, para 24).
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."33
13. By going through the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court it clearly indicates that when a selection panel consisted of eminent academicians and their integrity is not challenged the decision in the academic matters cannot be examined under the writ jurisdiction in the absence of malafides, bias or arbitrariness. As could be seen from the records, the petitioner has not challenged the integrity of the selection panel and no arbitrariness has also been attributed to them. It is the only contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is a Syndicate Member prior to she applied for the said post and when she was a Syndicate Member the Panel was finalized and thereafter she resigned and applied to the said post. By going through the process itself it indicates that the panel has been selected by the Syndicate Members and admittedly it is not the only respondent 34 No.4 who alone takes decisions in selection of the panel for the purpose of appointment. Even it is natural, but the selection committee which is going to be selected by the Syndicate Members will be academically qualified. If all these facts are looked into, merely because the respondent No.4 was a Syndicate Member prior to the application to the said post, then under such circumstance it cannot be held that there was a bias or arbitrariness. It is not the case of the petitioner that he possessed the requisite qualifications to the said post. When he along with respondents No3. and 4 appeared for the interview before the same Committee, at that time he has not pointed out any lacunas with regard to the requisite qualifications and API points given by the selection committee about their experience and articles published and other requisite qualifications. In that light, all the facts clearly indicates that the experts 35 after scrutiny of all the materials which have been produced by all the candidates and after examining the suitability of the candidates have selected respondents No.3 and 4 and the same has been forwarded to the Government and after obtaining the green signal from the Government, the appointment orders have been issued.
14. In the present writ petition the petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate has challenged the selection process after being unsuccessful. Then under such circumstances this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under the writ in the absence of any malafides, bias or arbitrariness and quash the selection process as held in the decisions quoted supra. In that light the first contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not survive for consideration.
36
15. The second contention taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the certificates which have been produced by respondents No.3 and 4 are not relevant to the requirement of the post at UGC and NCTE Regulations. But as could be seen from the records and even during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted the fact that previous to the interview by the selection committee he has not raised any objections or little finger in this aspect. It is an admitted fact that the selection committee which has been constituted is duly selected and constituted committee and has expertise on the subject, that has not been challenged. When duly constituted selection committee which has expertise on the subject, if it has scrutinized the points to be considered as per Annexure-B and Annexures-B1 and B3 and thereafter the selection process has been made, then under such 37 circumstances this Court being not an expertise in the said matter can interfere with unless the petitioner points out material irregularity and other things. This proposition of law has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr.B.S.Mahajan and Others reported in (1990)1 SCC 305, wherein at paragraph- 12, it has been observed as under:-
12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasize that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to 38 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. 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 39 so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
16. On going through the above said decision and ratio laid down it indicates that if a committee consisting of experts selected the candidates after going through all the relevant materials before it, this Court cannot exceed its jurisdiction and say that the method adopted is not in accordance with the Regulations of NCTE and API. In that context also the contentions which have been raised are not sustainable in law and the contentions raised are not having any force.
17. Even as could be seen from Annexure-F the consolidated statement of marks for the post of Associate Professors in Education, respondent No.4 has scored 219.74 and in respect of petitioner it has 40 been mentioned he is not eligible, as API score is less than 300. When as per the contention of the petitioner himself the minimum API score must be 300 and if he has not scored the minimum API points, then under such circumstances now he cannot contend that the respondents No.3 and 4 have not scored the minimum API points and he cannot be appointed that too when he has failed in the process and has not scored the minimum API points. In that light, no direction can be issued to the respondent University to appoint the petitioner. It is his contention that the experience certificates and the Articles published for the purpose of awarding the API points are not in accordance with the UGC and NCTE Regulations, but when he has not pointed out the said aspects and when he himself has stated at para No.16 of the writ petitions that the respondent No.4 has claimed 450 API points and University points assessed to her API points is 325 41 and the said assessment is wrong as she has hyped her API points by showing the fake consultancy projects is not acceptable, that too after all the process has been completed and appointment orders have been issued. Even the records indicates that the respondent No.4 is likely to be attaining the superannuation within a very short span of time.
18. Looking from any angle, the ultimate fact remain is that if candidate participate in selection process, he cannot subsequently turn around and question selection process or constitution of the selection committee only because he was not selected and now he cannot contend that the other candidate is not entitled to be considered for the purpose of appointment, that too when the petitioner after taking part, he fails in the selection. Such candidate is estopped in law from challenging the selection process. When the principles of estoppel comes into 42 play, then this Court cannot go into the details of the selection process and reverse the entire selection process taken by an expert committee.
19. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and as such the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed.
Consequently, IA.Nos.1/2015, 1/2017, 1/2018 in WP.Nos.85469/2013 & 85596/2013; IA.Nos.1/2017, 1/2018 in WP.Nos.108542/2014 & 100707/2015 are dismissed as they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE ap/-