The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963
24. It was then contended by the learned Counsel for the third respondent that equation of educational qualification and degrees are primarily matters from the authorities of the University and even if there were any doubts in this matter, this Court could not go into the same and should refer it to experts in the field of education. Learned Counsel for the third respondent made a strenuous plea in the light of the materials placed before us that, the matter should be referred to a committee of experts in order to find out whether the area of specialisation undertaken by the third respondent would or would not be equivalent to a Ph.D in the subject of criminology. We are unable to accept this request of the learned Counsel. The decision of the Supremen Court in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao was also placed before us. In that case, the University of Mysore had prescribed certain qualifications for the appointment of Reader in English, one qualification being that the applicant should hold a First or High Second Class Masters Degree of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a Foreign University in the subject concerned. The applicant therein, had a Master's Degree in the Indian University securing 50.2 per cent and also had a Foreign Degree. The High Court held that 50.2 per cent is not a High Second Class in the Masters Degree and that, therefore, the applicant did not satisfy this qualification. The appointment was set aside. In the appeal by the University, the Supreme Court held that, in view of the fact that the University also permitted an equivalent qualification of a Foreign University, it was for the Board of Appointments, who are generally great academicians well versed in the field, to enter into this task of equalisation of the degree and when a decision of equalisation is taken up by them, Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by these experts. The case on hand bears no analogy to the facts therein, since the question of equalisation of degrees does not arise here. The first respondent has the prescribed qualifications in no ambiguous terms, the qualification regarding Ph.D. being that, it should be in the subject. No equivalent degree has been permitted so as to make the committee that interviewed the third respondent, to decide the question off equalisation of degrees. If the appellant did not have Ph.D. in the subject, in the absence of the first respondent permitting Ph.D; either in a related subject or in an inter-disciplinary subject, the question of equalisation could never have been gone into by the Selection Committee then, or by any other Committee, even now.