Karnataka High Court
Dr.C.D. Venkatesh vs The Registrar on 6 December, 2022
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3180 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2964 OF 2014 (GM-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2965 OF 2014 (GM-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3011 OF 2014 (S-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3179 OF 2014 (GM-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3181 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
IN WA No. 3180 of 2014
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI D BETWEEN:
Location: BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
High Court of JNANA BHARATHI,
Karnataka BANGALORE-560 056,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.)
-2-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
AND:
1. TAYAPPA
S/O MUDUKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THIMMAPUR,
POST YADHALADHODY,
TQ.SINDHANUR,
DIST: RAICHUR-585128.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. DR. M SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O MUKUNDAPPA
WORKING AS LECTURER,
CENTER FOR WOMEN STUDIES,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANABHARATHI,
BANGALORE-560 056.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTY, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI SHOWRI H.R, AGA FOR R2,
SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.B.MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R3,
SRI ARAVIND SHARMA, ADV. FOR R4.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 80008/2009 DATED 1/8/14.
-3-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
IN WA No. 2964 of 2014
BETWEEN:
DR. C.D. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O DASAIAH @ BADDAIAH
NOW WORKING AS LECTURER IN
CENTRE FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BANGALORE-560056
& R/A DOOR NO.427, 9TH MAIN,
NARAYANA NAGAR, 1ST BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 570062.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI K.B.MURALIDHAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANA BHARATHI, BANGALORE - 560056.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
(HIGHER EDUCATION),
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. DR. PRAKASH BHIMARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O BHIMARAYA HUGGI,
R/AT THONASANAHALLI,
POST: NEAR SHAHABAD
TQ: CHITTAPUR TALUK,
DIST: KALBURGI-585211
-4-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI H.R.SHOWRI, AGA FOR R2,
SRI JAYAKUMR S.PATIL, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR GOWDA, ADV. FOR R3.
SRI ARAVIND SHARMA, ADV. FOR R4.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 4966/2008 DATED 1/8/14.
IN WA No. 2965 of 2014
BETWEEN:
DR. M.SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O MUKUNDAPPA,
NOW WORKING AS LECTURER,
CENTRE FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BANGALORE-560056
& R/AT DOOR NO.320,
7TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
T K LAYOUT,
MYSORE-570 009.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.B.MURALIDHAR, ADV.)
-5-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANA BHARATHI, BANGALORE-560 056
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
(HIGHER EDUCATION), GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
3. TAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O MUDUKAPPA,
R/AT THIMMAPURA, POST:YADHALADHODY,
TQ:SINDHANUR, DIST:RAICHUR-585128
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI SHOWRI H.R, AGA FOR R2,
SRI G.S.BHAT, ADV. FOR R3.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 80008/2009 DATED 1/8/14.
IN WA No. 3011 of 2014
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUDESHNA MUKHERJEE
W/O MR. SOUMENDU MUKHERJEE,
ADMIN NO.1, CHICK BAZAR ROAD,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
TASKAR TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560001
-6-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
NOW R/AT: 15 B, JEEVANBIMA NAGAR,
KPWD QUARTERS, BANGALORE - 560 075.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN R.NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KRISHNA J.C., ADV.)
AND:
1. DR. ANASUYA
W/O MALLIKARJUN KADAM,
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/AT KURKUNTA TQ SEDAM,
DIST. GULBARGA-585101.
2. THE REGISTRAR,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANA BHARATHI, BANGALORE - 560 056
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
SESHADRI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I.R.BIRADAR AND
SRI G.G.CHAGASHETTY, ADVS. FOR R1,
SRI APPAJI, ADV. FOR R2,
SRI SHOWRI H.R, AGA FOR R3,
SRI ARAVIND SHARMA, ADV. FOR R4.)
-7-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 80007/2009 DATED 1/8/14.
IN WA No. 3179 of 2014
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANA BHARATHI, BANGALORE-560 056,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.)
AND:
1. DR PRAKASH BHIMARAYA,
S/O BHIMARAYA HUGGI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TONASANAHALLI,
NEAR SHAHABAD,
CHITTAPUR TALUK,
GULBARGA DISTRICT-585211.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(HIGHER EDUCATION),
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. DR. C.D. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O DASAIAH @ BADDAIAH,
PRESENTLY: WORKING AT LECTURER,
-8-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
CENTER FOR WOMENS STUDIES,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANABHARATHI,
BANGALORE-560 056.
4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
SHESHADRI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., AGA FOR R2,
SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.B.MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R3.
SRI ARAVIND SHARMA, ADV. FOR R4,
R1 - SERVED.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 4966/2008 DATED 1/8/14.
IN WA No. 3181 of 2014
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANA BHARATHI,
BANGALORE-560 056
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.)
-9-
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
AND:
1. DR ANUSUYA
W/O MALLIKARJUN KADAM,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KURKUNTA,
SEDAM TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
(HIGHER EDUCATION),
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SMT.SUDESHNA MUKHERJEE
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O SOUMENDU MUKHERJEE,
WORKING AS LECTURER,
CENTER FOR WOMENS STUDIES,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANABHARATHI,
BANGALORE-560 056.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R, AGA FOR R2,
SRI JANEKERE C KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R3,
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 80007/2009 DATED 01/08/2014.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 10 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, along with Sri. K. B. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.S.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel along with Sri. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel for Appellant University, Sri. H. R. Showri, learned AGA for respondent No.2, Sri. Aravind Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri. Jayakumar S Patil, learned Senior counsel along with Sri. Chandrashekar Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. All the six writ appeals arise out the common judgment dated 01.08.2014 rendered by the learned Single Judge (as he then was) in W.P.Nos.4966/2008, 80007/2009 and 80008/2009.
3. W.A.Nos.2964/2014, 3011/2014 and 2965/2014 are by the respective third respondents
- 11 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 (selected candidates) in the three writ petitions and whose selection came to be questioned by the petitioners therein.
4. W.A.Nos.3179/2014, 3180/2014 and 3181/2014 are by the University - first respondent in the respective writ petitions and who have also preferred the appeals, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to set-aside the proceedings of the first respondent under which the respondent No.1 was pleased to select the appellants/private respondents for the various posts notified by them.
5. The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the learned Single Judge (as he then was) for the sake of convenience and brevity.
6. The genesis for the present dispute is traceable to the Notification issued by the first respondent on
- 12 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 14.10.2006 calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts of Lecturers in the Department of Women Studies. The stipulated qualifications, specializations detailed in the Annexure to the brochure attached to the notification are reproduced later in the judgment.
7. It was further stipulated that NET shall remain a compulsory requirement and according to the reservation roster, one post each, was reserved in favour of SC, ST and GM candidates respectively.
8. Before we venture further into the facts peculiar to the case, it is pertinent to expound on the selection criteria or qualification prescribed by the Notification. The Notification stipulates that they should have a minimum of 55% marks 'in the relevant subject'. Apart from stating so, the University has left all other combinations and
- 13 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 permutations of "relevant subject" vague and ambiguous and the Advertisement notifying the posts does not stipulate what actually are the "Relevant Subjects". It does not also expound as to whether they are interchangeable or whether the course is an inter-disciplinary or multi- disciplinary course of study. We have elaborated regarding the qualification, at this stage itself, as the entire controversy surrounding the selection appears to have arisen out of the vagueness and the lack of detail regarding the relevant/allied/interchangeable/inter- disciplinary subjects in the Notification.
