HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15146 OF 2000 Date : 30.12.2009 Between: Dr. A.Gopal Menon. …… Petitioner And University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar & others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15146 OF 2000 ORDER : This writ petition was filed on 20th November 2002, initially, by seeking directions by way of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to treat the candidature of the petitioner equally on par with the candidates, by allowing him to face the Selection Committee for the purpose of selections to the posts of Reader and Lecturer in the University of Hyderabad. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the selections and appointment orders issued in favour of respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner sought permission for amendment of the prayer by filing WPMP.No.3673 of 2003, which is allowed on 27th of August 2003. In terms of the amended prayer, the petitioner seeks a declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the selection of respondents 3, 4 and 5 to the posts of Reader and Lecturers pursuant to the Notification No.RECTT/P-I/2/99, dated 08.11.1999 in the 1st respondent University, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The University of Hyderabad is a Central University, established in 1974, by an Act of Parliament. It has issued Notification No.RECTT/P-I/2/99, dated 08.11.1999, inviting applications in prescribed format, to fill up various faculty posts. In the said notification, respondents have notified the vacancies of 11 posts of Professors, 26 posts of Readers and 56 posts of Lecturers. In this petition, the dispute relates to the appointments made to the posts of Reader and Lecturer in the department of History. In the aforesaid notification, at Serial No.39, respondents have notified two posts of Readers i.e. one post in Ancient Indian History and the 2nd post in any area of historical research, and two posts of Lecturers i.e. first post in Medieval Indian History (Desirable with research interest in Medieval Deccan) and the 2nd post in any area of Historical Research. The 1st respondent-University also issued written instructions to candidates and instruction No.12 reads as follows : “University will make a preliminary selection of candidates on the basis of information furnished by the candidates in their applications. Possession of minimum qualifications prescribed will not automatically entitle a candidate to be called for the test or interview, if better qualified candidates are available. Summoning of a candidate to a test or interview merely indicates that the University thinks it possible that he will be selected or recommended along with other candidates.” 4. In response to the notification, number of candidates have applied for various posts in the faculty positions. All the applications were placed before the Screening Committee to restrict the candidates to be called for interview on the basis of qualification, experience in accordance with the norms laid down by the University. Among the applicants, keeping in view the ratio of 1:5, the Screening Committee shortlisted the candidates. The petitioner herein, claiming specialization in modern history, has applied to the post of Reader and also to the 2nd post of Lecturer in History, but he was not called for interview on the ground that he was not fulfilling the criteria adopted by the Screening Committee to be called for interview. At that stage, he filed the writ petition, seeking directions to the respondents 1 and 2, to interview him and to consider his candidature along with the other candidates, and this Court, by an order dated 17th of August 2000, passed in WPMP.No.19211 of 2000, issued directions to the 1st respondent-University to permit the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee for interview to the post of Lecturer. Pursuant to such directions, the petitioner was interviewed and his candidature was considered to the vacancy of Lecturer, but he did not come up for selection. The Selection Committee, after interviewing the candidates, who fulfilled the eligibility criteria in the screening test, recommended respondent No.3 herein to the post of Reader and respondents 4 and 5 to the post of Lecturer. Based on the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council of the University has appointed respondent No.3 as a Reader and respondents 4 and 5 as Lecturers, and issued appointment orders, and consequently, they joined the service of the University. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, initially, it is the case of the petitioner that no reasons were assigned by the Registrar of the University for not issuing call letter to him by the Selection Committee to interview him to consider his candidature for selection. General allegations are made stating that he was being discriminated only on the ground that he is a Kerlite, and further alleging that some vested interests in the University are trying to prevent him from appearing before the Selection Committee by not issuing the call letter. After respondents 3 to 5 were appointed, though an implead petition was filed to implead them, but no additional grounds are raised in the writ petition, challenging their appointment. Merely in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application in WPMP.No.22623 of 2001 for impleadment of respondents 3 to 5, it is alleged by the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee is illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that the seven point grading system adopted in selection proceedings was not notified to the candidates at any point of time, and keeping in dark the candidates who have applied for the posts, assessment of merit was made. It is the case of the petitioner that grading the candidates as ‘outstanding’, ‘very good’, ‘good’ etc., is not the correct method of evaluation, because the members of the Selection Committee may construe two different things by the said expressions. With regard to