1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5406 OF 2009 ... Mrs.Vaishali Nitin Wadekar ...Petitioner v/s. University of Pune & anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr.M.G.Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:3rd December, 2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the appointment of Respondent No.2 as Lecturer in Zoology. That appointment was made in the month of April, 2008. According 2 to the Petitioner, for being eligible for consideration for the post of Lecturer, with which we are concerned in this petition, specialization in following was necessary: 20(c)Lecturer: 1(DT-A)/(NT-B,1(O.B.C) Specialisation:Biochemistry/Developme ntal Biology/Immunology/ Cell Molecular/ Genetics Ultrastructure/ Histochemistry/ Biophysics/ Genetics/Physiology 2. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 does not have specialisation in Bio-Physics. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 is M.sc. in Micro- Biology. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, the Selection Committee could not have selected the Respondent No.2. On the contrary, the Petitioner has specialisation in the subject of Bio-Physics, but the Petitioner has not been selected. 3 3. The University has filed its reply. University in paragraph 8 of its reply states thus: ......The contention of the Petitioner to the effect that the Respondent No.2 is not having the specialization mentioned against the said post, is not true and correct. The subjects mentioned in the specialization are the subjects required to be studied at the post graduate level and it is not obligatory on a candidate to possess a degree in those subjects for becoming eligible for appointment to the said post of Lecturer. It may not be out of place to mention that many subjects mentioned in the specialization do not have M.sc. Or B.sc. Degree in that subject, viz. Genetics Ultrastructure, Immunology, Developmental Biology, Cell Molecular etc. But it is pertinent to note that these subjects are thorougly taught in M.Sc. Micorobiology, M.Sc. Zoology, M.Sc. Courses. 4. The Respondent No.2 has been selected by a Selection Committee constituted under the Maharashtra University Act, which has also experts in a subject. In our opinion, 4 once the Selection Committee consisting of experts in the subject found that the Respondent No.2 is qualified for the post, we in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution would not be justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Committee in the absence of allegation of any bias, malice or in the absence of allegation that the constitution of the Selection Committee was invalid. In our opinion, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/university rightly relied on the observations made in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v/s. Dr.B.S.Mahajan etc., AIR 1990 SC 434. Paragraph 9 reads as under:- 9. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their 5 appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction. 6 5. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, petition does not deserve to be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)