1 WP 283,296,300.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 283 OF 2011 Dr. Vilas Tejrao Jadhav .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.K.Gawali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 296 OF 2011 Dr. Ramchandra S/o Nivrutti Sabale .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2011 2 WP 283,296,300.2011 Dr. Janardhan Rajaram Kadam .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.K.Gawali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 21/01/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are aspirants for the post of Vice Chancellor of Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani [ For short, ‘ the Vidyapith ’ ]. 2. The petitioners contend that the Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra vide Order dated 21/7/2010 laid down the eligibility norms for the post of Vice Chancellor. The same was published. As per the eligibility criteria, the competence of aspiring candidates were to be tested on three ( 3 ) different criteria, which are as under : (i) Essential qualification and experience. (ii) Desirable experience, and (iii) Desirable competence. 3 WP 283,296,300.2011 As per the first criteria i.e. essential qualification and experience, the following essential qualification and experience was mandatory : “ Essential Qualification and Experience - 1. Earned Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Agriculture or related fields. 2. Experience of 20 years in teaching, research and extension education in Agriculture or related fields. 3. At least 8 years of experience in the administration and technical field and 8 years of experience on the post not below the rank of Professor or equivalent post. 4. Minimum of five research publications in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals after Ph.D. and/or published quality books in a recognized discipline, referenced for study in higher education at the National/International level. 5. Execution of at least one major 4 WP 283,296,300.2011 research project. 6. Experience of working with international bodies or international exposure through participation in workshops,seminars or conferences held outside the country. 7. Experience of organizing events such as workshops, seminars, conference at an International level within the country in the field of agriculture. 8. Demonstrated experience in leadership ”. 3. The Search Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Shri. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Search Committee vide advertisement dated 15/9/2010 invited interested candidates to apply for the said post of Vice Chancellor of the Vidyapith. The petitioners pursuant to the said advertisement, applied for the post of Vice Chancellor of the said Vidyapith. The Committee has issued call letters to the candidates for interview to be conducted on 23/1/2011. The petitioners did not receive the call letters for the interview. The petitioners contended that upon the information received through the Nodal Officer, it was informed to them that they did 5 WP 283,296,300.2011 not satisfy the condition No. 3 of the essential qualification and experience. The petitioners being aggrieved by the act of the respondents in not calling them for the interview to be conducted on 23/1/2011 have filed the present Writ Petition. 4. The respondent no. 3 has filed affidavit in reply and clarified the grounds for non consideration of the petitioners for oral interviews. In affidavit in reply, following details are given : “5. A meeting of Search Committee was held at 3.00 p.m. on January 3, 2011 at room no. 104, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. The Committee considered in detail the contributions of the candidates as detailed in part A, B and C of the application. While short listing the candidates, the following criteria have been used : “ The experience of the candidate in terms of number of years spent as Head of Division/Zonal Co-ordinators/Associate Dean/Dean/Associate Director/Directors of Research or equivalent is considered qualified 6 WP 283,296,300.2011 for administrative experience. Also number of years of work as involved in ICAR, in All India Coordinated projects or In charge of Regional Units is also considered as qualifying for the administrative experience ”. 8. The reasons for not holding the three petitioners as qualified for short listing are as under : (a) Dr. Vilas Tejrao Jadhav, an applicant for the post has clearly stated under item 13 of his application under details of employment that he holds the post of “ Director ” at National Research Centre on Pomegranate, Solapur (ICAR Institute) w.e.f. 5th December, 2006 this post has administrative responsibilities. The previous post held by him did not have any administrative functions as claimed by the applicants. The xerox of the relevant page is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R-3. However, the candidates in his Writ Petition has now claimed that the earlier 7 WP 283,296,300.2011 posts held by him as Professor (CAS) and Professor, Plant Pathology had work of administrative nature. Accordingly, Dr. Jadhav has an administrative experience of 3 years 10 months. Apart from this, Dr. Jadhav does not seem to possess any type of administrative experience as per the criteria fixed for short listing by the search committee. There has been no mention of experience in All India Coordinated Project/In charge of Units/HOD and above etc. in the application. Since Dr. Jadhav’s administrative experience as per the criteria laid down by the search committee fails significantly short of eight years, his name has not been included in the list of short listed candidates. (b) Dr. R.N.Sabale, (Rtd.) Head, Dept. of Agricultural Meteorology, MPKV, Rahuri has submitted his application and was received at the office of the Nodal Officer, on 8 WP 283,296,300.2011 11/10/2010. in continuation of his application, Dr. Sabale had sent another representation through Government of Maharashtra and was received at the office of the Nodal Officer on 20/12/2010 ( after the last date of receipt of applications). As per the criteria for administrative experience laid down by the Search Committee at its meeting held on 3/1/2011, Dr. Sabale does not possess the required number of years of administrative experience as can be seen from the table below : Sr. Post held University Duration Number of No. years of experience 1. Head of Agril. MPKV, Rahuri 1/7/2003 to 6 Years Meteorology. 