Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:28829-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP Nos.8626 & 8675 of 2022
Reserved on 11.08.2025
.
Date of Decision: 26.08.2025
_______________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 8626 of 2022
Pankaj Kumar Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya
and Ors.
....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
2. CWP No. 8675 of 2022 r
Dr. Sunny Choudhary .......Petitioner
Versus
Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya
and Ors.
....Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma,
Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.1 in CWP No. 8626 of 2022.
Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent
No.2 in CWP No. 8626 of 2022 and for
respondent No.3 in CWP No 8675 of 2022.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.4 in CWP No. 8626 of 2022
and for respondent No.2 in CWP No. 8675 of
2022.
Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.1 in CWP No. 8675 of 2022.
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS
-2-
2025:HHC:28829-DB
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Since common questions of facts and law are involved in .
both the cases, this Court heard them together and now same are being decided vide common judgment.
2. The question, which needs to be answered in the case at hand is "whether Selection Committee constituted for the selection to the post of Assistant Professor, of its own could have called upon certain candidates to provide equivalence certificate with regard to their qualification, especially when in advertisement notice, no provision of "equivalent qualification" was provided, rather specific qualification required for the post in question was detailed therein."
3. Though facts of both the petitions are same, but for sake of clarity, facts of CWP No. 8626 of 2022 are being discussed hereinafter.
4. For having bird's eye view of the matter and with a view to explore answer to aforesaid question, relevant facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that respondent no. 1-university issued advertisement No. 02/2019 dated 08.03.2019 for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Professor /equivalent and Subject Matter Specialist in various disciplines on contract basis (Annexure P-3). Post of Assistant Professor in ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -3- 2025:HHC:28829-DB Agricultural Biotechnology is the subject matter of the present writ petitions.
.
5. Essential qualifications for the aforesaid posts including one post of Assistant professor in the discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology, as provided in the advertisement, is as under:
"Posts at Sr. No. 4 to 16 and 25 to 29 (Agriculture Faculty) M.Sc./ M. Tech/MBA having qualified NET from UGC/ CSIR, ICAR or similar test accredited by UGC in the the concerned discipline Note:-For the candidates having Master's degree, NET shall remain compulsory along with one publication in NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi) rated refreed journal For recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in the disciplines in which NET is conducted.
Provided that NET essentiality for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in the disciplines in which NET is conducted, for the candidates registered for Ph.D prior to July 11, 2009 shall be exempted subject to the conditions that:
(a) Ph. D degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode only;
(b) Evaluation of the Ph.D thesis by at least two external examiners;
(c) Open Ph.D viva-voce of the candidate had been conducted;
(d) Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be in refreed Journal;::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -4-
2025:HHC:28829-DB
(e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conference/seminars, based on his/her Ph. D. work.
(a) to (c) as above are to be certified by the Vice-
.
Chancellor/concerned Deans.
6. Consequent to the aforesaid advertisement for the post in question, 49 applications were received within the stipulated period.
Out of 49 candidates, only five candidates including petitioners in both the writ petitions were possessing the requisite essential qualifications. However, the applications of 32 candidates, who did not possess Master's Degree in Agricultural Biotechnology including respondents No. 2 and 3 (selected candidates), were entertained provisionally subject to production of certificate of equivalence of their M.Sc. Degree with M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology) as is clear from (Annexure P-4). The contention of the petitioners, in this behalf, is that Selection Committee, of its own, introduced the equivalent qualification, which is contrary to the essential qualification notified in the advertisement as well as University Statutes.
7. Pursuant to the decision of the aforesaid Screening Committee, interview for the aforementioned post was conducted on 24.12.2021. In total, 20 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee, out of which respondent No. 2 was recommended for appointment, while Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner (in CWP No. 8626 of 2022) were placed on the waiting list at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -5-2025:HHC:28829-DB
8. The recommendations of Screening Committee were affirmed by the Vice-Chancellor of respondent-University on the very .
same day and vide appointment letter dated 24.12.2021, respondent No. 2 came to be offered appointment to the concerned post on contract basis (Annexure P-8).
9. In the afore background, petitioner ( in CWP No. 8626 of 2022), who came to be placed at Sr. No.2 of the waiting list, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with selection of respondent No.2, have approached this Court on the ground that the respondent No. 2 & 3 were not eligible as they did not possess the requisite essential qualification in the concerned subject and prayed for the following main reliefs:
Relief in CWP No. 8626 of 2022"I) That the selection as well as the appointment of respondent no. 2 to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology vide order dated 24- 12-2021 Annexure P-8 may kindly be quashed and set aside. II) That the selection as well as placement of respondent no. 3 in the select panel at serial no. 1 being not sustainable in the eyes of law may kindly be quashed and set aside. III) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondent no.1 University to offer appointment to the selected eligible candidate in the select panel i.e. the present petitioner as none of eligible candidates are above him in the merit list. IV) That the respondent no. 1 University may kindly be directed to enquire the veracity of forged documents ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -6- 2025:HHC:28829-DB submitted by respondent no.2 through some independent agency for the purpose of initiating suitable action. V) That the respondent no. 4 University may kindly be directed .
to enquire into the matter as to how and in what manner the Registrar has issued the equivalence certificate without following the set procedure and norms for issuance of Equivalence certificate.
VI) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondent no. 1 University for producing the record of selection for perusal of Hon'ble Court."
Relief in CWP No. 8675 of 2022"i. That the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology as contained in Annexure P-9 dated 24.12.2021 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to get enquired the veracity of forged documents as submitted by respondent No.3 through some independent agency and to take action against the erring officials.
iii. That the respondent No.1 University may kindly be directed to re-advertise the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Biotechnology).
iv. That the respondent-University No.2 i.e. University of Horticulture and Forestry Nauni may kindly be directed to enquire into the matter that how and in what manner the Registrar is competent to issue the equivalence certificate and how the same was issued."