9. Before the learned Single Judge, petitioners canvassed their petitions on three grounds, namely;
(i) That the Board of Appointment had no discretionary power in selecting the persons, who have not passed out in the relevant subject, that is, women-studies,
- 14 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 with the stipulated marks and in support of this contention, reliance was placed on Section 53 (6) and (9) of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). In short, it was contended that the successful candidates did not possess, the qualification in the relevant subject, that is, 'women studies'.
(ii) Secondly, that the Board failed to review and adjudge merits of each of the candidate by awarding marks in accordance with the qualification advertised in the Notification i.e., the phrase 'in the relevant subject' ought to have been strictly read as subjects taught in 'women studies' post graduation course and not in any other course, which is remotely related to the curriculum to be taught in the women studies course.
- 15 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
(iii) That the first respondent has failed to appreciate sub-section (9) of Section 53 of the Act and ought to have looked for candidates, who had studied the subjects taught by the University itself in the "women studies" course run by it and that such subjects alone were to be understood as relevant subjects.
10. In support of their contention, reliance was placed on the ruling of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Shivanand vs. Gulbarga University1.
(i) The facts involved therein are that the University advertised for the post of 'Lecturer in MCA', but the Gulbarga University selected a candidate, who possessed a Master's Degree in Mathematics. Upon challenge, the Co-Ordinate Division Bench has interpreted the phrase in the 'relevant subject' and held that 1 W.A.No.3216/2004.
- 16 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Mathematics cannot be equated with 'relevant subject' in respect of a course involving a Masters in Computer Applications and was pleased to set-aside the appointment. Aggrieved, the same was carried up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court interpreting the phrase in the 'relevant subject' has been pleased to hold that the same is a subject pertaining to the course of study imparted under the said degree unless and until it is classified as equivalent or certified so by the UGC and that it is not open to the University to base their selection on the premise that the candidate has completed a course which involves a subject which could be treated as an interchangeable subject.
11. The writ petitions were resisted by the private respondents on the following grounds;
- 17 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
(i) firstly, the writ petitions are hit by delay and laches. The said contention is canvassed on the ground that the appointments of 2006 have been called in question in the year 2008.
(ii) Secondly, it was contended that the Board of Appointment is not a party to the proceedings.
(iii) Thirdly, the orders of appointment appointing the private respondents has not been challenged.
Insofar as the concept of the 'relevant subject', reliance was placed on the ruling rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. G. V. Venkataramana vs. Dr. G. Vishwanath and Others2. Nextly, reliance was placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and 2 W.A.No.1687/2006.
- 18 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Another3, to contend that whether the subject is an interchangeable subject or not, is within the domain of the UGC and it is not for the Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of an expert body like the UGC.
(iv) Lastly, it was contended that the petitioners having participated in the selection process, they cannot turn around and question the same, that too, after participating without any demur and that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others4, unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging the selection criteria/qualification stipulation.
(v) That whether a subject is a relevant subject or not, is entirely within the domain of the Board/Experts. 3 (2008) 9 SCC 284.
4(2008) 4 SCC 171.
- 19 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Further, reliance was placed on the ruling rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Anil Chand and Others5.
12. Respondent No.1 University contended that the Board of Appointment, consisted of subject experts and the University itself being an expert body consisting of subject experts, they have rightly recognized the subjects studied by the private respondents as interchangeable subjects and in that view of the matter, it is not open for the Court to sit in judgment on the opinion of the experts.
13. Reliance was also placed by the University on the Guidelines issued by the UGC for Development of Women Studies in Indian Universities and Colleges during the year 2011-2012 and more particularly, reliance was placed on Item No.4 and internal paragraph No.20, which states that Women Studies subject can have an influence in bringing a feminist perspective into the main stream 5 (2008) 4 SCC 175.
- 20 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 and also affect the current focus in teaching, research, administration in the higher echelons of the education system. Further, reliance has been placed on Clause 5(8)(2) of the Guidelines. It was further contended that selection or fixing of nomenclature for the Centre/Department is the exclusive privilege of the University and that only for the purpose of UGC, all Centres/Departments would be referred to as 'Women's Studies Centre' (WSCs) and that the focus will be interdisciplinary. That the course has been designed in order to enable the students of the said course to focus on emerging complexities in the society and as an illustration, the University has pointed out that Kannada and Sociology are interdisciplinary subjects.
14. Learned Single Judge, after considering various contentions noted that the UGC having allotted a separate subject code i.e., Code 74 for Women Studies, has been
- 21 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 pleased to hold that Women Studies Course is a separate subject. In that view, learned Single Judge has held that in the event, the Board of selection intended to consider interdisciplinary subjects also, then such of those interdisciplinary subjects were required to be stipulated before hand before inviting applications for various posts. That such prior pronouncement was mandated in view of the fact that the Regulations were silent as to the definition of the 'interdisciplinary subjects' and 'interchangeability of subjects'.
15. The Learned Single Judge further held that the subjects taught in the course and the subjects studied by the 3rd Respondent/selected candidates, are not interchangeable, as held in Gulbarga University case. With regard to the preliminary objection, learned Single Judge, after considering various contentions proceeded to hold that relevant subjects is not defined under the Act nor is
- 22 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 any Notification issued, under which equivalent subject or equivalence of subjects has also been stipulated.
16. Nextly, the Learned Single Judge held, that the challenge being to the proceedings of the Board, the appointments being consequential, the failure of challenge to the appointment, was held to be inconsequential and not fatal, more so where the selections are not made in accordance with the Act.
17. Proceeding further, the learned Single Judge has held that the phrase 'in the relevant subject' has neither been defined under the Act nor has it been elaborated in the Notification and has further observed that what are the interchangeable subjects, has also not been elaborated in the Notification. That the proceedings of the Board of Appointment also does not detail as to what are the interchangeable subjects and thereby
- 23 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 permitted an element of arbitrariness and rendering the selections whimsical. That such details regarding interchangeable subjects are required to be notified either by the UGC or by the University at-least in the or prior to the Notification or by the Board of Appointment. In this regard, learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal's case (supra), to hold that in instant case, no such Guidelines or elaboration or information is made available to the candidates under the Notification.
18. The Learned Single Judge further found fault with the Board of Appointment for having failed to clarify the 'relevant subject' in the background of the task before them and their failure to notify the so called relevant subjects has resulted in arbitrariness creeping into the selection process.
- 24 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
19. Learned Single Judge further held that it was incumbent on the respondent No.1 - University and Board of Appointment to notify the relevant subjects and the same cannot be left to an exercise of arbitrary interpretation on the part of the Board of the Appointment that too during the course of selection. Proceeding further, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the case of Shivanand vs. Gulbarga University (supra) to hold that the 'relevant subject' is a subject referable to the Notification and cannot be an interchangeable subject and further, placed reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University and Shivanand and Others6.
