Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. N. Nagabhushanam And Anr. vs Dr. M. Vasudeva Reddy And Ors. ... on 8 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(4)ALT409
ORDER Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. Writ Appeal No. 574/95 is filed by the 4th respondent and W.A. No. 584/95 is filed by the 1st respondent-Sri Venkateswara University, in W.P. No. 3498/89. W.A. No. 575/95 is filed by the 4ih respondent and W.A. No. 585/95 is filed by the 1st respondent-Sri Venkateswara University in W.P. No. 3227/89. All the four Writ Appeals are filed by the appellants aggrieved by the Common Judgment dated 6-4-1995, allowing the above two Writ Petitions.
2. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petitions.
3. The facts of the case are that Sri Venkateswara University issued two advertisements dated 15-5-1986 and 3-11-1988 respectively, calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the posts of Lecturers/Readers/ Professors in different disciplines. The petitioners applied for the posts of Readers in Bio-chemistry and Geography respectively. The qualifications prescribed for the posts of Readers are (1) good academic record with a Doctoral degree or equivalent published work; (2) Evidence being actively engaged in research or innovation in teaching methods or production of teaching materials; and (3) five years experience of teaching and /or research, provided that atleast three of these years were as Lecturer or in an equivalent position. The petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee on 23-1-1989. The interviews were completed and afterwards the selected candidates were appointed as Readers i.e., R-4 in both the Writ Petitions were appointed as Readers of the concerned subjects. Aggrieved by the said selections the petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions. Both the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent are qualified to appear in the interview for the Readers posts. There is no dispute about the qualifications, except the dispute regarding the service of the petitioner in W.P. No. 3227/89 as Lecturer.
4. In the Writ Petitions it is mainly contended that the constitution of the Selection Committee is illegal as no representative of the Union Grants Commission (U.G.C.) was sent and therefore, the Selection Committee has got initial lack of jurisdiction.
5. It is contended that the selections made are not proper as the wife of the 3rd respondent, a Selection Committee Member, was doing Ph.D. under the 4th respondent, therefore the same is vitiated by the mala fide action. It is further contended that the selections made are not proper as no reasons are given for selecting the candidates or considering the merits and demerits of the candidates who appeared for the interview. Number of other grounds are also taken but the learned Single Judge has considered only the two questions i.e., whether constitution of the Selection Committee is valid or not, and secondly, whether the selections made are vitiated for not giving reasons for selecting the candidates. On both the points, the learned Single Judge held that the constitution of the Selection Committee is not valid as the representative of U.G.C. was not present as Member of the Selection Committee and consequently the selections made are illegal, and further held that the Selection Committee has not given any reasons while considering the merits and demerits of the candidates and therefore, the selections are vitiated. The learned Single Judge also held that the allegation of mala fide action against the 3rd respondent that his wife is doing Ph.D. under the 4th respondent (Dr. P.R. Parthasarathi) is not proved and in the counter filed the University stated that though the wife of the 3rd respondent registered for Ph JD. work for some time, 5 but discontinued later since two years, therefore, the said allegation is not proved.
6. Aggrieved by the said common Judgment, the present Writ Appeals are filed by the 4th respondent in both the Writ Petitions and Sri Venkateswara University. 10
7. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Selection Committee is properly constituted as per Section 36 of Sri Venkateswara University Act (for short "the Act"), that merely one of the Member, i.e., representative of U.G.C. is not present on the date of the interviews the selections cannot be said to be invalid. Secondly it is contended that the Selection Committee while selecting the candidates need not give any reasons as it is only discharging administrative functions and not discharging quasi-judicial functions, and, therefore, on that ground the selection is not illegal. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioners, fully knowing that the U.G.C. Member is not present, appeared before the Selection Committee and after they are not selected, they are now challenging the constitution of the Selection Committee. Once they have appeared before the Selection Committee and attended the interview thereafter as they are not selected they cannot challenge the selection and they are estopped from challenging the validity of the Selection Committee. Therefore, the Writ Appeals are to be allowed and the Writ Petitions are to be dismissed. This argument of the learned Counsel is adopted by the learned Standing Counsel for Sri Venkateswara University.