10. Precisely, grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -7- 2025:HHC:28829-DB respective petitioners is that respondents No. 2 and 3 were not eligible for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor in the .
discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology as they did not possess the prescribed essential qualification but yet Selection Committee proceeded to select respondent No.2 and placed respondent No.3 at Sr. No.1 of waiting list. Above named counsel submitted that the Selection Committee, of its own, introduced the essential qualification at the mid of selection process which is neither provided under the Rules/Statute nor permissible under law.
r Hence, selection of respondent No.2 against the post in question is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. They further submitted that the interview for the concerned post was held on 24.12.2021, wherein 20 candidates appeared before the selection committee, meaning thereby, candidates who factually did not fulfill the essential qualification were also interviewed by the selection committee in violation of the eligibility criteria notified in the advertisement. To substantiate their aforesaid arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners made this court to peruse advertisement (Annexure P-3), wherein qualification qua each post has been specifically provided. While elaborating their submissions, it has been argued that since members of the screening committee were fully aware of the fact that private respondents No. 2 and 3, selected candidates are not eligible. In order to entertain their ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -8- 2025:HHC:28829-DB applications, a clever move was made to make them eligible by appending a note in their call letter that their candidature is subject to .
production of certificate of equivalence of M.Sc. Biotechnology with M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology at the time of interview, which fact is apparent from call letter issued to respondent No.3 (Annexure P-6).
Learned counsel representing the petitioners further submitted that the word "equivalent" was not even mentioned in the advertisement, rather specific essential qualification was prescribed against the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines, there was no occasion for the Selection Committee to call upon candidates to produce equivalence certificate, which will mean addition of essential qualification at the mid of selection process. They submitted that petitioners herein fulfilled the requirement of essential qualification, but yet were not selected, rather screening committee with a view to help their near and dear ones, conducted interview for the concerned post in most clandestine manner (Annexure P-7). To point out haste and hurry shown in selection of the private respondents dehors the procedure and specific eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that result was declared on 24.12.2021, late at night, which was neither displayed on the notice board nor uploaded on official website of university. Surprisingly the recommendation appears to have been ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -9- 2025:HHC:28829-DB accepted during odd hours as apparent from appointment order dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P-8), which was issued on the same date.
.
11. While inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-13, Mr. R.M. Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a detailed comparison of the course curricula reveals that the M.Sc.
Biotechnology course at UHF Nauni, from where respondents No.2 and No.3 obtained their degrees, is materially different from the course curricula of M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology. The M.Sc.
Agricultural Biotechnology is a specialized degree programme supported by Department of Biotechnology (Gog). As per model curriculum followed by respondent No.1-University, out of 14 theory courses prescribed for the M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology, 10 were not taught at UHF Solan and the remaining four were covered partially only. Thus, on the basis of course structure, the M.Sc. degrees of Respondents No.2 and No.3 cannot at all be equated with degree of M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology. He further submitted that the equivalence certificates issued by the Registrar of UHF Solan, equating the said M.Sc. degrees with M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology, are invalid as equivalence is a technical matter to be decided by a duly constituted equivalence committee of experts, and ratified by the Academic Council of the University as is evident from the procedure followed in such matters by respondent No.1- ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -10- 2025:HHC:28829-DB University (Annexure P-14), however, no such committee was constituted by University in the instant case and as such the Registrar .
of Respondent No.4 University, not being an expert, lacked authority and competence to issue equivalence certificates (Annexure P-15).
12. To the contrary, Ms. Aruna Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 while denying any alteration or alienation in essential qualification of the post advertised, submitted that on the expiry of the last date of receipt of applications against advertisement No. 02/2019, all applications were placed before the Screening Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, which after having scrutinized the same rightly found respondents No. 2 and 3 to be eligible subject to production of equivalence certificate. She further submitted that only on the basis of candidate's overall performance in interview and recommendation of the Selection Committee, result was declared on the same date by the respondent University without any favouritism or bias. She further submitted that respondent No. 2 and 3 were found eligible by the Screening Committee on the basis of certificate of equivalence of M.Sc. Biotechnology with M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology. She submitted that the equivalence certificates to respondent No. 2 & 3 were issued by respondent No.4 rightly because respondent No.2 has done his Ph.D in Life Sciences (Biotechnology) and Agriculture being study of Plant and Animal falls ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -11- 2025:HHC:28829-DB within the purview of Life Sciences, hence, the Screening Committee rightly found respondent No. 2 eligible. While stating that Agriculture .
is a sub discipline of the Life Science, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the Screening Committee has rightly awarded the marks for experience, research papers etc. to respondent No. 2 after verifying the authenticity of the papers submitted by the respondent No.2. Lastly, it also came to be submitted on behalf of respondent No.1 that the Screening Committee completed r the screening process as per the advertisement and in accordance with the provision of Statutes of CSKHPKV, by adopting proper procedure as has been enshrined in the University Statutes.
13. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that in advertisement issued by Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) dated 24.1.2018 (Annexure R-2/1), for conducting Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Examinnation-2017, in combination with National Eligibility Test (NET-I) 2018, eligibility qualification for the discipline of "Agricultural Biotechnology", was 'Master's Degree in Agriculture / Biotechnology / Molecular Biology / Genetic Engineering / Botany / Plant Sciences / Life Sciences / Plant Physiology with specialization in Plant Technology'. While refuting the ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -12- 2025:HHC:28829-DB submission of petitioners that respondent No. 1 wanted to favour his "near or dear" candidates, he submitted that even ASRB/ICAR treats .
candidate with PG degree in "Biotechnology" eligible for the purpose of NET in Agricultural Biotechnology, as such, advertisement clearly clinches the issue that Master's Degree in Biotechnology and Ph. D. in Life Sciences (Biotechnology) possessed by respondent No. 3 are in 'concerned subject' making him eligible for the concerned post.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that allegations of declaring the result of interview conducted on 24.12.2021 in a 'clandestine manner' are malicious as respondent No. 2 being fully eligible for appointment, was rightly recommended for appointment on the basis of his performance in the selection process and the petitioner, who could not match the merit of the replying respondent, was rightly placed at No. 2 on the waiting list as per his performance in the said process. While admitting that Bachelor's (B.Sc.) Degree of respondent No. 3 is in Biotechnology, learned counsel submitted that when he was admitted for postgraduate course in Biotechnology in respondent No. 4 University, as per ICAR regulations, he was made to undergo deficiency course to meet the requirement of '4 year B.Sc. Agriculture Course', which is evident from his transcript for M.Sc. Biotechnology (Annexure R-2/2). While referring to Annexure R-2/2, learned counsel representing respondent ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -13- 2025:HHC:28829-DB No.2, submitted that the course in the transcript, where 'credit points' are indicated as 'S', is the deficiency course, which a candidate with 3 .