the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Reader, it is alleged that one Professor by name Ajay Mitra Sastry, is a Research Supervisor of the 3rd respondent, as such, he should not have been the member of Selection Committee for selecting the 3rd respondent. By giving the particulars of various qualifications and experience possessed by the petitioner, he claims that he is more meritorious than respondent No.3. So far as respondent No.4 is concerned, it is alleged that he has been selected and Appointed as Lecturer against the post notified for Medieval Indian History by submitting his Doctoral theses on the Buddhist Studies. It is alleged that the topic of Doctoral theses has no connection with the Medieval Indian History, much less Deccan history. So far as the 5th respondent is concerned, it is alleged that she is a fresh Ph.D from London, as such, she is not having necessary experience, but inspite of the same, she was selected, ignoring the case of the petitioner. By stating the aforesaid grounds, he sought impleadment of respondents 3 to 5, but at no point of time, he has filed any petition to raise additional grounds in the writ petition. 6. The University of Hyderabad has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, through its Registrar. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent vide Notification No. RECTT/P-I/2/99, dated 08.11.1999, it has called for applications to the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in various disciplines and for the post of Lecturer in History, it is stated that two vacancies each were advertised in the category of Reader and Lecturer. It is stated that respondent No.1 has received 145 applications to the post of Lecturer, and all the applications were placed before the Screening Committee, so as to call the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:5. As such, the Screening Committee has shortlisted the candidates to 34 for two posts of Lecturer. The petitioner, whose specialization is Modern History, has applied for the 2nd post of History, but not satisfied the criteria adopted by the Screening Committee with regard to age, as the petitioner was above 50 years according to his application, though in the affidavit mentioned it as 46 years. It is stated that apart from the petitioner, 27 others were called for interview to the 2nd post of History in any area of historical research, and out of 27, petitioner and 15 others attended the interview. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the Screening Committee, after assessing the performance and basing on the information furnished to them through the applications and other material, made assessment of the relative merit of each candidate. The respondents have denied the allegation of the petitioner that he has got superior merit and his non-selection is illegal. It is stated that in the absence of any illegality committed by the members of the Selection Committee, the petitioner cannot make any request to this Court to examine the selection as appellate authority with regard to comparative merit. It is stated that the Selection Committee made the objective assessment and evaluation of the merits and performance of each candidate by interviewing them and has graded the performance of each candidate by following the scale of assessment as ‘outstanding’, ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘average’, ‘below average’, ‘poor’ and ‘unsatisfactory’. Counter further states that as per Condition No.10 of the employment notification, it is specifically notified to the candidates that the selections will be made based on the candidates’ previous record and their performance in the interview. It is further stated that though the petitioner claims to be a pool officer of CSIR, he did not get his application endorsed as contemplated in Rule 11 of the employment notification, and by keeping blanks of such column, submitted his application. Further, on the allegation of the petitioner that the Head of the Department of History i.e. Professor Mrs.Aloka Parasar Sen has obstructed his induction into the 1st respondent-University, it is stated that the apprehension of the petitioner is only a figment of petitioner’s imagination, as much as the Selection Committee comprises of eminent academicians drawn by the panel of experts prepared by the academic council, experts nominated by the President of India, apart from the Vice-Chancellor, Head of the Department and Dean. While pleading that the University has followed the procedure scrupulously, it is stated that the writ petition is devoid of merit, and therefore, prayed for its dismissal. 7. A separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 5. In the detailed affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, while denying the various adverse allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that by the time he submitted his application, he was Post Graduate in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology and Ph.D. in the said subject from Nagpur University and also was having 11 years of Post Graduate teaching experience. Further, it is stated that he has published one book and 15 research papers and journals and books, including some in international journals. It is stated that he has also presented research papers in the conferences held in France, Netherlands and Malaysia. It is stated that in view of the qualifications possessed by him, the duly constituted Selection Committee has selected him and appointed him as a Reader and he joined in duty on 11.10.2000, pursuant to his appointment order, dated 8th September 2000. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner was permitted to appear for interview only pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court. 