Bombay High Court
Pralhad Ramachandrarao vs University Of Goa And Anr. on 27 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1992(1)BOMCR112, (1991)93BOMLR839, 1991(1)MHLJ844
Author: Sujata Manohar
Bench: Sujata Manohar
JUDGMENT Sujata Manohar, J.
1. The petitioner holds the degree of Master of Science in Mathematics from Karnataka University. No obtained the degree in First Class with Distinction. The petitioner also holds a doctorate from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay in the subject of Graph Theory. The thesis submitted by the petitioner for his doctorate was entitled "Analysis of some problems in Graph Theory". The petitioner also has to his credit several research publications in Scientific Journals in India and abroad. He has also research experience of over 9 years and teaching experience of about 5 years. At present he holds the post of Lecturer in Mathematics/Computer Applications at the Regional Engineering College. Tiruchirapalli. The petitioner is also a recognised Research Adviser for guiding students doing their doctorates at Bharati Desan University, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.
2. By a public notice dated 30th March, 1989 the Registrar of the University of Goa (the 1st respondent) invited applications, inter alia, for 3 posts of Reader in Computer Science and one post of Reader in Mathematics. The advertisement stated that the minimum qualifications for those posts shall be as prescribed by the University Grants Commission from time to time. It also stated that apart from minimum qualifications, and additional/desirable qualifications, which may be prescribed for the posts, shall be circulated by way of a handout to the candidates along with the application forms. Accordingly, a handout was issued to all the candidates along with their application forms, which prescribed minimum qualifications as also additional qualifications for various posts. As per this handout, for the post of a Reader, the minimum qualifications were : Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work; evidence of being actively engaged in (i) research or (ii) innovation in teaching methods or (iii) production of teaching materials. About 5 years' experience of teaching and/or research was also required of which at least 3 years' experience was required as a lecturer or in an equivalent position. This condition was relaxable in the case of candidates with outstanding record of teaching/research. Certain other additional qualifications were also prescribed for the various posts which had been advertised. For a Reader in Computer Science the following additional qualification was prescribed :
"A person specialised in one or more arena given below :
Artificial Intelligence, Computer aided design, Computer Graphic/Theoretical Computer Science, Software, Computer Network, and Parallel processing."
3. The petitioner submitted his applications for the post of Reader in Computer Science as also for the post of Reader in Mathematics pursuant to this advertisement. In his application for the post of Reader in Computer Science, which is produced before us by the University, in column 10, which deals with "Research work done or directed", the petitioner has stated, "Presently guiding one candidate for Ph.D, degree in the areas of Graph Theory and its applications...... Field of interest : Graph theory and its applications to computer science, Designs and analysis of algerithms. Applications of computer science in general." In column 11, which deals with "Other qualifications and experience if any", he has stated, 'Computer Science courses taught: Basics of computer science; Introductory programming; Data Management; Translator Design; Design and analysis of algerithms, Lab I course for MCA Ist Semester". Apart from giving the list of various papers published by him, the petitioner has also given a list of 3 persons to whom reference may be made. He has also given a letter of recommendation from Prof. M.M. Vartak, of the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. The letter of recommendation, inter alia, states that after his Ph.D. the petitioner has been working in computer science especially concentrating on programming language and the interface between mathematical techniques and computer software.
4. As per the advertisement issued by the Goa University, the applications were to be screened by the Screening Committee, which was competent to classify them on the basis of qualifications and experience. The Screening Committee was required to recommend candidates for being called for an interview by the Selection Committee. Accordingly the application of the petitioner was also screened by the Screening Committee. His qualifications and experience were examined by the Screening Committee. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Screening Committee for being called for an interview by the Selection Committee for the posts of Reader in Computer Science as also Reader in Mathematics. The Selection Committee for the post of a Reader is required, as per the Statutes of the University of Goa, to comprise of the Dean of the School concerned, the Head of the Department/Centre concerned if he is not Dean, one Professor to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor and 2 persons, not in the service of the University, nominated by the Executive Council out of a panel of names recommended by the Academic Council, for their special knowledge of or interest in the subject with which the Reader will be concerned. The Selection Committee was accordingly constituted for selecting a Reader in Computer Science. As per the Statues there were two outside experts on the Selection Committee, apart from the concerned members, who were present at the interview of the petitioner. The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Reader in Computer Science.
5. Accordingly, by a letter dated 1st December, 1989 addressed by the Registrar of the Goa University to the petitioner, the petitioner was informed that the Goa University was pleased to offer to the petitioner the appointment to the post of a Reader in Computer Science in the Department of Computer Science.
6. The petitioner by his telegram dated 11th December, 1989 accepted this appointment. He also wrote a letter of the same date addressed to the Registrar of the Goa University accepting the offer of appointment as Reader in Computer Science. He stated that he would inform the University about his likely date of joining as he had to complete some formalities about his resignation from his present post. The petitioner has stated that on 15th December, 1989 he personally met the Registrar of the Goa University and informed him that as soon as he was relieved from his previous post, he would join the University of Goa. On 30th December, 1989, he submitted his resignation to the College at Tiruchirapalli, where he was working as a lecturer. By his letter of 16th January, 1990, he informed the Registrar of the Goa University about his tendering his resignation from his present job on 30th December, 1989 and requested for residential quarters.
7. On 22nd January, 1990, however, the petitioner received a telegram from the Registrar of the Goa University informing him that the offer of appointment as Reader in the Department of Computer Science was thereby withdrawn. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging this withdrawal of the offer of appointment as Reader in the department of Computer Science of the Goa University and has sought appropriate directions to the respondent to permit him to take charge of the post of a Reader in Computer Science. By an interim order, one post of a Reader in Computer Science has been kept vacant.
