2008 (8) TMI 886 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant fulfills the requisite academic qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration in Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant fulfills the requisite academic qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the appellant's appointment based on the distinction between Political Science and Public Administration.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requisite Academic Qualification for Appointment:

The core issue in this appeal is whether the appellant, who holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science, meets the academic qualifications required for the position of Reader in Public Administration at Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa. The respondent-university had advertised for the post of Reader in Public Administration, and the appellant applied, claiming to be fully eligible. The selection committee, comprising eminent experts, selected the appellant, who then joined the post.

However, another applicant, who was not selected, filed a writ petition alleging that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification, as his degrees were in Political Science and not Public Administration. The university countered this by stating that Public Administration is a branch of Political Science, and hence, the appellant was rightly selected.

The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University, held that Political Science and Public Administration are distinct disciplines, and thus, the appellant was not qualified for the post. The High Court also referred to Regulation 2 of the UGC Regulations, which mandates that appointments to teaching posts must meet the qualifications for the appropriate subject.

2. High Court's Decision and Its Quashing:

The High Court's decision was based on the interpretation that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are distinct and separate. The High Court emphasized that a person must have qualifications in the relevant subject for appointment as a Reader. The court interpreted the UGC Regulation to mean that the qualification in the relevant subject is necessary for the post of Reader, similar to the requirement for the post of Lecturer.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the High Court's interpretation. It held that the expression "in the relevant subject" should be read into the qualifications for the post of Reader as well. The court reasoned that not doing so would lead to absurd results, such as someone with an M.A. in Music being eligible for a Reader position in Political Science.

The Supreme Court also discussed the Mimansa Principles of Interpretation, particularly the Anusanga principle, which allows for the insertion of words by implication to avoid absurdity. Applying this principle, the court concluded that the words "in the relevant subject" should be inserted in the qualifications for the post of Reader.

Despite this, the Supreme Court acknowledged the opinion of academic experts and the University Grants Commission (UGC), which considered Political Science and Public Administration to be inter-related and interchangeable subjects. The court noted that many universities and educational institutions treat these subjects as interchangeable, and a large number of appointments have been made on this basis.

The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not the role of the courts to sit in appeal over the opinions of academic experts. The court cited several precedents where it was held that academic matters should be left to the experts. The UGC had clarified that a Master's degree in either Political Science or Public Administration makes a candidate eligible for teaching positions in both subjects.

The court also noted that the decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda's case was based on a concession and did not provide a reasoned basis for distinguishing between the two subjects. Therefore, it could not be treated as a binding precedent.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the appellant's qualifications in Political Science were sufficient for the post of Reader in Public Administration. The court allowed the appeal, dismissed the writ petition filed in the High Court, and upheld the appellant's appointment. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →