THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 7964 OF 1994 Between: Dr.P.Chandrasekhar Reddy … Petitioner And 1. Sri Venkateswara University Tirupati rep. By its Registrar And 6 others …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 7964 OF 1994 ORDER: Seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent – University in appointing respondents 2 to 6 as Lecturers in Chemistry, on the basis of the selection held pursuant to the advertisements dated 1.2.1992 and 28.2.1992, as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry on the basis of his merit, the present writ petition is filed. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a Ph.D in “Radio Analytical Chemistry”, having secured First Class in M.Sc. with 69% marks, sought appointment to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent on 1.2.1992 and 28.2.1992. According to the petitioner, various faculties and departments of the university were clubbed together into three separate groups, and Chemistry was brought under Group II, while making recruitment for appointment to various posts. Petitioner would submit that, while the first advertisement dated 1.2.1992 specified one permanent post and two temporary posts of Lecturers in Chemistry in the S.V.U. College of Arts & Sciences, Tirupati, the second advertisement dated 28.02.1992 specified one temporary post of lecturer in Chemistry in the S.V.U. College of Engineering, Tirupati. Thus four posts of lecturers in chemistry were advertised under these two notifications. The petitioner, having applied pursuant to these notifications, appeared for the interview held on 7.8.1992. He was, however, not selected and instead respondents 2 to 6 were selected and appointed as Lecturers in Chemistry. According to the petitioner his qualification, experience and academic record was far better than any of the selected candidates. Petitioner would state that the selections made, pursuant to the notifications dated 1.2.1992 and 28.2.1992, was a major scandal highlighted in the press and the electronic media and that several allegations were made of nepotism and extraneous considerations having played a predominant role in the selection process superceding merit. Petitioner would contend that his candidature, for appointment as a Lecturer, should not have been overlooked and respondents 2 to 6 ought not to have been appointed overlooking him, since he was far higher in merit when compared to Respondents 2 to 6. Petitioner would state that none of the posts of Lecturers in Chemistry were specifically earmarked for the reserved category nor did the notification specify that reservation would be applicable to the advertised posts subject-wise. The notification merely stated that overall reservation was applicable to each group. Petitioner would submit that such prescription of reservation was in violation of the settled norms that reservation should be provided subject wise, that the 1st respondent – university had selected respondents 2 to 6, all of whom belonged to the open category, though there was not even a single Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Lecturer in the entire department of Chemistry consisting of 24 lecturers. Petitioner would contend that the practice adopted by the university, of keeping applicants in dark about the posts which were reserved, also provided a leeway for arbitrary exercise of discretion and enabled the university to subsequently provide for reservation to certain earmarked posts according to its whims and fancies. Petitioner would state that, while the advertised posts of Lecturers in Chemistry were four in number, (one permanent and three temporary), the 1st respondent University had appointed five lectures, i.e., respondents 2 to 6, that respondent No.2 was appointed in the permanent vacancy in the S.V.U. College of Arts and Sciences though he possessed specialization in Mineral Chemistry which was not amongst the courses offered by the Chemistry Department, that respondents 3, 5 and 6 were appointed to the temporary posts of lecturers in the S.V.U. College of Engineering, Tirupati and that the 4th respondent was appointed ostensibly in the consequential vacancy which arose in the S.V.U. College of Engineering due to the promotion of a Reader, (under the Merit Promotion Scheme), as a Professor. According to the petitioner, though the said post was not even notified, yet the 4th respondent was appointed in the said post on a temporary basis. Petitioner would contend that the practice of making temporary appointments to consequential vacancies, without notifying them, was amongst the irregularities highlighted in the media. Petitioner would seek to compare his credentials with that of respondents 2 to 6 and submit that he was more meritorious and suitable to be appointed. According to the petitioner he had more post-doctoral research experience, more number of research publications to his credit as compared to respondents 2 to 6 and that respondents 2, 3 and 5 were rejected for the award of research associateship by the C.S.I.R, New Delhi, whereas the petitioner was selected. Petitioner would submit that, in the absence of prescription of clear-cut guidelines and laying down a rational criteria for selection, wide latitude was given to the selection committee thereby facilitating them to appoint candidates of their choice. In so far as the 6th respondent is concerned, petitioner would contend that he is closely related to the Registrar of the University and that was the paramount consideration for his selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. Petitioner would submit that, when the selections came up for ratification before the Board of Management, the board members had raised objections to the 6th respondent being placed at serial No.3 in the select list contending that at least 3 posts should have been earmarked in favour of candidates belonging to the backward classes. According to the petitioner, while one post was allotted to the B.C. category, the said post was again re-allotted one month thereafter to the 6th respondent and that the influence of the Registrar in this exercise was patent and obvious. Petitioner would contend that his outspokenness had resulted in his being victimized in the form of withholding his research associateship, stipend, physical threats etc., and his grievance in this regard before the District Consumer Forum resulted in the 1st respondent being directed to pay all the amounts due to him along with damages of Rs.3000/-. Petitioner would refer to the fact that, the respondent – university had admitted before the consumer forum that the petitioner was a brilliant scholar despite which his achievements were ignored by the selection committee. According to the petitioner, the matter was inquired into by the Lok Ayuktha and the respondent-University was asked to substantiate its stand. Petitioner would state that the Minister for Higher Education, had made a promise to the State Legislature that all the appointments made by the 1st respondent would be kept in abeyance, that a full- fledged enquiry would be conducted into the irregularities committed by the 1st respondent university and these statements had made the petitioner believe that the injustice caused to him would be redressed without necessitating his seeking the intervention of this Court. According to the petitioner since there was no progress in the investigation, he was left with no other alternative but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The then Registrar of the University, in his counter affidavit, would submit that the petitioner, having applied for the post of lecturer in Chemistry, and having appeared for the interview before the selection committee, was neither entitled to challenge the notifications nor question the constitution of the Selection Committee and the recommendations made by it. It is stated that, since the petitioner belongs to the open category, he has no locus standi to ventilate the grievances of candidates belonging to the reserved category and that he was not entitled to challenge the validity of the notifications dated 1.2.1992, and 28.2.1992, on the ground that posts were not reserved department-wise in both the notifications. According to the 1st respondent, no loss was thereby caused to the petitioner as he was not entitled for the benefits of reservation. Respondent would contend that they had followed the rule of reservation while making appointments. According to the respondents it was not open to the petitioner to indulge in an exercise of self-assessment and since the Selection Committee, on a comparative assessment of the merits of all the candidates, had submitted recommendations in favour of respondents 2 to 6, such recommendations did not call for interference. It is stated that, in order to comply with the rule of reservation, various faculties in the university were divided into three groups in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.995 dated 16.12.1982. The Arts faculty in Group I, Science faculty in Group II and Engineering faculty in Group III and, while it may be true that there were no teachers belonging to the reserved category in the Chemistry Department of the University, it was not open to the petitioner to make a grievance in this regard, simply because respondents 2 to 6 belong to the open category, when he himself belonged to the open category and was not entitled for the benefits of reservation. Respondents would deny the allegations that such grouping of posts, for the purpose of reservation, was to favour certain candidates for extraneous, political or monetary, considerations. According to the 1st respondent, respondents 2 to 6 possessed the essential qualifications and were eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry and, since the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 all belong to the open category, it was not open for him to make a grievance in this regard. According to the respondent, in the year 1981, one S.C. candidate by name S.E. Chakravarthy was appointed as a Chemistry Lecturer and was posted at the P.G. Centre in Kurnool. Respondents would submit that selection of five candidates, against the four posts notified, was justified as filling up of posts is a time consuming process, commencing with a notification being issued, a panel of outside experts being prepared by the Board of Studies and approved by the Board of Management, experts being nominated by the Vice- Chancellor for conducting interviews, and only thereafter are appointments to be made by the Board of Management. It is stated that, in order to meet academic necessities, keeping in mind the paramount interest of the student community, the 1st respondent could not be faulted for filling up consequential vacancies, that too temporarily, from out of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee. According to the respondents, opening of a service register and mentioning the names of temporary appointees in the calendar was not illegal. Respondents would deny that the selections were made without following the guidelines and submit that the Selection Committee had made an objective assessment and had awarded marks under various heads. Respondents would also deny the allegations that the Selection Committee did not apply its mind while making recommendations or that the paramount reason for appointing the 6th respondent was his relationship with the Registrar. According to the respondents, the mere fact that Respondent No.6 was related to the Registrar was not a disqualification for his applying for the post of lecturer in Chemistry. Respondents would deny that the members of Board of Management had raised objections on 1.9.1992 at the time when the resolution was passed appointing the 6th respondent as lecturer in chemistry. The 1st respondent would also deny that the 3rd vacancy in the posts of Chemistry Lecturers was reserved for the backward classes or that it was re- allotted later to the 6th respondent. The allegations, of acting vindictively against the petitioner, are also denied. While admitting that the 2nd respondent has specialized in Mineral Chemistry, the 1st respondent would submit that he was not