31/12/2009 6 months. 2. (a) Director, MPKV, Rahuri 1/7/2003 to Period Centre of 31/12/2009 already Advanced included in studies in Agril. Sr.No. 1. Meteorology. (b) Associate MPKV, Rahuri 7/11/2006 to Period Dean, 1/1/2008 already College of included in Agriculture, Sr.No. 1. Pune. 9 WP 283,296,300.2011 3. Associate MPKV, Rahuri 5/3/2003 to Only Directors of 15/6/2005 additional Research. Period of 4 months. Dr. Sabale’s contention that he had held additional charge of Head (200-2003) on several occasions during the medical leave of the regular incumbent can not agreed upon as already a regular incumbent was in service holding that post. Dr. Sabale’s contention that he had worked in a ICAR Adhoc project (2000-2004) again is not acceptable as single scientist single centre oriented Adhoc projects can not be equated to the All India Coordinated Research Projects sanctioned by ICAR to a University as decided by the Search Committee. 9. In view of the above, Dr. Sabale does not satisfy the requirement of 8 years of administrative and technical experience and falls short of the same. Hence, the 10 WP 283,296,300.2011 application of Dr. R.N. Sabale has not been considered for short listing. (c) Dr. Janardhan R. Kadam, currently working as Professor and Head of Section of Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry in college of Agriculture, Dhule has the following kind of administrative experience as laid down under the criteria for qualifying as administrative experience by the search committee. Sr. Position held Years Months Days No. 1. Professor and Head of Section of - 4 10 Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry in College of Agriculture, Dhule, MPKV. 2. Chief Scientist (AICRP) 2 7 7 & Associate Director of Research, ZARS, Solapur. 3. Head of the Dept. of Soil Science - - 19 & Agricultural Chemistry, MPKV, Rahuri. 11 WP 283,296,300.2011 4. Professor & Head, IFD-IWM, - 2 7 MPKV, Rahuri. Total 3 2 13 Chief Soil Survey Officer, Yashwant 3 3 10 Coop. Sugar Factory. Total 6 5 23 10. As is clear from the above table, Dr. J.R. Kadam falls significantly short of 8 years as qualifying administrative experience as per the criteria laid down by the Search Committee. Further, his claim of as PI of adhoc Research Project which is single scientist and single centre based activity is not considered as qualifying administrative experience by the committee as has been done in the case of Dr. R.N. Sabale. Further, the requirement of 8 years of service on the post not below the rank of Professor or equivalent post, is also not satisfied by Dr. J.R. Kadam, as seen from 12 WP 283,296,300.2011 the table below : Sr. Position held Years Months Days No. 1. Professor and Head of Section of - 4 10 Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry in College of Agriculture, Dhule, MPKV. 2. Chief Scientist (AICRP) 2 7 7 & Associate Director of Research, ZARS, Solapur. 3. Head of the Dept. of Soil Science - - 19 & Agricultural Chemistry, MPKV, Rahuri. Professor of Soil Science and 1 10 Agriculture Chemistry (Add. Charge) MPKV, Rahuri. 4. Professor & Head, IFD-IWM, - 2 7 MPKV, Rahuri. Total 5 0 13 11. The candidate has worked as Soil Chemist and Chief Soil Survey Officer at Yashwant Co-op. Sugar Factory, Akluj, Solapur for the period of 3 years, 3 months 13 WP 283,296,300.2011 and 10 days from 11/1/1978 to 20/4/1981. This he claims to be equivalent to Professor rank. Firstly, after holding this post, the candidates has joined as Senior Research Assistant at MPKV, Rahuri at a much lower pay of Rs. 500-900 on 21/4/1981 which is rather strange. The service experience certificate given by the Associate Dean makes this fact clear. Dr. Kadam has attached a notification from the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation dated 10/6/2004, stating that this post is equivalent to professor rank. Here again the pay scale given is Rs. 14,300-18,300 which is less than the professor’s grade in Universities at that time ( Rs. 16,400 – 22,400 ) and also professor in colleges (Rs. 14,300 – 22,400 ) again showing that the post held is not equivalent to professor rank. There is no proof of document to show that Dr. Kadam held the post equivalent to professor in 1978 – 1981. Hence, in the present case, this 14 WP 283,296,300.2011 experience is not considered equivalent to Professor. Since Dr. J.R. Kadam’s both administrative experience as per the criteria laid down by the Search Committee and the requirement of 8 years of service on the post not below the rank of Professor or equivalent post both fall significantly short of eight years, his name has not been included in the list of short listed candidates ”. 5. Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 296 of 2011 and Mr. Amol Gawali, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 283 of 2011 and 300 of 2011 have strenuously contended that the petitioners are eligible to be considered for the post of Vice Chancellor. It was erroneous on the part of the Committee not to call the petitioners for the interaction. The academic qualification and the experience as put-forth by them could not have been disputed. The petitioners possessed all the requisite qualifications and they satisfy each and every criteria put-forth in the advertisement. The reason given by the respondents in the affidavit in reply is improper. The work rendered by the petitioners as “ Professors ” is also to be taken into consideration as an 15 WP 283,296,300.2011 experience in administrative and technical field. By referring to the duties and the powers of the “ Professors ” as laid down in Statute 80 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities ( Krishi Vidyapith ) Statute, 1990, the learned counsels tried to substantiate their submissions that the nature of powers and duties of the “ Professors ” are such that it involves the work of administration and so it could not have been said that while discharging the duties as “ Professor ”, the petitioners did not have experience of administration. According to the learned counsels, the condition No. 3 of essential qualification and experience, have been mis-interpreted. The requirement is that the candidate should hold eight ( 8 ) years experience on the post not below the rank of “ Professor ” or equivalent post and eight ( 8 ) years experience in administration and technical field. According to them, eight ( 8 ) years experience in administration and technical field and the post not below the rank of “ Professor ” or equivalent is co-relative. The respondents could not have laid down any further condition which is not incorporated in the advertisement. Laying down such a criteria i.e. for administrative experience the candidate should have held the post of Head of Department/Dean/Director was not within the competence of the Committee. 6. It was further contended by Mr. Gawali, learned counsel for the petitioners that it was also erroneous on the part of the respondents to 16 WP 283,296,300.2011 conclude that Dr. Kadam also does not satisfy the criteria of working for at least eight ( 8 ) years on the post not below the rank of “ Professor ” or equivalent. The petitioner had given in detail the post, which he had enjoyed, which are equivalent to that of the “ Professor ” and in such circumstance, his experience and the post held not below the rank of “ Professor ”, would be at least of 22 years. 7. Per contra, Mr. Khandare, learned Govt. Pleader for respondents i.e. Committee submitted that the Committee has adhered to the criteria laid down while short listing the candidates, the criteria that is laid down was followed for all the candidates and based on all the criteria, short listed 28 candidates. The respondents do not dispute the academic qualifications and the post held by them. But, these petitioners are not considered as they did not possess the administrative experience, so also Dr. Kadam did not also possess eight ( 8 ) years experience of working as a Professor. 8. We have heard the learned counsels at length. 9. The scope of judicial review in such matters in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in a very narrow compass. This Court would not substitute its own view to the 17 WP 283,296,300.2011 view taken by the Selection Committee. This Court could only verify whether the decision making process has been properly complied and followed. No malafides are alleged by the petitioners against the Members of the Committee. 10. The Apex Court in a case of Basvaiyah (Dr.) V/s Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others reported in ( 2010 ) 8 – SCC – 372, has observed thus : “ 20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined and scrutinized the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants before selecting them for the posts of Readers in Serology. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in sitting in appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert Committee consisting of five experts. The Expert Committee had in fact scrutinized the merits and de-merits of each candidate including qualification and the equivalent published work and its 18 WP 283,296,300.2011 recommendations were sent to the university for appointment which were accepted by the University. 21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the high Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country’s leading experts in the field of Sericulture. (Emphasis supplied ) ”. 11. According to the Committee, the administrative work undertaken by the head of the department or the Director are considered. The work of a Professor may not involve the work of administration as would be required. The decision of the Committee to take into 19 WP 283,296,300.2011 consideration those candidates, who have held the post of heads of department, Deans, Directors for administrative experience, can not be faulted with. The same yard-stick is applied for all the candidates. It was within the powers of the Committee to consider the administrative experience of the persons not below the rank of Head of the department, Dean, Director. It is not disputed that none of the petitioners had an experience of eight ( 8 ) years or more as a Director, Head of the department, Dean, etc. In such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners about administrative experience is not justifiable. And the decision of the Committee in this regard can not be faulted. In case of Dr. Kadam, the Committee found that apart from the fact Dr. Kadam lacked administrative experience, Dr. Kadam did not satisfy the condition of holding the post not below the rank of Professor or equivalent post for at least eight ( 8 ) years. There was nothing before the Committee to substantiate that the post held by Dr. Kadam as contended by him to be equivalent to that of Professor. The respondents have not disputed the competency of the petitioners to work on the post on which they are working. But, the petitioners fell short of the criteria laid down and as such are not considered. 12. In light of the above, as no error has been committed by the Committee in short listing the candidates, we do not find any merit in the 20 WP 283,296,300.2011 petitions. Interalia the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 283,296,300.11