Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Snehlata Jaswal vs Indian Institute Of Technology ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: Navin Sinha, Pankaj Bhandari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.928/2015
Snehlata Jaswal d/o Late Shri Hansraj Singh, aged
about 48 years, r/o Kendranchal, GPRA, New Pali
Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
. . . . .Appellant
VERSUS
1. Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur Old
Residency Road, Ratananda, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Indian Institute of Technology,
Jodhpur, Old Residency Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
3. Board of Governors of I.I.T., Jodhpur through
Director -cum- Ex-Officio Member.
. . . . . .Respondents
Date of Order : 02/08/2016.
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr.NAVIN SINHA
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Dr.P.S.Bhati with Mr.Manvendra Singh for the appellant. Mr.Vikas Balia, Mr.Sanjeet Purohit and Mr.Dinesh Pal Singh Charan for the respondents.
- -
1. The present appeal arises from order dated 10.07.2015 dismissing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9363/2014 declining to interfere with the order dated 28.11.2014 terminating the 2 services of the Appellant as Associate Professor on probation at the Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur, pursuant to the recommendation of the Review Committee, approved by the Board of Governors.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that she was appointed as an Associate Professor in Psychology on 13.03.2013 pursuant to a regular selection process. The Appellant is highly qualified and has several academic qualifications, achievements and expertise both national and international. She has received awards both nationally and internationally. The appointment for a faculty position at the Indian Institute of Technology was done on the recommendation of a selection committee. She was on probation for a period of two years with provision for yearly review. At no point of time, she was communicated any adverse performance much less even any advice for improvement of her academic duties. This is only evidence that she was performing her duties as an Associate Professor with due diligence and excellence required. Had it been otherwise, the Director of the Indian Institute of Technology under whom she was working and who was also the appointing authority would undoubtedly have at some point of time told her to improve. Contrary to the terms of the appointment, instead of annual review, first review was held approximately after one year three 3 months from the date of appointment when she was given a communication dated 08.09.2014 to appear for review alongwith a hard copy of her presentation on 14.09.2014.
3. The Review Committee did not consist of experts from her field. One of the members, Dr.Lilavati Krishnan was ill disposed towards the appellant. There were no parameters or guidelines laid down for review which were necessarily required to be objective in nature. The Review Committee allegedly viewed her performance to be unsatisfactory which necessarily becomes subjective in nature in absence of any specified guidelines for the same. The Committee at best should have formed an opinion about her performance and left the decision for the Board of Governors instead of recommending termination citing unsatisfactory performance. Apparently, the Board of Governors did not have the freedom to decide on whether to confirm the probation or to even extend the probation as the field for its decision making was restricted by the recommendation of the Review Committee.
4. It was lastly submitted that the termination was in haste. If the probation was for two years till June, 2015, recommendation for termination for reason of unsatisfactory performance on 14.09.2014 without an opportunity for improvement till the period of the probation came to an end was unjustified.
45. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Appellant was appointed on probation for a period of two years. The letter of appointment itself mentions that the performance would be reviewed. If the performance was not found to be at par termination would have to follow. Continuance on probation for the period of two years cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a probationer as it based on the overall assessment of performance. The Appellant was directed to appear for review alongwith her presentation. The minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee itself reveals that she submitted a self appraisal report and was also invited to interact with the members of the Review Committee alongwith a presentation of her contributions during the period of employment at Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur, the Personal File of the Faculty Member, Teaching Feedback from students and Faculty Academic Profile were all assessed by the Review Committee. The performance was then objectively considered unsatisfactory and termination was recommended. It is denied that the Board of Governors was restricted or influenced in any manner by the recommendation of the Review Committee which was but only the expression of an opinion and did not bind the Board of Governors who took an independent decision by themselves. Twenty eight persons including the Appellant were assessed by different Review Committees some of 5 whom were terminated, or confirmed and in some cases probation extended.
6. The Review Committee consisted of eminent academic personalities headed by a Chairman and three members. There are no allegations of personal malafides against the Chairman and members of the Review Committee and none of them have been made parties. Similarly the Board of Governors also consists of eminent persons and there are no allegations against them also.
7. The last submission was that if it is a matter relating to academic excellence at higher level and those reviewing are persons of eminence, the Court in judicial review under Article 226 may not interfere on issues which may have implications for academic excellence and maintenance of standards in such institutions of excellence.