ineligible for appointment to the post of lecturer in chemistry, that no particular specialization was mentioned in the notification and that, merely because a course in Mineral Chemistry was not offered in the department, it could not be said that the 2nd respondent was not eligible to apply for the post of lecturer in Chemistry. The 2nd respondent, in his counter-affidavit, would submit that all the five selected candidates possessed doctorate degrees, that they were fully qualified for appointment to the post of Lecturer and that the University, after considering the relative merits of all the candidates who had participated in the selection process, had appointed them as Lecturers. According to the 2nd respondent, the very filing of the writ petition by the petitioner herein was only to harass the selected candidates. It is stated that, since the petitioner belongs to the open category, he was not entitled to question the action of the university in not providing post-wise reservation and, since he had applied and had appeared for the interview, he must be deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of the notification and the recommendations of the selection committee. The 2nd respondent would submit that, since the qualification prescribed in the notification is 55% marks in the post-graduate course in Chemistry with Ph.D and since he possessed the prescribed qualifications, the mere fact that he had specialized in mineral chemistry was of no consequence. As the other averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent are reiterated by the second respondent in his counter affidavit, such of those averments do not bear repetition. Respondents 3 to 6, in their counter affidavit, state that all of them are doctorates and are fully qualified to be appointed as lecturers in chemistry, that ever since their appointment they continue to work as lecturers and have, in fact, been promoted to higher posts in the 1st respondent – University. They would submit that, since the petitioner had participated in the selection process and the selection committee, on a comparative assessment of the relative merits of all the candidates, had recommended the candidature of respondents 2 to 6, there was no illegality in the selection process. It is stated that the 1st respondent – university had issued two advertisements, the first for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry in the S.V.U College of Arts and Sciences where there were one permanent post and two temporary posts, and the second for one post in the evening college of the S.V.U. College of Engineering, that respondents 2 to 6 had applied pursuant to both the notifications, that in the three posts in S.V.U. College of Arts and Sciences respondents 2, 3 and 6 were selected and the 5th respondent kept in the waiting list, and that the 4th respondent was selected for the post of lecturer in the evening college of the S.V.U. College of Engineering. They would submit that since filling up of posts involved a time consuming process, a waiting list was prepared and the 4th respondent, who was appointed in the evening college, was shifted to the post vacated by Prof. C. Devendranth Reddy and in his place the 5th respondent was appointed as a lecturer. It is stated that the appointment order of the 5th respondent was issued in the month of October, 1992 and that there was no delay. Reference is also made to the fact that under the notification, the uUniversity had reserved to itself the right to increase/decrease the number of posts, to fill or not to fill any or all the posts, to relax the qualifications when candidates with the prescribed qualifications were not available or were not found suitable and to appoint candidates to posts lower than the one they had applied for. Respondents would contend that, since the university had the right to increase the number of posts, it was open for them to fill up the consequential vacancies from out of the candidates recommended earlier by the selection committee and who were kept in the waiting list. It is stated that the selection committee had made an objective assessment and had awarded marks and that it was not open to the petitioner to find fault with the said process. Respondents would submit that the marks which they had secured was higher than the marks which the selection committee had awarded to the petitioner. With regards the failure to comply with the rule of reservation, the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents are reiterated. It is further submitted that the Full Bench of this Court in P.V.S.V.Prasada Rao v. Andhra University[1] had upheld the said categorization. It is stated that the selection committee consists of the Vice Chancellor, three experts from outside the University to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, the Chairman of the Board of Studies and the Head of the Department and that the Registrar of the University is not a member of the selection committee and is merely its secretary. It is stated that the Registrar has no role to play in the selection process and that the Registrar was distantly related to the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent would state that the wife of the Registrar of the 1st respondent – University is distantly related to his wife and that he does not fall within the 46 prohibited categories of “Near relatives” published by the University. According to the Sixth respondent, since the notification itself mentions that the number of posts advertised may vary and, as within two months of completion of the selection process, appointment orders were issued to all the candidates and the fifth respondent who was at Sl.No.1 in the waiting list was appointed in October, 1992 itself, it was not as if the waitlist was operated upon after a long lapse of time. Respondents would further contend that, while the 1992 selection process was the subject matter of litigation, the selections were eventually upheld. It is contended that since the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer, being well aware of the contents of the notification, it was not open to him to turn around and question the notification itself or the selection of respondents 2 to 6 merely because he was not selected. Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that both the notifications issued by the respondent – University, and the selection of respondent 2 to 6 as Lecturers in Chemistry, were liable to be quashed on the following grounds. (1) As against the four posts of Lecturers in chemistry, as specified in the notifications dated 1.2.1992 and 28.2.1992, five candidates (respondents 2 to 6) were selected and appointed; (2) No guidelines were prescribed for the selection committee to make a comparative assessment of the respective merits of the candidates and the entire selection process was a farcical exercise since the university had decided, even prior to commencement of the selection process, to appoint respondents 2 to 6 as Lecturers in Chemistry. (3) Despite the fact that the teaching faculty of the Department of Chemistry, either in the S.V.U College of Arts and Science or in the S.V.U. College of Engineering, did not have even a single lecturer from the reserved category, the 1st respondent – University, giving a go bye to the rule of reservation, had appointed respondents 2 to 6, all of whom were candidates from the open category (4) Instead of providing reservation department- wise/postwise posts in several department of the University were grouped together, and reservation was provided group-wise, giving a wide discretion to the university authorities to pick and choose the department in which reservation may be provided. Learned counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the Full bench of this court P.V.S.V.Prasada Rao1, and submit that, while the petitioner had filed W.P.8435/94 challenging the entire selection process undertaken pursuant to the notification, the said Writ Petition was more in the nature of a public interest litigation and, the mere fact that the said Writ Petition was dismissed, would not have any bearing on the present writ petition where the petitioner is directly aggrieved by his non-selection. Sri P.Sriramulu Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- university placed before this Court, the record of the proceedings of the Selection Committee wherein marks were allotted separately for qualifications, publications, research and teaching, lecture presentation and performance. Marks which were given, under each of these heads, to the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 reads as under: Name of the candidate Caste Qualifi- Cations 15 Publi- cations Research & Teaching 10 Lecture presen- tation 10 Perfor- mance 15 Total 50 Chandrasekhar Reddy.P OC 13 5 1 3 22 Yungandhar Sreedhar.N OC 15 5 6 14 40 Venkatasubbba Naidu. N OC 13 4 8 12 37 Padmavathi.V OC 13 5 8 11 37 Suresh Reddy.C OC 13 5 3 10 31 Varada Reddy.A OC 13 8 4 8 33 While the scope of judicial review, in academic matters, is no doubt limited and Courts, normally, defer to the wisdom of expert academicians in such matters involving determination of academic excellence and in appointment made to the teaching faculty in institutions of higher learning, this should, however, not be construed as conferring an unbridled power on the university authorities to resort to an arbitrary exercise of selection or to violate the rule of reservation. The first contention which requires examination is as to whether failure to prescribe guidelines for the selection committee, to asses the relative merits of each of the candidates who had participated in the selection process, vitiates the selection process. While it is not in dispute that the University had not chosen to lay down parameters, or standards, for the selection committee to follow, in selecting candidates as lecturers for various departments, the records placed before this court would show that the selection committee had evolved its own procedure and had classified the parameters for selection of candidates made under four different heads viz., (1) Qualifications; (2) Publications, Research and Teaching; (3) Lecture presentation; and (4) Performance. Candidates, who were called upon to participate in the selection process, were allotted marks under each of these heads. While the petitioner was awarded a total of 22 marks, respondents 2 to 6 secured far higher marks in the range of 31 to 40. Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that by allotting 10 marks to Lecture Presentation and 15 marks for Performance and, without prescribing any rational criteria to determine as to how the performance of a candidate is to be judged, the selection committee had conferred on itself the unbridled power to pick and choose candidates of its choice. Learned counsel would submit that, while the petitioner had secured 18 marks out of 25 towards Qualification and Publications, Research and Teaching, which was equal to the marks secured by respondents 4 and 5, he had been given far lesser marks towards Lecture Presentation and Performance for determination of which no rational criteria was prescribed. While prescription of well-defined parameters for assessing a candidate’s performance is no doubt desirable, and would have ensured transparency in the selection process and prevented allegations of arbitrariness, keeping in mind the settled legal position, as laid down in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the selection committee or take upon itself the task of making a comparative assessment of the relative merits of each of the candidates who had undergone the process of selection, I refrain from dwelling further on this aspect. While the contention of the respondents, that the notification does not require specialization in any particular branch in Chemistry for being appointed as a lecturer is no doubt true, it is also not in dispute that the Post Graduation and Ph.D. Degree obtained by the second respondent is in Mineral Chemistry which was not among the courses offered by the University. It is instances, such as these, which give rise to the clamour that a rethink is necessary on the exercise of self- restraint by