1980 (4) TMI 311 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the selection process for Readers at Allahabad University.
2. Interpretation of qualifications required for the post of Readers.
3. Validity of the interview process used by the selection committee.
4. Unequal treatment of candidates during the selection process.
5. Consequences of invalidating appointments made years ago.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Selection Process:
The core controversy revolves around the legality of the selection of Readers by Allahabad University. The court acknowledged the delicate balance between the internal autonomy of educational bodies and judicial oversight to correct clear injustices. The court concluded that no authority, including university organs, is above the law. The court found that the appellate judgment should be reversed, restoring the single Judge's judgment that quashed the selections made by the University bodies for the posts of Readers in English.

2. Interpretation of Qualifications:
The qualifications for the post of Readers are prescribed under Ordinance 9 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921. The qualifications include a first or high second class Master's degree, established reputation for sound scholarship, a doctoral degree or equivalent published work, and at least five years of teaching experience. The court emphasized that the term "high second class" is mandatory and not directory. The court held that a high second class must be interpreted as marks above the midpoint of the second class range, specifically above 54%. Consequently, respondents 5, 6, and 8, who did not meet this criterion, were deemed ineligible.

3. Validity of the Interview Process:
The selection committee's decision to use interviews as part of the selection process was scrutinized. The court found no inherent flaw in the methodology of interviews, provided they adhered to the basics of natural justice, fairness, and reasonableness. The court acknowledged that while interviews are not inherently bad, they must be conducted transparently and without arbitrariness. The court dismissed the argument that the interview process was unauthorized, stating that the selection committee had the discretion to adopt pragmatic and functionally viable processes.

4. Unequal Treatment of Candidates:
The court highlighted the unequal treatment of candidates during the selection process. Specifically, the second petitioner did not appear for the interview, while respondent 9, Dr. Bhattacharya, was given a second opportunity to appear. The court found this to be a violation of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The court concluded that the selection of Dr. Bhattacharya was invalid due to this unequal treatment.

5. Consequences of Invalidating Appointments:
The court acknowledged the hardship that invalidating the appointments would cause, given that respondents 5, 6, 8, and 9 had been functioning as Readers for several years without blemish. The court suggested that the University might take steps to mitigate the hardship caused by the invalidation of their appointments. The court allowed the appeal and directed a fresh selection process for the posts of Readers, ensuring that only those who met the qualifications as interpreted by the court would be considered.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the court directed a fresh selection process for the posts of Readers. The appointments of respondents 7 and 10 were upheld, while the appointments of respondents 5, 6, 8, and 9 were invalidated. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed qualifications and ensuring fairness and equality in the selection process.