8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents i.e.. Writ Petitioners, Mr. M.V. Ramanareddy, contended that Section 36 of the Act provides for constitution of a Selection Committee. The Selection Committee must be constituted in accordance with Section 36 of the Act, that means, all the members of the Committee must be present at the time of interview. If any member is not present the Selection Committee is not complete and so any act done by the Selection Committee is not valid, therefore, it has no jurisdiction to conduct the interviews. He further submitted that not giving of any reasons by the Selection Committee for selecting the candidates and rejecting some candidates vitiates the selection itself as the same is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above contentions, the first question that arises for consideration is, whether the selections made by the Selection Committee are vitiated for the non-presence of Member of the Selection Committee at the time of interview.
10. Section 36 of the Act provides for constitution of the "Selection Committee" and it is relevant here to extract the said Section, which is as follows:
"36. Constitution of Selection Committee:
(1) There shall be constituted a Selection Committee in regard to the appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, which shall consist of the following, namely:
1. The Vice-Chancellor;
2. Nominees of the University Grants Commission.
3. Three experts from outside the University to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor of whom at least two shall be present in the Selection Committee;
4. Chairman of the Board of Studies concerned;
5. Head of the Department concerned: Provided that no person shall participate in the meetings of the Selection Committee for any appointment if he/his near relative is a candidate for that appointment: Provided further that no teacher holding a post lower in rank than the one to which the appointment is to be made shall be a member of the Selection Committee.
(2) The Dean of the Academic Affairs shall be the Secretary of the Selection Committee. If there is no such Dean, the Registrar shall be the Secretary."
11. From a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Selection Committee be constituted for the purpose of appointing Professors, Readers and Lecturers and it shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor, Nominees of U.G.C., three experts from outside the University, the Chairman of the Board of Studies and the Head of Department concerned as its Members. There are about five categories of Members in the Selection Committee. In Category-3 i.e., three experts from outside the University nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, at least two shall be present in the Selection Committee. Thus, presence of two experts from outside the University is mandatory, otherwise the selection will be invalid. With regard to other category of Members, there is no such mandatory requirement. Further, no person whose relative is a candidate for appointment shall participate in the meetings of the Selection Committee. If a relative of a Member is the candidate for appointment, the other Members have to conduct the Interview and the process of selection can go on without the presence of that Member and the absence of such Member will not invalidate the selection. Therefore, it Is not correct to say that even for absence of one member In Selection Committee, the constitution of Selection Committee is Illegal and the selections made are Invalid. If the Legislate (sic) intended that participation of all Members from all categories Is mandatory in the selection process, the Legislature would have used the language as employed in respect of Members of Category No. 3. In the absence of such an intendment, It cannot be said that participation of all Members Is compulsory. If such a reading is given while Interpreting the provision, it amounts to amending or Incorporating the provision. It is settled principle of law that the Courts while Interpreting the provisions shall not alter or reduce the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act have to be read as they are and the language employed in the Act has to be understood to know the intendment of the Legislature. Therefore, for the non-presence of one of the Members of the Selection Committee, the constitution of Selection Committee cannot be said to be invalid and the same is not in consonance with Section 36 of the Act. On the other hand, the constitution of Selection Committee is valid and the selections made by it are legal. The defect, as alleged, of non-presence of a Member is cured by incorporation of Section 30 of the Act. Such a defect would have no effect according to Section 30. We, therefore, do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners.
12. The issue can also be examined by scrutinising the facts of the case.
13. The advertisements were published on 3-11-1988 and 9-12-1988. On 3-12-1988, the Vice-Chancel for of Sri Venkateshwara University wrote a letter to the Chairman of the University Grants Commission to depute a Nominee as a Member of the Selection Committee. The Vice-Chancellor did not receive any reply from the University Grants Commission. On 28-12-1988, again the Vice- Chancellor wrote another letter to the University Grants Commission to suggest some nominee for the purpose of Selection Committee. On 28-1-1989, the University received a telegram dated 27-1-1989 wherein a Member was nominated for the Selection Committee. By that date, the selections were already completed as the selections were held on 23-1-1989 and 24-1-1989. Therefore, in this case, there is no fault on the part of the University Administration. The University Administration contacted the Chairman of U.G.C. much earlier and even by sending reminders. It is to be noticed here that when the entire process of selection schedule is fixed and advertisement is issued and applications are received in pursuance of the said notification, date of selection is fixed, the same cannot be adjourned. Otherwise, the entire work will be dislocated and the programme will not go on as scheduled and the same will be burdensome to the University and harassment to the candidates. Therefore, as per the facts of this case, there is no fault in contacting the Chairman of U.G.C. for sending a nominee as one of the Member of the Selection Committee and because the U.G.C. failed to send the Member within time, the interviews were conducted. It cannot be said that the selections are bad or vitiated. The petitioners also participated in the interview with the knowledge ti: -it one of the Members is not attending and after the selections are over and they are not selected, they filed the Writ Petitions challenging the selection.
14. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in support of his contention, relied on the Judgment of this Court, which is also referred to by the learned Single Judge, in K.V.L. Kameswari v. Andhra University, 1994(1) ALT 23 (D.B.). wherein in provisions of Section 34-A of the Andhra University Act came up for consideration which are almost all similar to the present Section 36 of the Sri Venkateswara University Act. Interpreting that Section, the Division Bench held that If the U.C.C. Member is not there the Selection Committee is not properly constituted and the selection is not valid. The facts of that case are that a letter to the U.G.C. was sent by the University only on 16-6-1989 whereas the interviews were to be conducted on 5-7-1989 and the U.G.C. responded only on 11-7-1989. Thus there was no sufficient time for U.G.C. to nominate or to make further correspondence, as the interviews were fixed to 5-7-1989. Considering the facts of that case, the Division Bench held that non-presence of the U.G.C. member in the Selection Committee is fatal and the Selection Committee itself is not complete and the interviews conducted by such a Committee invalid. The facts of the case are quite different from the facts of this case. In the present case the intimation was sent to the Chairman, U.G.C. much earlier and the University received reply only after the interviews are held. Therefore the principle laid-down in the Judgment will not apply to the facts of the present case. It is a settled principle of law that a decision should be applied in case it applies to the facts of the case and not otherwise.
15. The learned counsel Mr. M.V. Ramanareddy contended that as the constitution of me Selection Committee is mandatory and as the U.G.C. member is not there, the constitution of the Selection Committee is not valid and the selections made by such a committee are also invalid. He also relied on the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Sheik Hussain v. The State of A.P., 1963(2)An. W.R. 364. In that case one of the members of the State Transport Authority was absent when the case was decided. Considering those facts the Full Bench of our High Court held that if one of the member of S.T.A. or R.T.A. is not present, it cannot be said that the constitution of the members of the Tribunal is proper. It is to be noticed that the said case was considered interpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The functions to be discharged under that Act deals with quasi-judicial functions and not administrative functions. Therefore, the principle laid down in that case does not apply to the facts of the present case, where the duties discharged by the Officers are only administrative in nature.
16. The next decision relied on is a judgment of the Supreme Court in The United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, . where a Constituted Bench considered the question, whether in the absence of a member of the Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act the Tribunal can dispose of a case. Considering the said question, the Supreme Court held that unless a full quorum is there, it cannot be said that there is constitution of valid Tribunal while interpreting Sections 5 to 16 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The functions discharged by the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act are purely quasi- judicial in nature and it cannot be said that they are administrative in nature. Once the duties are discharged as quasi-judicial authority, the authorities have to give reasons for the orders.
17. It is secondly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that after attending the interview, one cannot challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee and in support of this contention he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in G. Saranna v. Lucknow University, . There the appellant and the respondent No. 8 were the only two candidates who applied for the post in response to an advertisement. After coming to know of the selection of the eighth respondent, the appellant filed the writ petition alleging that respondent No. 8 had close relations with the Selection Committee. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held:
"Where a candidate for selection knowing fully well the relevant facts about the members of the Selection Board voluntarily appeared for interview without raising any kind of objection against the constitution of the Selection Board and took a chance of favourable recommendation in his favour, it was not open to him to turn around and question the constitution of the Board when the decision was unfavourable to him."
18. The said decision was followed by this Court in K. V.L. Kameshwari's case (1 supra).
19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the constitution of Selection Committee and conducting interviews by it are valid and proper and the Selection Committee has got jurisdiction to conduct the interviews as the same is authorised by the Act.