20. Insofar as delay and laches is concerned, learned Single Judge has deemed it fit to hold the delay as 6 (2014) 3 SCC 767.
- 25 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 not fatal, in view of the illegality practiced in the procedure adopted for the selection of private respondents.
21. The learned Single Judge concluded by holding that as per the UGC Guidelines interchangeable subject or inter-relatable subject, can only be one from among Women Studies and not from any other course. Accordingly, learned Single Judge was pleased to quash the proceedings of the Board of Appointment and further, directed selection of the candidates in accordance with the relevant subject, namely, Women Studies and further, directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months.
Case of the Appellants:
22. It is the case of the private respondent in the first writ petition before the learned Single Judge that
- 26 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 certain guidelines have been fixed by the UGC for the post of Lecturer in Women Studies which is as under:
"3.1 Introduction : Currently, there are 67 Women's Studies Centres (WSCs) established in various universities and colleges in the country. Many of these WSCs are those newly established under the UGC X plan and may not necessarily have a clear understanding about the aims and objectives with which the UGC had initiated its Women's Studies Programme. WSCs established during the earlier plan periods, also face considerable difficulties due to the lack of clarity about their roles and the terms under which the UGC disburses its grants. Further more, in the last three decades, Women's Studies has gained in academic stature and developed a rich body of theories based on a complex and multi-layered understanding of the realities of women's lives. This rich material needs to be introduced to students in the class room."
A copy of the UGC guidelines has been produced as Annexure R1. It is stated that the private respondent, being more qualified than the petitioner therein and the Board of Appointments also having examined the same in the background of the UGC guidelines, has concluded that
- 27 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 the said respondent possesses the requisite qualification to be appointed as lecturer in Women's Studies.
23. It is further contended that the post graduation course in Women's Studies being a new course, candidates who have obtained post graduation in Sociology are appointed as faculty for teaching under Women's Studies. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner has no legs to stand on.
24. In the second writ petition apart from the technical objections regarding delay and laches and estoppels, it is contended there is no challenge to the order of appointment. The objections regarding Court having no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts is also canvassed. It is contended that, the UGC in its guidelines issued for the development of Women's Studies in colleges, has stipulated that the
- 28 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 selection norms is left to each of the universities because of the focus being on interdisciplinary subjects. Prima facie, this stand appears contrary to the stand adopted by the private respondent in the first noted writ petition wherein the guideline issued by the UGC has been strongly relied upon. Copy of the guidelines is also produced as Annexure R1. The reliance is placed on guideline 3 titled as "Part I - The Approach Paper". In concluding paragraph of guidelines 3.1 as stated, it merely refers to an interdisciplinary framework that draws sustenance from various subjects i.e., knowledge from various Social Sciences, Humanities and Sciences. Guideline 5(8)(4) refers to 'Faculty', more particularly to the organizational structure. Guidelines 5(8)(4)(a) and (b) referred to the post of 'Head of the Women's Studies Centre/Department and Additional Qualifications for the Head. Clause (c)(i) refers to 'Core-Faculty' which merely defines the core
- 29 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 faculty to include Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Coordinator of teaching-learning materials, Teaching Associates. On perusal of the guidelines which is produced as Annexure R1 it is apparent that no qualifications are attached or specified to the teaching posts or non teaching posts by the UGC.
25. In the third writ petition the private respondent's contentions are on the lines of the case canvassed in the first writ petition. In fact, it is specifically contended that the selection committee comprised of experts and were drawn from inter-disciplinary subjects and thus the same itself make it obvious, that the 'relevant subjects' refers to inter-changeable subjects and hence the contention that only Master's Degree in Women's Studies is alone the relevant subject requires to be rejected. In para 17(ii) it is contended that the instant respondent has done extensive research and got published
- 30 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 collection of articles under the title "fêÁ¼ÀÀ" and hence the same being related to women it cannot be contended that the private respondent is ineligible for selection.
26. The first respondent University apart from canvassing the technical grounds in its statement of objections has nowhere detailed the qualifications possessed by the private respondents which enabled them to be considered for the post. On the contrary the endeavour of the first respondent University has been to tell this Court to keep its hands off, as the selection process has been completed by a body of subject experts. Similar objections have been filed in all the three writ petitions.
27. In the appeal it has been contended that the private respondents having found themselves fully qualified and eligible, have applied for the posts. Emphasis
- 31 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 has been placed on the composition of the selection committee and on the unanimous resolution of the Board of Appointment. In the second appeal, also in the grounds of appeal, emphasis is on the technical grounds and no elaboration of the qualifications possessed are elaborated or detailed. The respondent University has also canvassed the third appeal on the technical grounds apart from contending that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the distinction about interdisciplinary subjects.
28. The University has also placed on record the statement showing the particulars of the applicants who have been selected for the posts of Lecturers i.e., the private respondents, which does not disclose the academic qualification in any great detail, which also contains a column titled as "spln." (specialization).
- 32 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
(i) The statement reveals that the first candidate under GM category has completed BA and MA in Sociology and M.Phil in Sociology. It is pertinent to note that this candidate has completed her doctoral degree after filing of the application for the post, but yet the doctoral degree has been taken into consideration.
(ii) The second candidate has also completed B.A and M.A in Sociology with a Diploma in 'Women's Studies'. [The prescribed qualified is a P.G. Degree in Women Studies and not a Diploma in it].
(iii) The third candidate has completed B.A, M.A and Ph.D in Kannada.
29. We deem it necessary to look into the notification dated 14.10.2006 inviting applications produced as Annexure-G. The notification would state that applications are invited for teaching post in the post
- 33 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 graduate departments and hence, in respect of qualification, it states as prescribed by UGC/AICTE from time to time and it would state, that details regarding qualifications are to be found in the brochure attached to the application and on perusing the brochure it is seen, in respect of post of lecturer it is stated that the stipulation is a Masters Degree with 55% marks in the relevant subject. The minimum qualification and other stipulations attached to the posts are separately described in the annexure to the brochure. Serial No.14, in the Annexure, pertains to Women's Studies and as against the post of lecturer under the column specialization three disciplines are detailed;
(1) Women movements;
(2) Women and Law and Women rights; and (3) Women's Writing
- 34 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 This probably is indicative of the subjects/discipline, in which the selected candidates were required to impart tuitions or conduct classes or were required to be qualified. The University has maintained a stoic silence and has neither elaborated about it either in the statement of objections or in the grounds of Appeal or in the hearing.
30. In this regard, we see that the appellant in Writ Appeal No.3011/2014 (hereinafter referred to as GM candidate) has produced certificates issued by the University in respect of her academic degrees/qualification. The certificates enclosed are M.A. degree in Sociology awarded by the JNU, New Delhi, Master of Philosophy awarded by JNU, New Delhi and Doctorate in Philosophy awarded by JNU, New Delhi. The curriculum studied by her in M.A. is produced in the form of a Grade report. On perusing the same, we do not find the appellant having undergone any course of study in
- 35 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 either of the three disciplines of specialization notified in the notification inviting applications. The grade sheet is produced as Annexure-R7. The doctorate of Philosophy certificate would refer to the title of the thesis as - Police and Women's rights: "A Sociological Enquiry with Special Reference to Select Districts in Karnataka". The Master of Philosophy certificate would describe the title of her dissertation as "Gender Studies and University Curriculum:
A Sociological Enquiry. The Master's degree certificate would describe that a degree has been awarded to her in Sociology subject.