years degree course in Biotechnology is made to undergo on seeking admission in PG Course in ICAR governed University, therefore, the allegations regarding his Bachelor's Degree in 2003 being in non-
agricultural subjects, are frivolous and without any basis. He further submitted that petitioners have wrongly stated that the selection committee failed to appreciate that the degree of Ph.D. was allegedly in Industrial Biotechnology since even the ASRB/ICAR treats a candidate with PG Degree in Biotechnology without any prefix eligible for passing NET in Agricultural Biotechnology, which in turn makes the candidate eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Biotechnology. Mr. Sharma, further submitted that since the Ph.D. Degree of replying respondent is in Life Sciences (Biotechnology) and Biotechnology is treated as a concerned/relevant subject by ASRB for eligibility for NET in Agricultural Biotechnology, the petitioner cannot pass a judgment in his own favour by overruling the decision of experts, who treated respondent No. 3 as eligible. Learned Counsel also submitted that petitioner has referred to UGC Regulations of 2002 and 2006, but not placed on record the latest notification of UGC dated 18.7.2018, perusal whereof reveals that essential qualification for direct recruitment as Assistant Professor, in Science is 'a ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -14- 2025:HHC:28829-DB concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University' (Annexure R-
.
2/3), meaning thereby, the decision, whether a qualification is in a 'concerned/ relevant/ allied subject', is within the domain of experts dealing with the subject and the petitioners have no power, authority or jurisdiction to declare that a particular degree does not satisfy the requirement of eligibility by virtually overruling the opinion of the experts on the subject.
14. While relying upon information downloaded from the website of Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Biotechnology (DBT), (Annexure R-24), learned Senior Counsel representing aforesaid respondent submitted that above annexure shows that DBT does not deal with the degree of 'Agricultural Biotechnology' as is suggested by the petitioners, rather main object of DBT is to ensure quality teaching, training and nurturing excellence in Biotechnology Education etc. There is no emphasis specifically on promoting Agricultural Biotechnology, as suggested by the petitioners. Mr. Sharma submitted that respondent No. 4 has rightly justified the equivalence of the degree of M.Sc.
Biotechnology with M.Sc. in Agricultural Biotechnology of respondent No. 1 University in view of the fact that merely by not prefixing the said degree with the word 'agricultural', the substance of the same is ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -15- 2025:HHC:28829-DB not changed as even ASRB treats candidates having PG degrees in different disciplines dealing with 'Biotechnology' eligible for NET, .
which in turn would make them eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Biotechnology.
15. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.4, submitted that students enrolled in the M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs in the Department of Biotechnology are required to complete additional courses of more than 29 credit hours during M.Sc. degree, as per ICAR guidelines, which is intended to align their qualifications with those from the B.Sc. Agriculture stream, resulting in an extension of the M.Sc. program duration to up to three years.
Despite undertaking this heavy coursework load and completing their degree over 5-6 semesters, these students remain ineligible for various fellowship programs offered by ICAR as well as for numerous horticultural and agricultural job opportunities. In contrast, students in other teaching departments such as Plant Pathology and Entomology, who hold a three-year B.Sc. degree, complete a similar package of deficiency courses and consequently qualify for ICAR fellowships and related job opportunities. He submitted that the Central Students' Association of the University had also raised concerns regarding this issue and had submitted representation to change the nomenclature of the degrees awarded to them from M.Sc. Molecular Biology & ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -16- 2025:HHC:28829-DB Biotechnology to M.Sc. (Ag.) Molecular Biology & Biotechnology and Ph.D. Molecular Biology & Biotechnology to Ph.D. (Ag.) Molecular .
Biology & Biotechnology. Learned counsel further submitted that in addition to aforesaid, request has also been made to university authorities to issue equivalence certificate of three years Master's degree to the students, who have studied package of deficiency course of 4-years as B.Sc. Horticulture and also requested to declare this degree as a professional degree. Worthy Vice Chancellor, considering the request constituted a committee consisting of Director of Research as Chairman, Dean, COH, Nauni & Dean, COF Nauni as its members to go through the issue in detail and submit their recommendations as per office order dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure R-
1). He submitted that committee in its report recommended to change the nomenclature of the degree as requested keeping in view the degree awarded by SAUs viz HPKV Palampur, PAU Ludhiana and M.Sc. Degree awarded by this University in the disciplines like Entomology, Plant Pathology, Seed Science and Technology, as such the recommendations of the committee made vide its proceedings dated 08.01.2019 were approved by the Vice Chancellor (Annexure R-2 Colly.). On the basis of the recommendations of Committee, equivalence certificate was issued to respondent No.3, who was otherwise student of the University.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -17-2025:HHC:28829-DB
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through records of the case.
.
17. It is quite apparent from the pleadings as well as submissions made at the behest of respondents that private respondents though did not possess requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, but yet were permitted to participate in selection process by the Selection Committee, which while scrutinizing the applications filed by various candidates including respondents No. 2 and 3, who were called upon to produce equivalence certificate showing therein that M.Sc. Biotechnology is equivalent to M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology. Aforesaid respondents produced equivalence certificate issued by respondent No.4 thereby suggesting that M.Sc. Biotechnology is equivalent to M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology, as a result thereof, respondents No. 2 and 3 came to be declared eligible for participation in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Biotechnology).
18. Careful perusal of advertisement adduced on record nowhere suggests that for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Biotechnology), M.Sc. Biotechnology was the prescribed qualification, rather prescribed qualification in the advertisement was M.Sc.