20. Thirdly it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that the Selection Committee has not given any reasons for selecting the 4th respondent in both the Writ Petitions and rejecting the other candidates, and as no reasons are given, their action of non-selection of the petitioners is arbitrary. It is to be noticed that the Act does not provide for giving reasons. The act of selection by the Selection Committee is purely an administrative action. It is a settled principle of law where an authority is discharging the administrative functions, giving of reasons is not mandatory unless statute provides to do so. Further the High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not sitting as an Appellate Authority and the High Court can only scrutinise whether there is any violation of the principles of natural justice but will not appreciate the facts of the case as an appellate authority. It is relevant to refer to some of the Judgments in this regard.
21. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. K.K. Raman, AIR 1992 1806 it was held that the Selection Committee discharging administrative functions is not obligatory to give reasons unless the rules provide for the same. The Supreme Court held that-
"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."
22. It is manifest from the above Judgments that there is no duty cast on the Selection Committee to give reasons unless the statute provides for it. In the present case no such rule is brought to our notice. Therefore for non-giving of reasons by a Selection Committee for selecting or rejecting the candidates, the selection cannot be said to be invalid.
23. In Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar, the Supreme Court while considering the fact that the writ petitioner having knowledge did not plead in the writ petition the fact that some letters were written by Selection Committee to Chancellor stating that appointed candidate did not possess requisite qualification, the Supreme Court held-
".... Moreover, normally, would not be considered a bona fide act on the part of a member of the Selection Committee to say, after the selection is over and he has signed the proceedings, that he overlooked certain qualifications in respect of a candidate. The sanctity of the process of selection has to be maintained. It would be travesty of the selection process if the candidates are encouraged to meet members of the Selection Committee after the selection is over and to obtain letters from them attempting to renege the selection made. Further, 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 could be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and concerned selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection."
24. In Major General I.P.S. Dewan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the administrative order like the selection of candidates, need not give reasons. The case of the petitioner was that administrative orders affecting the rights of citizens should contain reasons therefor. In that connection the Supreme Court held-
"Unless the rules so require, the Selection Committee/Selection Board is not obliged to record reasons, why they are not selecting a particular person and/or why they are selecting a particular person, as the case may be. If the said decision is sought to be relied upon with respect to the adverse remarks made against the appellant, the attack should fail for the reasons that the memo containing adverse remarks in this case does set out the particulars in support of the same. It is equally relevant to note that no allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness has been levelled against the Chief of the Army Staff who made the said remarks."
25. Therefore the above judgments make it clear that the act of selecting candidates by a Selection Committee, appointed by the University, is purely administrative in nature and it is not a quasi-judicial act. Therefore, when the selection Committee is discharging administrative duties, it is not obligatory on its part to give reasons, while making selections. Further the High Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal, on the selections made by the Selection Committee.
26. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, the Supreme Court held- "It is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the instant 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 materials before it. Therefore setting aside the selection on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates, as assessed by the Court while sitting in appeal over selection so made would not be permissible."
27. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, , the Supreme Court has also taken the same view and held that the Court cannot interfere in the selections made by a Selection Committee in the absence of proof of mala fides on contravention of statutory or binding rule or ordinance.
28. The above judgments laid down the principle that when the Selection Committee while selecting the candidates is discharging the administrative functions and not quasi-judicial functions, and the authority discharging administrative functions need not give reasons. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the Selection Committee to give reasons while selecting the candidates. It is further held that the High Court is not sitting in appeal to appreciate and scrutinise the entire record. It is only exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and while exercising the powers under Article 226of the Constitution of India the High Court will only examine whether the selection is in violation of statutory provisions or arbitrary and also is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or any of the fundamental rights. If there is any gross violation of any statutory principles/then only the High Court can interfere; otherwise the High Court ordinarily cannot interfere in the selections. We have perused the records produced by Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Standing Counsel for the University, the marks sheets prepared by the Selection Committee and marks assigned to each candidates by the Selection Committee. The selections are made according to the merit of the candidates by the Selection Committee. Once the selections are made by Experts as members of Selection Committee, the Court cannot interfere, unless grave injustice or violation of law is done, In the present case the selections cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the Selection Committee has not given reasons, when the selection is otherwise proper.
29. Therefore, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Appeals and consequently dismiss the Writ Petitions. In the circumstances of the cases, no order as to costs.