8. So far as respondent No.4 is concerned, it is stated that he is having M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D. in History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He has also cleared National Eligibility Test for Lecturers and also Junior Research Fellowship conducted by the University Grants Commission and he was also awarded the above Fellowship for pursuing M.Phil and Ph.D. programmes. He has published a book titled ‘The Buddhist Monastery’ and also two articles, namely, ‘Life of the Buddha’ and ‘Spread of Dharma’ in the book ‘Walking With The Buddha’, and that he was also Research Associate for preparation of the above book. It is further stated that respondent No.4 has done his Post Doctoral Research during 1999-2000, for which, he was awarded prestigious Junior Fellowship in Indology by the Department of Culture, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. It is stated that in view of the qualifications possessed by him, the duly constituted Selection Committee has recommended for his selection, basing upon which, he was appointed by issuing the appointing order, dated 31st of March 2001, issued by the 1st respondent, and joined in service on 04.04.2001. It is stated that after completion of probation, his services were regularized. It is further stated that the 1st post of Lecturer as notified by the 1st respondent-University is meant only for Medieval Indian History and that he was possessing the requisite qualification of Medieval Indian History, whereas the petitioner was not having any qualification in Medieval Indian History. In the counter, he has specifically denied the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has no connection with the Medieval Indian History and it is stated that the traditional Tibetan culture area includes vast areas of India like Ladakh, large parts of Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Darjeeling and Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, all of which, are integral parts of the Indian Union. It is stated that the focus of the Ph.D. theses of respondent No.4 is on the Spread of Buddhism in the above mentioned regions in the Medieval period. Hence, the above study pertains to Buddhist history of Medieval India. 9. So far as respondent No.5 is concerned, in the counter, it is stated that she is having M.A. and M.Phil in History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Ph.D. from the University of London. During her M.Phil study, she was awarded the Junior Research Fellowship by the Indian Council of Historical Research. For the Ph.D. programme, she was awarded the prestigious Commonwealth Fellowship. With regard to experience, it is stated that respondent No.5 has Post-Doctoral Research experience as a Visiting Junior Associate Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi, from December 1996 to February 1998. Further, she was Research Co-ordinator at the CSDS from February 1998 to June 1999. It is stated that in addition to the above said qualifications, she has undertaken three research papers; one on ‘Studies on Violence and Partition Violence’, funded by the Committee for the Cultural Choices, CSDS, the 2nd project is on ‘Corruption’, CSDS, and the 3rd project is titled ‘Towards a More People Friendly and Economic Court Procedure’, CSDS. It is also stated that she has published 8 research articles and presented 4 papers in conferences, which were in press at the time of application, in addition to a book, which was also in the press at the time of application. It is stated that the Selection Committee, having regard to her performance in the interview and the qualifications possessed by her, selected her and recommended for appointment, and accordingly, the 1st respondent-University has issued appointment order, dated 23rd April 2001, and she joined in service on 30th of April 2001, and her services were also regularized subsequently. Referring to the allegation of the petitioner that she is a fresh Ph.D. Doctorate, it is stated that she has 3 years 4 months Post-Doctoral research experience by the time she applied. Further, she has also got experience as a Course Co-ordinator for the Under- graduate studies in the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, for six months from April 1992 to September 1992. Pleading that there are absolutely no merits in the writ petition, the 5th respondent has prayed for its dismissal. 10. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2-Universities, and Sri K.V.N.Bhupal, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5. 11. With reference to the allegations made by the petitioner, it has been submitted by Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for petitioner that in this case, selections are made arbitrarily and illegally and in a biased manner. It is submitted that though the petitioner has applied for the posts of Reader and Lecturer, he was not even called for interview for any one of the said posts, though he is having better qualifications than the selected candidates. It is submitted that one of the members of the Selection Committee, by name, Professor Ajay Mitra Sastry of Nagpur, was a Research Supervisor of the 3rd respondent herein, and inspite of the same, he has participated in the selection process, in which, respondent No.3 was selected for the post of Reader. Further, it is submitted that there are no guidelines for the selection process, and also no set procedure to be adopted by the members of the Selection Committee. It is submitted that though all the unofficial respondents 3, 4 and 5 are not qualified to hold the post, they were selected and appointed, and therefore, such appointments are fit to be set aside in view of the arbitrary action on the part of respondents 1 and 2. 12. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the following judgments : 1. Ranjit Thakur V. Union of India[1] 2. Baidyanath Mahapatra V. State of Orissa[2] 3. C.Muralikrishna V. Telugu University, Hyderabad[3] 4. Gullappalli Nageswara Rao V. State of A.P.[4] 5. A.P.S.R.T.C. V. Sri Satyanarayana Transports (P) Ltd.[5] 6. A.K.Kraipak V. Union of India[6] 7. S. Parthasarathi V. State of A.P.[7] 8. Dr. G.Sarana V. University of Lucknow[8] 9. Ashok Kumar Yadav V. State of Haryana[9] 10. G.N.Nayak V. Goa University[10] 11. Dr. Triloki Nath Singh V. Dr.Bhagwan Din Misra[11] 12. K.V.L. Kameswari V. Andhra University[12] 13. A.Periakaruppan V. State of Tamilnadu[13] 14. Lila Dhar V. State of Rajasthan[14] 13. In the case of Ranjit Thakur (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held; “The second limb of the contention is as to the effect of the alleged bias on the part of respondent 4. The test of real likelihood of bias is whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and is whether respondent 4 was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. It is the essence of a judgment that it is made after due observance of the judicial process; that the Court or Tribunal passing it observes, at least the minimal requirements of natural justice is composed of impartial persons acting fairly and without bias and in good faith. A judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial ‘coram non judice’.” 14. In the case of Baidyanath Mahapatra (2 supra), when an issue was taken up on administrative side and same issue is dealt by a member of Administrative Committee on judicial side, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held : “There is a disturbing feature of this case which vitiats Tribunal’s order. Shri Gian Chand, Chairman of the Tribunal, ex-Chief Secretary of the State of Orissa, was member of the Review Committee which made recommendation against the appellant for his premature retirement, and in pursuance thereof the State Government had issued the impugned order. It appears that Shri Gian Chand had latter been appointed as Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal. Shri Gian Chand participated in the proceedings of the Tribunal, and he is party to the decision of the Tribunal. These facts show that Mr.Gian Chand, who had administratively taken a decision against the appellant, considered the matter judicially as a Chairman of the Tribunal, thereby he acted as a Judge of his own cause. While it is true that there is no allegation of personal bias against Shri Gian Chand, he may have acted bona fide, nonetheless, the principles of natural justice, fair play, and judicial discipline required that he should have abstained from hearing the appellant’s case. While considering the appellant’s case, the Tribunal exercised judicial powers and it was required to act judicially, as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and High Court have been excluded and vested in the Administrative Tribunal. The Members of the Tribunal must follow rules of natural justice in administering justice like Judges, they should not sit in judgment on their own decisions. Shri Gian Chand was disqualified to hear the appellant’s case. The order of the Tribunal is vitiated on this ground but as the appellant had not raised any objection before the Tribunal against the participation of Shri Gian Chand, we do not consider it necessary to grant relief to the appellant on this ground.” 15. In the case of C. Muralikrishna (3 supa), a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that the Selection Committee cannot select a person who is not possessing the prescribed qualifications and experience on the ground that he possesses other qualifications and experience, which is equal or superior to that of prescribed under the Rules. It is held in the said judgment that it is not for the Selection Committee to replace the prescribed qualifications and experience by other types of qualifications and experience. 16. In the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (4 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 5 and 6 as under : 5. The learned Advocate-General sought to make out a distinction between "official bias" of an authority which is inherent in a statutory duty imposed on it and "personal bias" of the said authority in favour of, or against, one of the parties and contended that the mere fact that the Chief Minister of the Government had supported the policy of Nationalisation, or even the fact that the Government initiated the said scheme, did not disqualify him from deciding the dispute unless it was established that he was guilty of personal bias, and that there was no legal proof establishing the said fact. 6. At this stage, it would be convenient to notice briefly, the decisions cited at the Bar disclosing the relevant principles governing the "doctrine of bias". The principles governing the "doctrine of bias" vis-_is judicial tribunals are well-settled and they are: (i) no man shall be a judge in his own cause; (ii) justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. The two maxims yield the result that if a member of a judicial body is "subject to a bias (whether financial or other) in favour of, or against, any party to a dispute, or is in such a position that a bias must be assumed to exist, he ought not to take part in the decision or sit on the tribunal"; and that "any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter of inquiry will disqualify a judge, and any interest, though not pecuniary, will have the same effect, if it be sufficiently substantial to create a reasonable suspicion of bias". The said principles are equally applicable to authorities, though they are not courts of justice or judicial tribunals, who have to act judicially in deciding the rights of others, i.e., authorities who are empowered to discharge quasi-judicial functions. 17. In the case of APSRTC V. Sri Satyanarayana Transports (P) Ltd. (5 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held; “The position in law in regard to the plea of bias raised against the Minister is not in doubt. It is clear that when the Minister heard the objections to the proposed schemes under S. 68D (2), he was dealing with the matter in a quasi-judicial manner and his inquiry had to conform to the principles of natural justice. It is an elementary rule of natural justice that a person who tries a cause should be able to deal with the matter before him objectively, fairly, and impartially. As has been observed in the Jewitt's Dictionary of English Law, "anything which tends or may be regarded as tending to cause such a person to decide a case otherwise