(i) It is pertinent to note that the other two selected candidates have not placed any material in support of their academic qualification.
31. A perusal of the pleadings by the appellant in W.A. No.2964/2014, does not disclose as to whether the
- 36 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 appellant has acquired any specialized knowledge either in all or any of the three specializations/disciplines notified in the Annexure to the brochure attached to the notification inviting applications.
(i) The academic qualifications of this appellant is found in the statement prepared by the University, wherein educational qualification is detailed as B.A. and M.A. Sociology and a Post Graduate Diploma (what is stipulated is a P.G. Degree) in Women's Studies and the discipline of specialization is described as 'Women's Movements'. Apart from the above statement, we do not find any corroborative material produced along with the appeal papers.
32. As regard the appellant in W.A. No.2965/2014, the qualifications are again to be found in the statement prepared by the University where the appellants academic
- 37 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 achievements are detailed as B.A., M.A. and Ph.D in Kannada and Specialization is recorded as Women's Movement/Women's rights. Yet again there is no material to demonstrate or corroborate the claim of the candidate that he has acquired any lawful qualification, in any of the notified specializations.
33. One of the documents produced and of relevance is the syllabus that is being taught to student of the department of women studies and is produced as Annexure-R13.
34. It would be prudent and profitable to refer to the guidelines framed by the UGC for the department of Women's Studies in Indian Universities which is produced as Annexure-R1, and it may not be out of place to observe here itself that the University appears not to have completely abided by it.
- 38 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
(i) Before adverting to the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be prudent to reproduce the Notification along with the Annexure attached to the brochure, the qualifications stipulated in the brochure i.e. on page 2 of the notification and the details of post, reservation and specializations detailed at Page 2, Sl. No.14 of the Annexure-I of the Notification. These, in our opinion, are also relevant material for determination of the claims/issues in the appeal. Hence, the same are extracted herein below.
"LECTURER:
"Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or, an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O,A,B,C,D,E&F at the Master's Degree Level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent degree from a Foreign University."
Annexure-I BANGALORE UNIVERSITY Details of vacancies, classification of posts & specialization
- 39 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Sl. Name of the P R L Reservation Specialization No. Department/ in respect of Courses Lecturers 1- - - - - - - 13 14 Women's 01 02 03 01-SC Professor - Studies 01-GM Women's Research & 01-ST Contribution/Women's Studies, Reader 1) Feminist Writing & Theory 2) Women & Health, Lecturer - 1) Women's movements, 2) Women & Law/Human rights, 3) Women's writings 15-21 - - - - - -
The syllabus and subjects stipulated by the UGC and which forms the course of study for candidates aspiring for post- graduation in women studies. The Post Graduation (PG) syllabus is as found in the document furnished by the University.
The syllabus as set by the Bangalore University is as under:-
- 40 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
"1ST SEMISTER i. Women's studies & Women's movement ii. Sociology of Women iii. Women and education iv. Feminist Research Methodology v. (a) Women in Indian Art and Architecture or
(b) Status of Women in India.
2ND SEMISTER i. Feminism and Feminist Theories ii. Women and Media iii. Women and Politics iv. Computer Applications v. (a) Women and Environment or
(b)Women and Entrepreneurship 3RD SEMISTER i. Psychology of Women ii. Women and Reproductive Health iii. Women and Technology iv. Women and Literature v. (a) Women and work or
(b) Women's Health and Nutrition 4TH SEMISTER i. Policies and Programmes for Women's Development ii. Women & legal Rights iii. Women and Empowerment iv. Compulsory Dissertation
- 41 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION:
NET BUREAU:
Subject: Women Studies Code No: 74 SYLLABUS:
Unit - I Introduction to Women's Studies:
• Key concepts in Gender studies. • Need, Scope and challenges of Women's Studies - Women's Studies as an academic discipline. Women's Studies to Gender Studies, Need for Gender Sensitization.
• Women's Movements - global and local: Pre- independence, Post-independence and Contemporary Debates.
• National Committees and Commissions for Women. Unit - II Feminist thinkers and theories:
• Liberal Feminism, Marxist Feminism, Radical Feminism, Socialist Feminism, Indian Feminism, Black Feminism, Eco-Feminism.
• New Feminist Debates- Post Colonial /Post Modern, LGBT, Masculinity Studies. • Contemporary Contestations - Intersex and Transgender Movements.
• Feminist thinkers in 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st Century
- 42 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
UNIT - III Gender and Education: • Women's Education - Gender diversities and disparities in enrolment, Curriculum content, Dropouts, profession and Gender.
• Gendered Education- Family, Culture, Gender roles, Gender Identities.
• Education for the Marginalized Women.
• Recent Trends in Women's Education - Committees and Commissions on Education.
• Vocational education and skill Development for women.
UNIT - IV WOMEN, WORK AND EMPLOYMENT:
• Theoretical Perspective: Fredrick Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, Sandra Whiteworth, Boserup Esther. • Concept of Work - Productive and non - productive work - Use value and market value. • Gender Division of Labour - Mode of Production - Women in organized and unorganized sector. • New Economic Policy and its impact on Women's Employment - Globalization - Structural Adjustment Programs.
Unit - V Gender and Entrepreneurship:
• Concept and meaning, Importance of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial traits, Factors contributing to
- 43 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
Entrepreneurship, enabling environment, small Enterprises, women in agri-business. • Gender and emerging Technology - Impact. • Self-help Groups and Micro Credit. • Gender mainstreaming, Gender budgeting, planning and Analysis.
UNIT - VI Women and Health:
• Life Cycle Approach to Women's Health - Health status of women in India, factors influencing health and Nutritional status.
• Maternal and Child Health (MCH) to Reproductive and Child health approaches.
• Issues of declining Child Sex Ratio, Widowhood and old age.
• Occupational and mental health. • Health, Hygiene and Sanitation. • National Health and Population Policies and Programmes.
Unit - VII Women Empowerment and Development:
• Theories of Development, Alternative approaches - Women in Development (WID), Women and Development (WAD) and Gender and Development (GAD).
- 44 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 • Empowerment- Concept and indices: Gender Development Index (GDI), Gender Inequality Index (GII), Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI). • Women Development approaches in Indian Five - Year Plans.
• Women and leadership- Panchayati Raj and Role of NGOs and Women Development.
• Sustainable Development Goals, Policies and Programmes.
Unit - VIII Women Law and Governance:
• Rights: Gender Equality, Gender Discrimination, Women's Rights as Human Rights. • Constitutional provisions for Women in India. • Personal laws, Labour Laws, Family Courts, Enforcement machinery - Police and Judiciary. • Crime against Women and Child: Child Abuse, Violence, Human Trafficking, Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013 - Legal protection • International Conventions and Legislations Related to Women's Rights.