(Agricultural Biotechnology). If clause with regard to eligibility is ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -18- 2025:HHC:28829-DB perused in its entirety, it certainly persuades this Court to agree with contention raised at the behest of the petitioners that once no .
equivalent educational qualification was provided in the advertisement, there was no authority vested in the Selection Committee to permit such of the respondents, who did not possess degree of M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology). Had respondent-
University used word "equivalent" with prescribed qualification i.e. M.Sc. Agricultural Biotechnology, screening committee could have called upon respondents No. 2 and 3 or other similarly situate candidates to produce equivalence certificate that too issued by the competent authority.
19. While referring to judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305, Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, attempted to argue that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates, rather such question is required to be left to the wisdom of the duly constituted selection committee which has expertise in the subject matter, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Sharma for the reason that dispute in the case at hand is not with regard to expertise of the selection committee, rather dispute is with ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -19- 2025:HHC:28829-DB regard to power of the Selection Committee to change the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement. Though this Court cannot have .
any quarrel with the law laid down in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that decision of the selection committee can be interfered only on limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in constitution of Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc., but in the case at hand, precise grouse of the petitioner is that once advertisement had provided for specific qualification for the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology i.e. M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology), there was no authority with Selection Committee to alter the educational qualification. Relevant para of the afore judgment reads 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 emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -20- 2025:HHC:28829-DB patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present .
case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
20. While referring to judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v.
Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 306, Mr. Sharma, learned Senior counsel, representing the private respondents, argued that court should not draw any conclusion on the recommendation of the expert body unless allegations are substantiated by doubt. Paras No. 24 to 29 of the afore judgment read as under:
"24.There is another aspect of this matter which is also relevant for proper decision of this appeal. We have already indicated earlier that the Board of Appointment was constituted with experts in this line by the University Authorities. They have considered not only the candidature of the appellant and his experience as a Lecturer and Research Assistant along with others came to hold that it was the appellant who was the candidate who could satisfy the conditions for appointment to the post of Professor. Such being the selection made by the expert body, it is difficult for us to accept the judgments of the High Court when we have ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -21- 2025:HHC:28829-DB failed to notice any mala fides attributed to the members of the expert body in selecting the appellant to the said post.
25.In University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. [AIR .
1965 SC 491], this Court while dealing with the selection of candidates for academic matters by a Board of Experts appointed by the University for the post of Reader and the recommendation of the Board, this Court at Para 13 of the aforesaid decision observed:-
"13..Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before courts, normally the court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts.
There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the court to leave the decisions of academic matter to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face that the courts generally can be. The criticism made by the High Court against the report made by the Board seems to suggest that the High Court thought that the Board was in the position of an executive authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was acting like a quasi- judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for its decision. In dealing with complaints made by citizens in regard to appointments made by academic bodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be reasonable or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ, the High Court has made certain observations which show that the High Court applied tests which would legitimately be applied in the case of writ of certiorari. In the judgment, it has been observed that the error in this case is undoubtedly a ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -22- 2025:HHC:28829-DB manifest error. That is a consideration which is more germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari. What the High Court should have considered is .
whether the appointment made by the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to the opinion expressed by the Board & its recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted. In this connection, the High Court has failed to notice one significant fact that when the Board considered the claims of the respective applicants, it examined them very carefully and actually came to the conclusion that none of them deserved to be appointed a Professor.
These recommendations made by the Board clearly show that they considered the relevant factors carefully and ultimately should be recommended for the post of Reader. Therefore, we are satisfied that the criticism made by the High Court against the Board and its deliberations is not justified."
26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any mala fides attributed against the members of the Expert Body of the University. The University Authorities had also before the High Court in their objections to the writ petition taken a stand that the appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for appointment. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any mala fides either of the expert body of the University or of the University Authorities and in view of the discussions made herein above, it would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations cannot be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -23-2025:HHC:28829-DB
27. Again in M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [2008 (2) SCC 119], this Court clearly held that in the absence of any mala fides attributed to the expert .
body, such plea is usually raised by an interested party (in this case the unsuccessful candidate) and, therefore, court should not draw any conclusion on the recommendation of the expert body unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt. That apart, the challenge to the selection made by the expert body and approved by he University Authorities was made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were unsuccessful candidates and were not selected for appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of Sociology.
28. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC 481], this Court considered in detail the role of an expert body in deciding the candidature for selection to a particular post. While doing so, this Court at Para 7 at P. 484 of the said decision observed as follows:
"7.....In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The High Court seems to be in error in stating that the Selection Committee ought to have given some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as against the other candidate.
The selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required eligibility. There is no rule or regulation brought to our notice requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence of any such legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. The High Court in support of its ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -24- 2025:HHC:28829-DB reasoning has, however, referred to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lai Capoor. That decision proceeded on a statutory requirement.
.
Regulation 5(5) which was considered in that case required the Selection Committee to record its reasons for superseding a senior member in the State Civil service. The decision in Capoor case was rendered on 26 September, 1973. In June, 1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the requirement of recording reasons for the supersession of senior officers of the State Civil services. The Capoor case cannot, therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition that there should be reason formulation for administrative decision.
Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non- selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R. S. Dass v. Union of India in which Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 was also distinguished."
Keeping this observation in our mind and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that there was no dispute in this case that the selection was made by the assessment of relative merit of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of the candidates and after thoroughly verifying the experience and service of the respective candidates selected the appellant to the post of the Professor in the said Department.
29.It is not in dispute that there is no rule or regulation requiring the Board to record reasons. Therefore, in our view, ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -25- 2025:HHC:28829-DB the High Court was not justified in making the observation that from the resolution of the Board selecting the appellant for appointment, no reason was recorded by the Board. In our .
view, in the absence of any rule or regulation requiring the Board to record reasons and in the absence of mala fides attributed against the members of the Board, the selection made by the Board without recording reasons cannot be faulted with."