8. It is the contention of the Goa University that the petitioner does not possess the additional qualification which was prescribed in the handout for the post of a Reader in Computer Science. It seems that after the appointment of the petitioner, the Executive Council received complaints from the three lecturers in Computer Science, one of whom had applied for the same post but was not called for an interview, to the effect that the petitioner did not possess the additional qualification prescribed for the post. On account of this complaint, the Executive Council decided to withdraw the offer made to the petitioner. The case of the 1st respondent appears to be that the petitioner has specialised in Graph Theory, which is a subject in Mathematics and not in Computer Science. Therefore, the petitioner has not specialised in any of the prescribed areas as per the additional qualification set out in the handout. The University based its case on the testimonials submitted by the petitioner himself along with his application and not on any new material which has come to its knowledge.
9. In this connection it is necessary to bear in mind that as per the notice itself inviting applications, a Screening Committee was constituted to scrutinise the qualifications and experience of candidates who had submitted their applications and to recommend suitable candidates amongst them for being called for an interview. The Screening Committee consisted of the Head of the Department of Computer Science and Technology, Goa University; the Dean of the Faculty of Science, Goa University and the Deputy Registrar. The Screening Committee considered the petitioner as possessing the requisite qualifications, both minimum and additional, and recommended that the petitioner should be called for an interview. The Selection Committee, which had 2 outside experts in the field of Computer Science on it, also did not find the petitioner lacking in any of the prescribed qualifications and recommended the petitioner for the post. The same testimonials and certificates on which the Executive Council relied, were scrutinised by the Screening Committee and the Selection Committee and those were found in order. The Executive Council appears to have taken a different view in respect of the very same testimonials and certificates. We do not have any material before us to show that the Executive Council consulted any experts in the field or even its own Screening Committee or the Selection Committee, before arriving at this conclusion, when two expert bodies have found the petitioner to be possessing the requisite qualifications, it is difficult to appreciate the stand to the contrary taken by the Executive Council.
10. The petitioner has pointed out to us that the Graph Theory is as much a part of theoretical Computer Science as Mathematics. He has produced before us a book entitled 'A Basis for Theoretical Computer Science' by Michael A, Arbib, A.J. Koury and Robert N. Mell, which contains a whole chapter on Graph Theory. He has also produced before us a book on the "Graph Theory with Applications to Engineering and Computer Science' by Narsingh Das, in support of his contention that the Graph Theory is a part of theoretical Computer Science. It is not for us to pronounce on the subject. But when two expert bodies have taken the view that a decorate in Graph Theory can be considered as in the field of theoretical Computer Science, and that specialisation in Graph Theory and its application to computer science gives the petitioner the additional prescribed qualification of being a person who has specialised in theoretical Computer Science, it is not for us to take a different view. The contention, therefore, of the Executive Council that the petitioner did not possess the requisite additional qualification does not appear to have any merit.
11. It has also been pointed out to us that as per Note 6 of section 15 of the Goa University Statues, if the Executive Council is unable to accept the recommendations made by a Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders. In the present case, initially the Executive Council had accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Accordingly the Registrar has written a letter to the petitioner offering the post to him. After the petitioner accepted the post, the Executive Council appears to have changed its mind. In such a situation, assuming that Note 6 applies, the correct course for the Executive Council would have been to record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders. In fact, this was done by the Executive Council. But even before the Visitor could pass any final order, a telegram was already sent to the petitioner withdrawing the post from him. This step is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Statues and, therefore, without the authority of law. As a result the petitioner was compelled to file the present petition. The final orders which have been passed by the Visitor have been passed during the pendency of the writ petition and accordingly the order is affected by the fact that such a petition is pending.
12. What is more important, in the present case, the Executive Council accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and offered the post of the petitioner. This offer was accepted by the petitioner. He even tendered his resignation from the post which he was occupying. There was, therefore, a concluded contract as between the University and the petitioner. Our attention is drawn to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Hematram Dave v. Secondary Education Tribunal, reported in 1989(3) S.L.R. 362, where the Gujarat High Court held that once an offer of appointment was accepted by the teacher, the contract of employment was complete although the performance of the contract was postponed a till a later date. The Gujarat High Court in that case considered the teacher to be in service even though at the time of termination he had not taken charge of the post. The Gujarat High Court remitted the reference to the School Tribunal in these circumstances. In the present case also the contract of employment has come into existence although the petitioner had not taken charge as a Reader in Computer Science. In such a situation, Note 5 of section 15 of the Goa University Statues would not strictly come into operation at all because the matter was not at the stage of recommendations but has travelled much further. The Executive Council changed its mind after a contract was concluded with the petitioner. In this connection, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned advocate for the respondents, drew our attention to section 43.15 of the Statues which permits the Executive Council to reconsider subjects once disposed of. It says that subjects once disposed of may be brought up again with reasons which appear adequate to the Vice-Chancellor. This Statue does not help the Executive Council because once the contract of employment has come into existence, there is no question of withdrawing any offer. The contract is concluded. The Executive Council will have to terminate the contract which it cannot do except in accordance with law. There is no such termination in the present case. The impugned action of the respondents is without the authority of law. In the premises, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
13. The College in which the petitioner was teaching as a lecturer has been good enough to allow the petitioner to continue in that post during the pendency of this petition despite his earlier resignation. The petitioner, however, states that he will be in a position to join the 1st respondent from 1st January, 1991.
14. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to take charge of the post of a Reader in Computer Science as from 1st January, 1991.
15. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.