Unit - IX Gender and Media • Discourse on Women and Media Studies- Mainstream Media, Feminist Media.
• Coverage of Women's issues and issues of women in Mass Media and Media Organizations (Audio-Visual and Print media).
- 45 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
• Digital Media and legal protection. • Alternative Media - Folk Art, Street Play and Theatre. • Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Impact of media on women.
Unit - X Feminist Research Methodology:
• Understanding Feminist Research - Concepts, Debates and Limitations.
• Feminist Epistemology, Feminist Standpoint, Sexist and Non-Sexist Research Methodology, Ethnography, Queer Theories.
• Research Design and Methods - Survey, Exploratory, Diagnostic, Experimental, Action Research and Case Studies.
• Qualitative verses Quantitative Research.
CENTRE FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES BANGALORE UNIVERSITY CBCS, PG SYLLABUS 1ST SEMISTER CORE PAPERS i. Conceptualizing Women's Studies ii. Feminist Research methodology iii. Feminist Theories (Part-I) iv. Women and Society v. Women's Movements vi. Women and Health
- 46 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
SOFT CORE vii. Policies and programme on Women's Development in India.
2ND SEMISTER CORE PAPERS:
i. Locating women in History
ii. Women and Literature
iii. Assertion of Women's Rights in India
iv. Gender and Environment
v. Understanding Development and Empowerment
from feminist perspectives
vi. Compulsory field based group Project work
SOFT CORE
vii. Statistical methods and Computer applications
3RD SEMISTER Core Papers
i. Feminist Theory - 2 (Advance)
ii. Representation of Women in the Media
SPECIALIZATION (A): FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON COUNSELING:
iii.(a) Psychology of women iv.(a) Feminist counseling: an introduction v.(a) Family and Group Counseling
- 47 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
SPECIALIZATION (B) MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GENDER:
iii.(b) Management from Feminist perspective iv.(b) Management of Civil Society Organizations v.(b) Corporate Social Responsibility and gender OPEN ELECTIVE PAPERS i. Women and Human Rights ii. Understanding Feminist perspective.
4TH SEMISTER CORE PAPERS:
i. Project Management and Evaluation ii. Women, Technology and Entrepreneurship v. Internship (on the basis of specialization) vi. Compulsory Dissertation
SPECIALIZATION-A FEMINIST INTERVENTIONS IN COUNSELING iii.(a) Feminist Counseling Approaches iv.(a) Gerontology and Geriatric Care SPECIALIZATION-B MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GENDER iii.(b) Community Management and Extension Education iv.(b) Understanding Human Resource Management from Gender Perspective."
- 48 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
35. We now proceed to detail the academic qualifications of the petitioners and the private (third) respondents viz., the petitioners and the respective contesting private respondent, in the writ petition as found from the records this Court had summoned from the University.
(1) Records of Sri. C.D. Venkatesh Appellant in W.A. 2964/2014 and R3 in W.P.No. 4966/2008.
"Category-SC Graduation in Arts, University of Mysuru during the period 1991-1993:
o Subjects Taken Economics, Sociology, Political Science, English and Kannada.
Marks Obtained - 743 out of 1500 - Third Class (49.5%).
Post Graduation in Sociology by 1995, University of Mysuru.
o Subjects Taken:
- 49 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
I- Semester:
Master of Sociological Thought, Sociological Theories, Social Stratification and mobility, Structure and Social Change Social Statistics, Research Methods and Statistics Sociology of Modernisation, Sociology of Family and Kinship Medical Sociology, Society and Education in India, Sociology of Education Final Semester:
Rural Sociology, Study of Rural Society Problems, Development Reconstruction Criminology & Penology, Sociology of Economic Development, Industrial Sociology Study of Minority Groups (with special reference to India), Ethnic, Race And Minority Relations Study of Social Movements (with Special Reference to India) Sociology of Movements and Change Political Sociology, Politics and Society.
- 50 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
Total Marks obtained - 923 out of 1500 - In First class (61.53%) PG DIPLOMA IN WOMEN'S STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MYSURU BY 1999:
o Subjects Taken:
I- Semester
Fundamentals of Women's Studies
Women and Society
Women and Culture
Women and Economy
Research Methodology for Women's Studies II Semester Women and Law Women and Health Women and Development Process Women and Politics Women's Movements Dissertation Marks Obtained - 566 out of 800 - First Class (70.75%)
- DOCTOR of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Sociology, University of Mysuru on 22.01.2004.
- SET test has been cleared on 14.02.1998.
Viva Voce Marks Obtained 33 out of 60."
- 51 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 (1A) Records of Sri. Prakash Bhimaraya R3 in W.A. 2964/2014 and Petitioner in W.p.No. 4966/2008.
"Category-SC Graduation in Arts, Gulbarga University on 09.06.1998.
Subjects taken
History, Political science and
Sociology.
Total obtained Marks of 770 out of
1600 passed in Pass class
(48.14%). @ Annx -C, page 75 of
Appeal Memo.
Post Graduation - in Women Studies on
06.06.2001, University of Gulbarga.
Subjects Taken-
Rational and methodology of
women's studies and status of
women, Social Construction of
Gender , Women's Movements,
gender Economy and Development
in India, Project Report and Viva
Voce.
- 52 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
Total obtained Marks 740 out of
1200 passed in First class
(61.66%). @ Annx-D, page 76 of
Appeal Memo.
Master of Philosophy (M.Phil) - Women Studies on 01.10.2002, Kannada University- Hampi.
o Subjects Taken Philosophical theories & Method of Researches of Women Studies, Women Studies, Women Literature, Women Folk, The Essay.
Total obtained Marks 306 out of 500 passed in First class (61.2%). @ Annx-E, page 78 of Appeal Memo.
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) - "Women Studies" on 18.01.2007, University of Gulbarga.
Viva Voce Marks Obtained 19 out of 60."
(2) Records of Sri. M. Siddappa Appellant in W.A. 2965/2014 and R3 in W.P.No. 80008/2009.
- 53 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
"Category-ST Graduation in Arts, Kuvempu University on 22.02.1994.
Subjects taken:
History, Kannada and Sociology.
Marks Obtained 506 out of 900 - Second class (56.2%).
Post Graduation in Kannada, University of Mysore on 23.02.1998.
Marks Obtained 659 out of 1000 -
First class (65.90%).
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Kannada,
University of Mysore on 31.12.2002.
NET in Kannada on 19.02.1996 Viva Voce Marks Obtained 31 out of 60."
(2A) Records of Sri. Tayappa R3 in W.A. 2965/2014 and Petitioner in W.P.No. 80008/2009.
"Category-ST Graduation in Arts in the University of Gulbarga on 09.06.1998.
- 54 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
Subjects taken-
History, Political science and
Sociology.
Total obtained Marks of 842 out of
1600, passed in Second class
(52.62%). @ Annx -C, page 74 of
Appeal Memo.
Post Graduation - in Women Studies on
30.04.2002 University of Gulbarga.
Subjects Taken-
Gender issues and development in
India, women and law in India,
Psychological perspectives on
Gender, Women in state and Political process along with Project report and Viva.