21. He also placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L.Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372, to state that courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. Mr. Sharma submitted that since experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the respondents and thereafter, recommended for their appointments, this Court should not make an endevour to sit in appeal over the decision of the experts. Paras 21, 22 and 25 to 38 are reproduced herein below:
"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, 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.::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -26-
2025:HHC:28829-DB
28. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in English in the Central College, Bangalore, in the case .
of The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491, in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board. The court further observed that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be."
25. The teaching experience of foreign teaching institutions can be taken into consideration if it is from the recognized and institution of repute. It cannot be said that the State University of New York at Buffalo, where appellant no.2 served as an Assistant Professor would not be an institution of repute. The experts aiding and advising the Commission must be quite aware of institutions in which the teaching experience was acquired by him and this one is a reputed University. 32.
According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the appellants had requisite qualification and were eligible for appointment. If they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Government, no fault can be found in the same. The High Court interfered and set aside the selections made by the experts committee. This Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court reminded the High Court that it would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts. The Court observed as under:
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -27-2025:HHC:28829-DB "7. ....When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, .
probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be."
26. In Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha & Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418, the court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians:
"17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies."
27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others (1984) 4 SCC 27, the court observed thus:
"29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them."::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -28-
2025:HHC:28829-DB
35. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others (1990) 2 SCC 746, the court relied on the judgment in University of Mysore (supra) and observed that in the matter of .
appointments in the academic field, the court generally does not interfere. The court further observed that the High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor had acted.
29. In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. Medical College & Others (1992) 2 SCC 220, the court placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of Mysore (supra) and reiterated the same legal position and observed as under: "8. ... the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice."
30. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others (1990) 1 SCC 305, the court in some what similar matter observed thus:
12.... ... ...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -29- 2025:HHC:28829-DB fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes.
.
The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
31. In Chancellor & Another etc. v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Others (1994) 1 SCC 169, the court observed thus:
"9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection."
32. In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others (2000) 3 SCC 59, the court while stressing on the importance of the functions of the expert body observed that the expert body consisted of persons coming from different walks of life who were engaged in or interested in the field of education and had wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts.
33. In Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Another (2001) 5 SCC 486, the court reminded the High Courts that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -30- 2025:HHC:28829-DB discretion exercised by the expert body is extremely limited.
34. In Medical Council of India v. Sarang & Others (2001) 8 SCC 427, the court again reiterated the legal principle that the .
court should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and should instead leave the matter to the experts in the field.
35. In B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Others (2008) 14 SCC 306, the court again reiterated legal principles and observed regarding importance of the recommendations made by the expert committees.
36. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Another (2008) 9 SCC 284, the court reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.
37. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726, again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.
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 fide has 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 decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.
22. Though this Court has no reason to disagree with aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, rather same being ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -31- 2025:HHC:28829-DB binding, needs to be taken into consideration, however, having carefully perused the aforesaid judgments, this Court has no .
hesitation to conclude that same are not applicable in the attending facts and circumstances.
23. Had Selection Committee, being an expert body recommended candidates, holding the specified/prescribed qualification strictly in terms of advertisement possessed requisite qualification as was provided is the advertisement, this Court would have been reluctant to interfere.
24. The question which needs to be determined in the instant proceedings is "whether selection committee comprising of experts, could, of its own, change the prescribed qualification or not?"
25. Though Selection Committee comprising of experts may have adequate knowledge of the subject in question, but once respondent-University, while issuing advertisement for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology had specifically provided for essential qualification of M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology), without there being any power vested in that regard by competent authority could not have called upon the candidates to produce equivalence certificate, which in the case at hand, have otherwise been issued by an authority, not competent to do so.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -32-2025:HHC:28829-DB
26. While referring to order/judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhary Devi Lal .
University (2008) 9 SCC 284, Mr. Sharma, further contended that since academic experts have regarded M.Sc. (Biotechnology) to be equivalent to the M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology), this Court may not sit in appeal over the opinion of the expert, rather it should leave the decision of the academic matter to experts, who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are. Paras 25 to 29 and 31 of judgment supra, read as under:
"25. In our opinion, in the present case, the Anusanga principle of Mimansa should be utilized and the expression `relevant subject' should also be inserted in the qualification for the post of Reader after the words "at the Master's degree level". Hence, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia in this respect. However, we agree with Mr.Patwalia that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.
26. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel has pointed out that for the posts of Reader and Lecturer in Public Administration and Political Science, a large number of appointments have been made in the respondent-university as well as in the higher education department of Haryana treating Political Science and Public Administration as one discipline. There are a large number of persons who have an M.A. & Ph. D. degrees in Political Science and are working as teachers in Public Administration department, and vice versa.::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -33-
2025:HHC:28829-DB
27. In Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 546, following its earlier decision in the Constitution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda .
Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 this Court observed that "normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are".
28. A similar view has been expressed in several decisions of this Court e.g. Dr. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain JT 1991 (4) SC 75 (para 9), Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. The Dean, B. J.
Medical College& Ors. JT 1992(1) SC 583 (para 8), Rajender Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1448 (para 7) = 1986 Supp. SCC 740 (para 7), P.M. Bhargava & Ors. vs. U. G. C. & Anr. 2004 (6) SCC 661 (Para 13), Chairman, J&K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Ors (2000) 3 SCC 59, Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya & Anr. vs. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi & Anr.
(1977) 1 SCC 279 (para 12), Medical Council of India vs. Sarang & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427 (para 6), Bhagwan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1999) 9 SCC 573 (para 6).
29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from the UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa, the UGC wrote a letter dated 5.3.1992 to the Registrar M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subject of Political Science and Public Administration are inter-changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. Thus, this is the view of the UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -34-2025:HHC:28829-DB
31. We agree with Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel, that it is not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts who are of the view that Political Science and .
Public Administration are inter-related and inter-changeable subjects, and hence a candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. We are told that a large number of persons having qualifications in the inter- changeable/inter-related subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/Lecturers and are continuing as such in various colleges and universities in the State."
27. At the cost of repetition, it is once again reiterated that this court has no intention whatsoever to substitute the opinion of the expert committee, with regard to its decision of considering M.Sc.
(Biotechnology) at par with M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology), but once eligibility criteria provided under the advertisement nowhere leaves any room for Selection Committee to alter/interpret academic qualification, prescribed in the advertisement, it ought not have ventured to call upon the private respondent to produce equivalence certificate. Any decision taken by the expert committee to call upon the private respondent as well as other similarly situate persons to provide equivalence certificate virtually amounts to changing the essential qualification, which was not within its competence. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 555, relevant paras whereof read as under:
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -35-2025:HHC:28829-DB "17.We have gone through the aforesaid advertisement which was issued for filling up various posts and on scrutiny, we find that whenever and wherever the University desired to fill up a .
post at variance with the main subject, it is specifically notified and indicated in the said advertisement. For example, advertisement which find place at Serial No. 59 was for filling up the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering (Environmental Engg.) for University Polytechnic for which qualification which was necessary and essential was mentioned as First Class Bachelor's Degree in Environmental / Civil Chemical / Petroleum / Biochemical Engineering/ Architecture. 12.Many more posts advertised in the said advertisement specifically indicate that whenever the University desired to have a post filled up in a particular branch of the Humanities and Science Department, it specifically indicated as such in the said advertisement. If it was necessary for the University to fill up the post from the stream of Industrial Chemistry, it would have so indicated in the advertisement itself for in subsequent years, we find specific advertisement has been issued by the same University for filling up the post of Lecturer in Industrial Chemistry by issuing an advertisement specifically in that regard. There is no doubt with regard to the fact that it is the University Authority who knows best as to what is their requirement.
18. Aligarh Muslim University was founded by Central Act called the Aligarh Muslim University Act. It also has a statute made under Section 28 (1) of the said Act. Statute 22 of the University deals with the Boards of Studies. One of the functions of the said Board of Studies is to recommend to the Faculty in the manner prescribed in the ordinances, the field of study of each post at the time of its creation.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -36-2025:HHC:28829-DB
19. Statute 21 on the other hand deals with the powers and functions of the Faculties. The aforesaid recommendation of the Board of Studies is to be decided by the Faculties at .
Statute 21 of the University and therefore, it is confirmed by the Academic Council under Statute 19 of the University, and therefore it is to be approved by the Executive Council under Statute 17(2)(1) of the University. After such a repeated multi- tier exercise, the essential qualification is earmarked for a particular post and then it is advertised. It is also established from the records and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different and separate subjects.
20. Learned counsel appearing for Merajuddin Ahmad strongly relied upon the course contents. A bare look at the same would indicate that what is dealt therein is not Industrial Chemistry but Engineering Chemistry. We are not informed as to whether Engineering Chemistry is considered to be at par with Industrial Chemistry.
27.The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Masters Degree Holder in Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said post without there being any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the University is now manning the said post by having a person from the discipline of pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to pure Chemistry stream.
28. In Secy., A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, [(2005) 4 SCC 154] at para 14 it was held by this Court that norms of selection cannot be altered after commencement of ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -37- 2025:HHC:28829-DB selection process and the rules regarding qualification for appointment, if amended, during continuation of the process of selection do not affect the same. Further at para 15 it was held .
that the power to relax the eligibility condition, if any, to the selection must be clearly spelt out and cannot be otherwise exercised. The said observations are extracted herein below:
"14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig (1999) 1 SCC 544.)
15. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for relaxation of norms. Although the Court must look with respect upon the performance of duties by ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -38- 2025:HHC:28829-DB experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the .
Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated.
In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141 this Court held that once it is established that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised."
30. In Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr) v. State of Orissa, [(1995) 6 SCC 1], reference was made to the decision in P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141], wherein at para 44, it was observed:
"44. By necessary inference, there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm."
28. At this stage reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bank of India v. Aarya K.Babu (2019) 8 SCC 587, wherein it came to be ruled that it is not for the court to provide the equivalence relating to educational qualification.
In the afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that equivalence of educational qualification is a technical question based on proper ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -39- 2025:HHC:28829-DB assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of .
the government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the court, uninformed of relevant date and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence would not lightly disturb the decision of the government.
29. This Court has purposely taken note of the aforesaid judgment for the reason that issue with regard to equivalence of educational qualification being technical question can only be taken by an expert body, which possesses requisite knowledge, skill and expertise, but Selection Committee of its own without there being any authority from the respondent-University could not have called upon the private respondent as well as other similarly situate persons to produce equivalence certificate, showing that M.Sc. (Biotechnology) is equivalent to M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology).
30. Had prior to issuance of the advertisement, respondent-
University constituted expert Committee to give its opinion with regard to equivalence of M.Sc. (Biotechnology) with that of M.Sc.
(Agricultural Biotechnology) and committee had given its report in affirmative, Selection Committee may have been well within its right to ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -40- 2025:HHC:28829-DB call upon candidates having qualification of M.Sc. (Biotechnology) to produce equivalence certificate. However in the case at hand, .
Selection Committee without use of expression "equivalent" in the advertisement of its own proceeded to afford an opportunity to such candidates, who were not possessing requisite qualification i.e. M.Sc.
(Agricultural Biotechnology), as provided under advertisement to provide equivalence certificate, which is wholly impermissible. No doubt, normally, opinion of Selection Committee should be final, but at the same time, Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily or change the criteria/qualification in the selection process as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aarya K. Babu (supra). Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:
12.Though we have taken note of the said contention we are unable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well-established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include certain qualifications which have not been included in the Notification by the employer.
Further the rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concerned to challenge the Notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the other hand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the Notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -41- 2025:HHC:28829-DB consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for the employer to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection process or accept any qualification other .
than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified.
13. In fact, this view is fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 555 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the said decision it is held as hereunder:
24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post.
25. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should be final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process during its midstream. Merajuddin Ahmad did not possess a degree in Pure Chemistry and therefore, it was rightly held by the High Court that he did not possess the minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, for Pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different subjects.::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -42-
2025:HHC:28829-DB
26. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of Industrial .
Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Master's degree-holder in the said subject would also be suitable for being considered. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known and were informed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said post.
27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Master's degree-holder in Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said post without there being any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the University is now manning the said post by having a person from the discipline of Pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to Pure Chemistry stream.
14. If the above decision is kept in perspective it is clear that while examining the correctness of the action of the employer what would be sacrosanct will be the qualification criteria published in the Notification, since if any change made to the qualification criteria midstream is accepted by the Court so as to benefit only the petitioners before it, without making it open to all the qualified persons, it would amount to causing injustice to the others who possess such qualification but had ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -43- 2025:HHC:28829-DB not applied being honest to themselves as knowingly they did not possess the qualification sought for in the Notification though they otherwise held another degree. Therefore, if there .
is any change in qualification / criteria after the notification is issued but before the completion of the selection process and the employer / recruiting agency seeks to adopt the change it will be incumbent on the employer to issue a corrigendum incorporating the changes to the notification and invite applications from those qualified as per the changed criteria and consider the same along with the applications received in response to the initial notification. The same principle will hold good when a consideration is made by the Court.
15. If in that background the instant facts are taken note, it would disclose that the Notification depicting the qualification required as Degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) was issued on 17.11.2014 and the process of selection had come to an end when the private respondents herein were issued the appointment letters dated 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. Admittedly as on such date the Notification required the candidates possessing B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry) but the private respondents were graduates in B.Sc. (Forestry) and as such were not qualified to respond. The change was made subsequent thereto by the general corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 by including the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry), which would be effective from that day by providing opportunity to all those holding that qualification. Therefore, in such cases the change of qualification whereby the qualification of the private respondents gets included subsequently cannot enure to their benefit alone when several others who could have applied were prevented from doing so.
16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -44- 2025:HHC:28829-DB issue has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. vs. .
Union of India & Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is held that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government."
31. Needless to say, Selection Committee constituted by respondent-University for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in various disciplines including discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology had no inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor such power could be assumed by necessary implication, rather it ought to have scrutinized the application of the candidates strictly in terms of eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed in Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr) v.State of Orissa (1995) 6 SCC 1, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"34. The Selection Committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication. In ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -45- 2025:HHC:28829-DB Ramachandra lyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1984)ILLJ314SC , it was observed :
By necessary inference, there was no such power in the .
ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reasons that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm.
35. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. :[1985] 2 SCR 367, it was observed that the Selection Committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these decisions were followed in sh Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Ors. (1987) 2 UJSC 657 and the limitation of the Selection Committee were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum "marks which a candidate had to secure at the viva-voce test.
36. It may be pointed out that rule making function under Article 309 is legislative and not executive as was laid down by this Court in B.S. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
:(1981)ILLJ280SC . For this reason also, the Selection Committee or the Selection Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis for selection as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection.
32. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties reveals that no procedure was envisaged under the University Statutes for determination or issuance of equivalence certificate (Annexure P-23). Perusal of University Statutes, especially para 2.6 (2) (iii) under Chapter II i.e. the provisions and exclusive power of Academic Council provides that "to recognize the ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -46- 2025:HHC:28829-DB examination of other Universities and recognized institutes and to decide their equivalence with the corresponding examinations of the .
University". As per afore rule, no other authority can determine and decide the issue of equivalence, but in the present case neither such procedure was adopted nor any decision was taken by the Academic Council, rather Selection Committee of its own called upon the private respondents as well as other similarly situate persons to produce equivalence certificate.
33. This Court finds from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record that private respondent No.2 has not passed NET examination from UGC/CSIR, ICAR or similar test accredited by UGC in the concerned discipline. Besides above, he does not hold Ph.D. in Plant Biotechnology, therefore, he is not eligible for availing exemption from NET in discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology. Correct eligibility qualification for appearing in Agricultural Research Services (ARC) Examination-2017 and NET-
2018 in the discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology was notified by Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) vide notification dated 24.01.2018 as provided in Appendix IV and VI (Annexure P-
25). As per aforesaid document, educational qualifications provided are that a candidate for Agricultural Research Service must hold a Master's Degree or equivalent in the concerned discipline with ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -47- 2025:HHC:28829-DB specialization as mentioned under Appendix VI under Code No. 1. As per the afore criteria, candidate who does not possess specialization .
in Plant Physiology is not eligible to appear in ARS Exam even if she/he possesses degree in any disciplines provided in the said qualification and as such contention of Mr. Sharma that since discipline 'Biotechology' is mentioned in qualification prescribed by ASRB for appearing in NET exam, his Ph.D. Degree in Life Sciences (Biotechnology) from Himachal Pradesh University, makes him eligible for availing exemption from qualifying NET in discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology, is wholly misplaced.
34. Though this Court need not go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter, especially, when this Court is of the firm view that selection committee could not have gone into the question of equivalence, if any, of M.Sc. (Biotechnology) with M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology), but having carefully perused definition of Industrial Biotechnology as provided in Wikipedia, this Court finds that Industrial Biotechnology is the application of biotechnology for industrial purposes, including industrial fermentation. As per UGC Regulations 2002 and 2006 (Annexures P-11 and P-12) provision of exemption of NET essentiality is for Ph.D. holders in the concerned discipline, as such Screening Committee has erred in accepting the certificate of ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -48- 2025:HHC:28829-DB exemption issued by Himachal Pradesh University (Annexure P-10) in favour of respondent No. 2.
.
35. As per UGC Regulations 2002 ad 2006 (Annexures P-11 and P-12) provision of exemption of NET essentiality is for Ph.D. degree holders in the concerned discipline, as such Screening Committee has erred in accepting the certificate of exemption (Annexure P-10) in favour of respondent No. 2.
