2015 (8) TMI 1434 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment of Respondent to the post of Associate Professor - case of respondent is that the selection was not done strictly as per the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and that the Respondent No. 1-writ Petitioner having fulfilled all the requirements ought to have been selected to one of the three vacancies of Associate Professor - Held that - From a reading of the necessary qualifications mentioned in the Rules and the advertisement, it is manifest that a candidate must have a good academic record with a doctoral degree with 5 years experience in research/teaching at University or National level research Institute. Held that - The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra - In Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors. 1976 (7) TMI 168 - SUPREME COURT , a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the Petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. It was held in the case that the failure of the Appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The Division Bench has committed grave error in law by passing the impugned judgment reversing the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal allowed - respondent has no case on merit - decided against respondent.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Alleged infraction of recruitment rules.
3. Validity of the selection process and qualifications.
4. Participation in the selection process and subsequent challenge.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the duties performed by the Appellant-Institute are in the nature of public function, bringing it within the ambit of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the Appellant-Institute argued that it was not created by any statute and was founded as a trust, with no government-held corpus, thus not qualifying as a 'State'. The Supreme Court did not conclusively determine this issue, leaving it open for future consideration.

2. Alleged Infraction of Recruitment Rules:
The Respondent No. 1-writ Petitioner contended that the selection process was not strictly in accordance with the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement, alleging a variance between the advertisement and the prescribed rules. The qualifications in the Rules required a good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work and five years of experience in teaching and/or research. The advertisement specified a doctoral degree in Social Sciences, at least five published papers, and experience in research/teaching at University/national level research institutions. The Supreme Court found no substantial discrepancy between the qualifications in the Rules and the advertisement.

3. Validity of the Selection Process and Qualifications:
The short-listing of candidates was conducted by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and senior Professors, and the Selection Committee comprised eminent Social Scientists. The integrity of the Committee members was not questioned. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with the decision of Academic Authorities regarding the suitability of candidates, as the selected candidates possessed the requisite qualifications and experience. The Division Bench's conclusion that the selection process was vitiated due to variations in the advertisement and the constitution of the Selection Committee was deemed erroneous.

4. Participation in the Selection Process and Subsequent Challenge:
The Respondent No. 1-writ Petitioner participated in the selection process without raising objections to the alleged discrepancies in the advertisement and the rules, or the constitution of the Committee. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge it after being declared unsuccessful. This principle was supported by precedents such as Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi. The Court held that the Respondent's conduct of challenging the process only after not being selected disentitled him from questioning the selection.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge. It concluded that there was no illegality in the Appellant-Institute's decision dated 14.08.2006 for the appointment of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to the post of Associate Professor.