Total obtained Marks of 720 out of
1200 passed in First class
(60.00%). @ Annx-D, page 75 of
Appeal Memo.
- 55 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014
C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014
WA No. 2965 of 2014
WA No. 3011 of 2014
WA No. 3179 of 2014
WA No. 3181 of 2014
M.Phil - Women Studies on 06.01.2004 in Gulbarga University.
Total obtained Marks 258 out of 400 passed in First class (64.5%). @ Annx-E, page 76 of Appeal Memo.
NET Eligibility on 14.12.2006 Viva Voce Marks Obtained 13 out of 60"
(3) Records of Smt. Sudeshan Mukherjee Appellant in W.A. 3011/2014 and R3 in W.p.No. 80007/2009.
"Category-GM Graduation in Arts, University of Calcutta 16.08.1996.
Subjects taken:
Sociology(H), Political Science, History.
Marks Obtained 465 out of 800 - Second class (58.12%).
Post Graduation in Sociology, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 15.07.1998. Total obtained grade of 7.18 CGPA- A- Grade.
- 56 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) in Gender Studies and university curriculum: A sociological Enquiry, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 29.07.2002.
Doctor of Philosophy (P.hd) in Police and Women's human rights : A sociological enquiry with special reference to select districts in Karnataka, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 28-04- 2006.
NET in Sociology Eligibility on 23.09.1998 Viva Voce Marks Obtained 34 out of 60."
(3A) Records of Dr. Anasuya R1 in W.A. 3011/2014 and Petitioner in W.p.No. 80007/2009.
"Category-III-B Graduation in Arts, Gulbarga University on 29.04.1995.
Subjects taken:
Kannada, History and Sociology. Total obtained Marks 842 out of 1600 passed in Pass class (47.37%). @ Annx -C, pages 65-67 of Appeal Memo.
- 57 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
Post Graduation - in Women Studies on 22.07.1999, University of Gulbarga.
Subjects Taken-
Gender issues and development in
India, women and law in India,
Psychological perspectives on
Gender, Women in state and Political process along with Project report and Viva Voce.
Total obtained Marks 733 out of 1200 passed in First class (61.08%). @ Annx-D, page 68 of Appeal Memo.
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) - Aspects of Women Exploitation on 05.01.2004, University of Gulbarga.
NET Eligibility on 14.12.2006 Viva Voce Marks Obtained 29 out of 60."
Submissions on Behalf of the Appellants:
36. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the appellant in W.A.
- 58 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 No.2964/2014 would contend that the appellant is well qualified and has been conferred doctorate in Philosophy and has also completed a PG Diploma course in Women Studies from Mysore University. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the petitions are vitiated by delay and laches. That an expert body has assessed the merits and has found them qualified to be appointed to the post of Lecturer and this Court cannot sit in judgments over the opinions of the experts. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing on behalf of (the 3rd respondent herein), the original petitioner, submits that there is no stipulation either in the notification regarding the inter changeability nor detailing of the subjects. That, had such details being published, it would have probably resulted in more meritorious candidate applying for the post. That the entire exercise has been carried out in a secretive and hush hush manner.
- 59 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 That the appellant/selected candidate does not possess the qualification to be appointed to the said post, but on the other hand the petitioner has been awarded a Doctorate (Ph.D) in 'Women Studies' and the posts being in the Department of Women Studies, preference ought to have been given to this petitioner, as she possessed qualification in the notified specializations.
37. The learned Senior Counsel Sri M.R. Naik appearing for the appellant in W.A. No.3011/2014 would contend that the learned Single Judge has mixed up and applied the intra-disciplinary subject with inter-disciplinary subject. He would contend that inter-changeability of the subject would imply that there are two subjects which are interchangeable and candidates who have pursued either of the two interchangeable subjects possess the eligibility and hence, the candidates possessing a qualification in either of the subjects are entitled for consideration and in
- 60 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 the instant case, the 3rd respondent (appellant) having been conferred with doctorate in Sociology and one of the thesis being on Police and Women's Rights, the 3rd respondent (appellant) is fully qualified and entitled to be appointed to the said post and the writ petition is baseless. He would further contend that the judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge relates to inter- changeability and not to interchangeable subjects. He would further reiterate that the only qualification stipulated is 55% in the relevant subjects. That the appointments being by an expert body, that is, Board of Appointment and consisting of senior Academicians this Court cannot sit in judgment over the norms settled by such a body. He would submit that for more than a year the petitioners were silent and suddenly woke-up one day and have approached this Court and hence, he would also canvass the point of delay and laches.
- 61 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
38. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in Dr. G.V. Venkataramana Vs Dr. G. Vishwanath and Others (supra).
39. Insofar as the contentions regarding delay and laches and the other technicalities, they have already been dealt with by this Court while answering the similar contentions canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the University.
40. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of Shivanand Vs. Gulbarga University and Others (supra). He would further place reliance on the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ganapath Singh Gangarama Singh Rajput Vs
- 62 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Gulbarga University and Others (supra) case, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court while adjudicating the Shivananda's case (supra) has been pleased to hold that "relevant subjects" would imply a pertinent subject unless and until any of subject are classified or certified by the UGC as an interchangeable subject and in the absence of the subject being declared as an equivalent or interchangeable subject by the competent authority, it is not open for the Board of Appointment or the University to hold that a particular subject is an equivalent subject or an interchangeable subject in the absence of such declaration by the UGC or by the University or by the competent authority. Elaborating further, he would contend that the University never even whispered about what are the interchangeable subjects nor were the so called interchangeable subjects notified at the earliest point of time and that being the admitted position, it was not open
- 63 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 for the University to shift the goal post at the time of interview by attempting to bring in the concept of interchangeable subjects. More so, when there were qualified candidates i.e. the petitioners who had completed the courses in the subject of Women's Studies itself and had been conferred degrees and accorded Doctorates by the University.
41. The learned Senior counsel Sri P S Rajagopal appearing on behalf of the University would contend that the Women Study Centre as established by the UGC was a novel attempt. That it was later upgraded to the status of Department of Studies and the University created three posts of lecturers as stipulated. That a recruitment notification came to be issued and the qualifications stipulated was a post graduate degree with 55% marks in the relevant subject. That the Board of Appointment as established under the KSU Act completed the selection
- 64 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 process and recommended the names of the candidates for appointment. That for almost a year the selected candidates continued to discharge their duties in a smooth fashion and without there being any cause for concern. That after the passage of a year the writ petition came to be filed. He would contend that the writ petitions ought to have been primarily rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. The said contention is required to be rejected on the short ground that the records reveal that the petitioners were forced to secure any and every information through the RTI channel. It is not the case of the respondents/appellants that the delay occurred despite the petitioners being in possession of all information. Hence it would be a miscarriage of justice to put the same against the petitioner. That apart, we also respectfully agree with the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge in this regard.
- 65 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
42. Nextly, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the same. That the participation amounts to waiver of any objections they had. In this regard reliance is placed on a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and Others7. In para 18 it is observed and held as under:
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
43. In our opinion it is not a case of challenge to the process involved in the selection, but is a challenge to the legality of the appointment of the private respondents on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification. Hence the said ruling of the Hon'ble Apex 7 (2013) 11 SCC 309.
