2002 (1) TMI 1290 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the amendment of eligibility criteria.
2. Constitution of the Selection Committee.
3. Maintenance of records by the Selection Committee.
4. Allegations of bias in the selection process.
5. Qualifications of the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Amendment of Eligibility Criteria:
The High Court found that the eligibility criteria had been illegally amended in disregard of the University Statutes. However, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent No. 5 was aware of the change in eligibility criteria and still applied for the post without protest. Hence, the respondent No. 5 could not later challenge the criteria.

2. Constitution of the Selection Committee:
The High Court held that the Selection Committee was not legally constituted. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Academic Council had prepared a panel of subject experts which was approved by the Executive Council. The substitution of unavailable experts with others from the approved panel did not violate Statute 15. The Supreme Court also accepted the Registrar's affidavit stating that Dr. Chandramohan, who was reported absent, had actually participated and signed the report, dismissing the High Court's concern about the quorum.

3. Maintenance of Records by the Selection Committee:
The High Court criticized the Selection Committee for not maintaining records of inter-se grading between candidates. The Supreme Court noted that there was no specific Ordinance requiring a particular method of assessment. The unanimous decision of the Selection Committee, even without detailed records, was deemed acceptable.

4. Allegations of Bias in the Selection Process:
The High Court found the selection process vitiated by bias. The Supreme Court clarified that not every kind of bias vitiates an act; it must be a prejudice founded on personal interest. The note by respondent No. 2 praising the appellant was seen as a professional opinion rather than personal bias. The Supreme Court did not find sufficient evidence of bias affecting the selection process.

5. Qualifications of the Appellant:
The High Court held that the appellant did not possess the essential qualifications. The Supreme Court analyzed the eligibility criteria and found that the appellant's pre-doctoral research could be counted towards the required 10 years of experience, aligning with the precedent set in Dr. Kumar Bar Das v. Utkal University. The University had consistently considered pre-doctoral research for eligibility, and the respondent No. 5 himself had been considered under similar circumstances previously.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, allowing the appeal and upholding the appellant's selection as Professor of Marine Science. The Court emphasized the importance of the University's interpretation of eligibility criteria and the unanimous decision of the Selection Committee. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.