36. Clause 4.1 of UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and others Academic Staff in Universities 2018 (UGCR 2018) provides essential qualifications for recruitment of Assistant Professor in Sciences i.e. 'a concerned/ relevant/allied subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university' (Annexure P-27), relevant clause reads as under-
"For the purposes of direct recruitment to teaching posts in disciplines relating to university and collegiate education, interalia in the fields of health, medicine, special education, agriculture, veterinary and allied fields, technical education, teacher education, norms or standards laid down by authorities established by the relevant Act of Parliament under Article 246 of the constitution for the purpose of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, shall prevail."
37. Aforesaid provision reserves liberty to State Governments in matters of laying down norms or standards for of ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -49- 2025:HHC:28829-DB direct recruitment to teaching posts in fields of agriculture, veterinary and allied fields because under Article 246 (Seventh Schedule) .
Agriculture Education is a State subject under entry 14 of List II of the Constitution. Respondent-University has incorporated relevant qualifications in recruitment rules/statues prescribing therein manner of appointment and qualifications for the teachers of the university. As per statute 4.4 (3) of CSKHPKV, Palampur and the advertisement No. 02/2019 dated 8.03.2019 (Annexures P-3 and P-5), the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Professor or equivalent in Agriculture Faculty (under item Nos.4 to 16 and 25 to 29) is M.Sc./ M. Tech./ MBA having qualified NET from UGC/CSIR, ICAR or similar test accredited by UGC in the concerned discipline. For the posts of Assistant Professor or equivalent in the Basic Sciences faculty (items 17 and 18), the prescribed qualification is M.Sc. or equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university, whereas, the recruitment rules and advertisement for Agriculture faculty posts do not permit equivalent or related qualifications, thus, the differing qualification requirements indicate the University's clear intent not to allow such equivalence for Agriculture faculty posts.
38. Since academic council of University never passed any order, relating to equivalence and word "equivalent" was not specifically used in advertisement, Selection Committee had no power ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -50- 2025:HHC:28829-DB to change the selection criteria midway that too by permitting the candidates not having requisite qualification in terms of eligibility .
criteria to produce equivalence certificate to show that their qualification was equivalent to the requisite/prescribed qualification.
39. Reliance in this regard, is placed upon Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 610, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgment read as under:
"15.The first respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course.
16. The first respondent made a faint attempt to contend that the distance education system includes `correspondence courses' and therefore recognition of M.A. (correspondence course) as equivalent to M.A. course of appellant University, would amount to recognition of M.A. - OUS (distance ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -51- 2025:HHC:28829-DB education) course, as an equivalent. For this purpose, he relied upon the definition of "distance education system" in section 2(e) of Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, .
1985. But there is nothing to show that Annamalai University has treated correspondence course and OUS (distance education) course as the same. What is more important is that the appellant university does not wish to treat correspondence course and Distance Education Course as being the same. That is a matter of policy. Courts will not interfere with the said policy relating to an academic matter."
40. Lastly, this Court finds that at no point of time, private respondents laid challenge to the eligibility criteria contained in the advertisement, as such, they are estopped from claiming appointment to post on the basis of equivalence certificate. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC 484, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"9. The candidates who were aware of the advertisement and did not have the qualification of C.P.Ed. also had two options, either to apply only for PTI Gr.II if they had the necessary qualification for that post or to challenge the advertisement that it omitted to mention equivalent or higher qualification along with qualification of C.P.Ed. for the post of PTI Gr.III. Having not challenged the advertisement and having applied for the other post, they could not have subsequently claimed or be granted eligibility on the basis of equivalence clarified or declared subsequently by the State Government. In the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification must be recognized as such in the recruitment rules or Government ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -52- 2025:HHC:28829-DB order existing on or before the initiation of recruitment process. In the [email protected].(C)Nos.22345-22346/13 present case, this process was initiated through advertisement inviting .
application which did not indicate that equivalent or higher qualification holders were eligible to apply nor the equivalent qualifications were reflected in the recruitment rules or Government Orders of the relevant time.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view the Division Bench erred in interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge who had correctly allowed the writ petitions filed against the result declared by the Commission on the basis of State Government's letter dated 06.01.2010. The impugned judgment under appeal is, therefore, set aside and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is restored.
That should be complied forthwith. The appeals are accordingly allowed but without any order as to costs."
41. In the case at hand, process was initiated through an advertisement inviting applications, which did not indicate that equivalent or higher qualification holders were eligible to apply nor were the educational qualifications reflected in the recruitment rules or government orders for the relevant period. Having not challenged the advertisement, they could not have subsequently claimed or be granted eligibility on the basis of equivalence clarified or declared subsequently by the Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry.
42. Leaving everything aside, equivalence certificate issued by the Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University could not be considered ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -53- 2025:HHC:28829-DB especially when no procedure was envisaged in the University Statute for determination of issuance of equivalence certificate issued by .
another University. As per para 2.6 (2) (iii) (Annexure P-23) under Chapter II, it is only academic council, which can decide essential qualification, meaning thereby, no other authority than academic council can determine and decide the issue of equivalence but in the case at hand, no such procedure was adopted nor decision was taken by the academic Council hence, the certificate issued by the Registrar, could not have been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee.
CWP No. 8626 of 202243. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and same is allowed. Appointment of respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Agricultural Biotechnology vide order dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P-
8) is quashed and set-aside. Similarly, placement of respondent No.3 in the select panel at Sr. No. 1 is also not sustainable in the eye of law and same is also set-aside. Since petitioner Pankaj Kumar was placed at Sr. No. 2 of the waiting list, University is directed to offer him appointment against the post in question.
CWP No. 8675 of 2022 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS -54-2025:HHC:28829-DB
44. Reliefs prayed in this petition under clauses (i) and (iv) stand granted. Remaining reliefs are declined especially regarding .
quashing entire selection process and to re-advertise the posts. In this regard, prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire selection process and to re-advertise the post afresh cannot be accepted because the selection of appointed candidates i.e. respondent No.2 including respondent No.3, being dehors the rules is to be treated void ab initio. Keeping in view the said position, in the present case, selection panel cannot be treated r as exhausted and such appointment can be offered to eligible selected candidates on the panel.
Both the petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 26, 2025 manjit ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2025 21:22:41 :::CIS