- 66 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Court is inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. That apart an element of fraud is also writ large on the impugned proceedings.
44. The next ruling relied upon is one Dhananjay Malik's case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has said that if the candidates harbour any objection to the process of selection then, in the event of they having participated in the selection process without any demur or objecting in the same without participating cannot turn around and raise objections to the same. As stated supra, the instant ruling is also inapplicable as the challenge is not to the process of selection but to the arbitrariness in the selection, i.e., arbitrariness in interpreting the qualifying criterion, that is, the 'relevant subjects' to suit the convenience of the selection committee. In that view of the matter, the said contention regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions in the light of the law
- 67 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 laid down requires to be rejected as the objection is not to the process of selection, but is canvassed on the ground of the private respondents also not possessing the necessary qualification and the arbitrariness in the interpretation of the phrase "relevant subject", that is, qualifying criterion.
45. In the instant writ petition, the challenge is not to the methodology adopted which is said to be highly arbitrary and fraudulent, but it is canvassed on the ground that the selected candidates do not possess the stipulated qualifications. Hence, the said ruling is distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of the case. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on para 22 of Basavaiah 8 (Dr) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Others with regard to the interference by Courts with the opinion rendered by experts. It is interesting to note that it has neither been canvassed nor is any material produced to show that any 8 (2010) 8 SCC 372.
- 68 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 expert body has opined that the course in Sociology is equivalent to the 'Women's Studies' course. Hence the question of this Court going into and dissenting with any expert opinion does not arise.
46. It is further contended by the learned Senior counsel that the appointment being on the strength of the recommendation of an expert committee, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the correctness of the experts' opinion and that the Courts should in deference to the recommendations of the expert body hold it's hands. In this regard reliance is placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Basavaiah's case (supra) in paragraphs 13, 20, 21, 38 to 40, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held as under:
"13. The Committee appointed by the University thoroughly scrutinised the qualification, experience and published works of both the candidates and made its unanimous
- 69 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
recommendations in favour of their appointments. The University also clearly stated that the appointments of the appellants were made in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, for the selections to the post of Readers, an Expert Committee was constituted and thereafter, its recommendations were accepted by the University and orders issued accordingly. No one had any grievance so far as the constitution of the Expert Committee was concerned and no mala fides have been levelled against any member of the Expert Committee.
xxx
20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined and scrutinised the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants before selecting them for the posts of Readers in Sericulture. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in sitting in appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert Committee consisting of five experts. The Expert Committee had in fact scrutinised the merits and demerits of each candidate including qualification and the equivalent published work and its recommendations were sent to the
- 70 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
University for appointment which were accepted by the University.
21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture.
xxx
38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the
- 71 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.
39. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has ignored the consistent legal position. They were expected to abide by the discipline of the precedents of the courts. Consequently, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court.
40. The University of Mysore, the respondent herein, is directed to give regular pay scale to the appellants from 1-8-2010. To avoid any further litigation, we may make it clear that the appellants would not be entitled to claim any arrears or benefits for the past period."
47. From the reading of the above, more particularly paragraphs 20 and 21 it is apparent that in the said case the University had laid threadbare the nitty- gritty of the case by way of an affidavit i.e., the merits and de-merits gone into by the experts' committee and the
- 72 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 conclusions drawn by them. In the instant case this bench does not have the benefit of such a detailed affidavit, much less has it been presented before the learned Single Judge. To the contrary, it would be relevant and pertinent to point out to the observations of this Court in the earlier paragraphs, wherein this Court has observed that the statement of objections is bereft of any details regarding the subjects and course of study undergone by the selected candidates and their eligibility in turn to impart education as members of the faculty in the Women Study Centre and it has been specifically noted that the University has merely canvassed the technical objections and no factual specifications pertaining to the course of study are placed before the Court. That apart, it is also argued that the selection is contrary to the UGC Guidelines and the University Act.
- 73 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
48. We have also perused the records produced by the University and we find no such opinion has been expressed by any expert body and no such opinion regarding equivalence of subject is also not expressed by any expert-body much less the UGC or University. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court was not dealing with the issue of "relevant subject". It is also pertinent to note that in Basavaiah's case (supra), the parties had laid threadbare before the Court all their qualifications and from a reading of the judgment it becomes apparent that the said qualifications were diligently considered by the Board of Appointment. In the instant case, the same is conspicuously absent. In other words, the line of citations on which reliance is placed, would demonstrate that there has been a detailed and comparative assessment of the qualifications of the respective candidates and the records therein reflect the
- 74 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 same. In the instant case, as observed supra, there is a nothing on record to even suggest as to what went in favour of the selected candidates.
49. Reliance is also placed on the ruling rendered in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr) Vs Chaudhari Devilal University Sirsa and Another (supra) where, the Court was considering the inter changeability of the subject and agreed that the contention that Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable or inter-relatable and Political Science is a mother subject and Public Administration is the option for the same. The said ratio decided by the Court can be found in para 31. Thus in the facts and circumstances of that case, what was settled was that, the subjects, Political Science and Public Administration were treated by the University as one and inter-changeable even prior to the commencement of the selection process. While so settling the issue, the
- 75 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 also cannot be ignored. Nextly, reliance is placed on the ruling rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice in Dr. G.V. Venkataramana Vs Dr. G. Vishwanath and Others (supra) and reliance is placed on the observations in para 8 which reads as under:-
"In view of the ambiguity contained in Annexure-E notification regarding qualification and in view of the practice followed by the University all along and in the light of the view taken by an expert body like the Board of Appointment that Post Graduate Degree and Ph.D in any one of the interdisciplinary subjects will be sufficient qualification for the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science, we are of the view that the appointment given to the appellant should not have been disturbed and that the order of the learned single judge is liable to be set-aside."
- 76 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
50. It would also be pertinent to note the observations of the Hon'ble Court, with regard to the phrase "relevant subject" wherein, in para 7 it has categorically held that the expression "relevant subject" is an ambiguous one and gives room for different interpretations. That at the same time, it has also placed reliance on a communication by the University wherein, it was clarified that P.G. Degree holders in Botany, Zoology, Geology, Sociology, Environmental Science, Geography, Chemistry or Bio Chemistry can teach Environmental Studies at the degree level. In that view, as stated supra, existing qualification regarding relevant subject, the Co- ordinate Bench was of the opinion that the selection requires to be justified and upheld and accordingly, set- aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
(i) In the instant case, it is otherwise. As noted by us, neither the notification clarifies the relevant subjects
- 77 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 nor is there any pre-existing clarification issued by the University prior to the commencement of the process of selection. In fact, from the record it appears that the equivalence of subjects i.e. Sociology and Women's Studies is canvassed only before the Court and even the proceedings of the Board of Appointment, nowhere reveals that the Board of Appointment was of the opinion that Women's Studies and Sociology or Kannada are equivalent subjects. Hence, the said ruling is also of no avail to the respondents, that is, the selected candidates.