8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
9. The services of a probationer can undoubtedly be terminated for unsatisfactory performance. A probationer cannot claim a right to continue for the entire duration of probation. It can be terminated earlier also. Judicial review will only examine if the decision was based on relevant criteria and materials or was it vitiated by malafides, bias or taking into consideration irrelevant materials.
10. In matters relating to appointment and 6 removal involving issues of academic excellence judged by academic experts especially for senior faculty positions of Associate Professor in an institution like IIT the writ court under Article 226 should tread cautiously and unless there are strong and compelling reasons ordinarily it should refrain from entering into the arena of academic excellence and step into the shoes of academicians to judge merit and competence. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 it was observed as follows :-
"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 decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."
The Appellant was appointed on probation subject to review of her performance. It is not possible to accept the contention that there were no parameters for review of performance which was therefore subjective in nature. The communication dated 08.09.2014 to the Appellant mentioned that she was required to make a presentation. The minutes of the Review Committee reflect that it considered her self-appraisal report. The members of the Committee interacted with her, she made a presentation of her contributions at the IIT, her 7 Personal File, Teaching Feedback from students and Faculty Academic Profile were all considered. It all goes to show that the Review Committee was acting objectively when it was assessing her performance. The recommendation of the Review Committee was only the expression of an opinion and it was not binding in any manner on the Board of Governors. The Review Committee consisted of the Director, IIT, Jodhpur, the appointing authority of the appellant as the Chairman. The three members were Professor Girishwar Misra, Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University, Wardha, Professor Ajit Mohanty, ICS-R, National Fellow, Former Chairman, Jakir Hussain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, Professor Lilavati Krishnan, Adjunct Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal.
12. Any allegation of personal malafides must be pleaded specifically with material facts in support of it which must clearly give the impression of a real and imminent bias rather than a mere apprehension of bias. Furthermore the person must be impleaded as party respondent by name to contest the allegations. Professor Lilavati Krishnan was not impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition and the application filed later to implead her was rejected and which attained finality. Even 8 otherwise, allegation of malafides is a serious matter and ought to be made in the writ petition itself at the very first instance rather than sweeping generalized statements in a rejoinder to the counter affidavit reflecting the formation of an opinion to allege malafides that the Appellant may have been unsuccessful wherever the Professor may have been present. It may raise suspicion or create an apprehension in the mind but will not tantamount to real bias in absence of any specific instance quoted as to how the individual was inimically disposed to the appellant.
13. The Board of Governors similarly consisted of Shri Goverdhan Mehta, FRS, FNA, School of Chemistry, University of Hyderabad as its Chairman, Shri Kiran Karnik, Former President, NASSCOM, Mumbai as Member, Shri D.R.Mehta, Chief Patron, Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayata Samiti, Jaipur as Member, Shri Pankaj Chandra, Former Director, IIM Bangalore as Member and Shri C.V.R.Murty, Director, IIT, Jodhpur as Ex-officio Member. The report of the Review Committee was part of the agenda with regard to the appellant and others duly considered at the Twelfth Meeting of the Board of Governors dated 27.11.2014 which decided to accept the recommendation of the Review Committee. Suffice it to observe that the recommendation of the Review Committee is speaking in nature which necessarily facilitated the Board of Governors in forming their own independent 9 opinion. There are no allegations of any nature whatsoever against the Board of Governors.
14. A probationer has no right to hold the post much less to claim even a limited right to continue till the expiry of the period of probation. If the employer is in a position to assess the capabilities and capacities of a probationer even before expiry of the period of probation, unless it has acted on any principles contrary to the law or there is a statutory bar, nothing prevents the employer from dispensing with the services even before expiry of the period of probation. The submission that an opportunity of improvement should have been given or a communication made that she was required to improve her performance does not appeal to us. The present was not a routine appointment for discharge of duties but constituted a position of expertise in a particular subject in an institution of eminence. Those making the assessment, were all people of eminence, integrity and expertise in the field of academics. The order of termination of the appellant as probationer is not stigmatic and was in terms of the conditions of appointment. Merely because it may refer to the recommendation of the Review Committee, in our opinion, does not necessarily call for a situation where the Appellant as a matter of right should have demanded the opportunity for improving her performance.
1015. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
16. The appeal is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J. (NAVIN SINHA),CJ.
skant/-