51. Reliance is also placed on the Punjab University Vs. Narinder Kumar and Others9, the said case is yet again distinguishable, in view of the fact that, in the eligibility conditions and educational qualifications stipulated in the notification for appointment, the University had consciously equated the degree in History, 9 (1999) 9 SCC 8.
- 78 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Political Science, Sociology, Economics and Public Administration and Gandhian and Peace Studies as subjects which would entitle the candidate to apply for the post of lecturers in Gandhian Studies. In other words, the University had created a level playing field at the stage of the invitation to the Public, to apply for the post, which is not the case in the instant petitions. In the instant case, there has been no prior stipulation of the studies which the University considered as interchangeable or an equivalent to Women Studies. Hence, the reliance on the above ruling is of no avail to the appellants.
52. In that view, the appellant in W.A. 3011/2014 has yet again placed reliance on the ruling on delay and laches related in Prakash K. and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others10 and another case reported in State of U.P Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava and 10 (1996) 11 SCC 563.
- 79 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 Others11 on the point of delay and laches and which rulings are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case herein. This Court has categorically held that the delay is attributable to the University and not on account of any lack of diligence. In fact, the diligence on the part of the petitioners is made evident by the fact of their repeated applications for every bit and pieces of information.
53. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs N.R. Vairamani and Another12 in paragraphs 9 to 11 are highly relevant for the purposes of dealing with the large number of rulings placed before the Court, which reads as under:-
"9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is 11 (2015) 1 SCC 347.12
(2004) 8 SCC 579.
- 80 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737 :
(1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] (AC at p. 761) Lord MacDermott observed : (All ER p. 14 C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge,..."
10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 (HL)] (All ER p. 297g-h) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances". Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062 : (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed:"One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)] Lord Morris said : (All ER p. 761c)
- 81 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
"There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."
11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper."
54. In that view of the matter, we are constrained to state that though we have no quarrel with the principles of law and proposition enunciated and laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the long line of citations relied upon yet the same is inapplicable to the facts of this case. Conclusions:
55. We have carefully considered the various arguments and the original records pertaining to the selection process and we are of the considered opinion that the writ appeals are liable to be rejected for the following reasons:-
- 82 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
(i) The 1st respondent/University has not elucidated the equivalent qualifications or the inter-
changeable subjects prior to the commencement of the selection process.
(ii) The perusal of the records placed before this Court do not reveal any proceedings of any competent authority equating or holding the subjects of Kannada and Sociology as equivalent to 'Women Studies'.
(iii) The close scrutiny of the records relating to interview and selection by the Board of Appointment also does not reveal, even an opinion by the Board that the subjects of Sociology and Kannada are equivalent to 'Women Studies'.
(iv) The proceedings of the Board of Appointment, scrutinized by us, does not reveal the reasons, as to why the candidates who had no qualification in the notified
- 83 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 specialization were selected? Thus rendering the decision of the Board arbitrary.
(v) The course of study undergone by the selected candidates clearly demonstrates that they have not studied the syllabus prescribed for the 'Women's Studies' course.
(vi) Neither the 1st respondent/University nor the Board of Appointment have assigned any reasons as to why they have not preferred candidates with doctorate degrees in 'Women's Studies' itself over the selected candidates. Thus rendering the exercise farcical and an eyewash. When candidates with qualification in the stipulated subjects are available it is impermissible to choose a candidate who has pursued a course in a remotely related or relevant subject. This act clearly renders, the selection process, arbitrary, capricious and highly subjective.
- 84 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
(vii) The 3rd respondents/selected candidates do not possess the requisite qualification of 55% in Post Graduation Degree in 'Women Studies'.
(viii) The facts and circumstances narrated above clearly establishes a case of misfeasance. The entire exercise by the University is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulbarga University Vs. Shivanand and Others13 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has succinctly stated the law in para 21, 22, 23, we draw support for our conclusions from the above observations. We draw further sustenance from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakashchand Meena and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others14, wherein in para 9 the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:- 13
(2014) 3 SCC 767.14
(2015) 8 SCC 484.
- 85 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
"9........... In the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification must be recognized as such in the recruitment rules or Government order existing on or before the initiation of the recruitment process. In the present case, this process was initiated through advertisement inviting application which did not indicate that higher qualification holders were eligible to apply nor were the equivalent qualifications reflected in the recruitment rules or Government orders of the relevant time."
56. In the case on hand also, no material is produced demonstrating a pronouncement by the competent authority equating the Women's Studies course with Kannada or Sociology course, more particularly in the advertised specialization.
57. The omissions and commissions by the University and the Board of Appointment do not appear to be docile acts or inadvertence. The lacunas pointed out above clearly leads us to believe that the selections of the successful candidates was in all probability,
- 86 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 predetermined. We are constrained to note so, in view of the fact that our close scrutiny of the records, maintained by the University does not disclose any extraordinary merit or ability on the part of a selected candidate apart from the de-merits noted above, both in procedure and on merit. If it was a case that the selected candidates were highly meritorious, then at least we would have tended to believe that the Board of Appointment and the University were swayed by the extraordinary academic or extracurricular achievements. The original records handed over does not even demonstrate the claims of the selected candidates of having published articles as required under the notification etc. There is nothing on record to show, that the notification inviting applications, stipulated that the candidates applying for the post of Lecturer, should have published research publications etc. The first page of the brochure merely stipulates the good academic record
- 87 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 with 55% marks at the Masters Degree level in the relevant subjects. But the Board of Appointment while conducting an interview has set-apart 15 marks under the head 'Research Publications' and 5 marks under the head 'Other Qualifications'. This amounts to shifting the goal post after the game has begun and the law in this regard is no more res-integra.
58. The term "relevant subject" ought not to be adopted as a modus operandi by the Universities. This is not the sole case and it is clearly a high handed and arbitrary act on the part of the educated-elite. If such acts were committed by politicians or semi-literate or the ordinarily literate, this Court would not have experienced the indignation that we are experiencing. When actions of such academicians and the intellectuals has been given the seal of approval by the top most Court of the country, we are of the considered opinion that their actions should be
- 88 -
WA No. 3180 of 2014C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014 like Caesar's wife. Their actions should be a path that others should be eager to emulate and not a path that they should dread. Academicians and intellectuals should act as torch bearers, wherever it concerns meritocracy. Indeed their actions should be such that, that lights the path for the less fortunate and deprived and should never be one that should become a cause for some to grind an axe against the institution. Such acts of a few, would downsize the reputation and standing of a hallowed institution. We sincerely believe that the sentiments expressed by this Court would be appreciated in the right spirit and we hope that the institution would rise and free itself from nepotism and ills that we have observed in the present case.
59. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following:-
- 89 -WA No. 3180 of 2014 C/W WA No. 2964 of 2014 WA No. 2965 of 2014 WA No. 3011 of 2014 WA No. 3179 of 2014 WA No. 3181 of 2014
ORDER The judgment of the learned Single Judge is affirmed and all the appeals are dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by each of the appellants. The same shall be deposited into the "Advocates' Welfare Fund" within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Having imposed cost, we further enable the appellant
- University, if it so deems proper and appropriate to recover the same, after conducting an enquiry and from individuals, whom it deems responsible for this fiasco.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ykl/dn/Chs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1