Case: DR. SRIDIP CHATTERJEE Vs. DR. GOPA CHAKRABORTY

different nomenclature. The Diploma in Yoga Education is nothing but Diploma in Yoga, therefore, the appellant satisfies the eligibility requirement. Though, the Selection Committee has not specifically recorded that the qualification possessed by the appellant is in terms of the conditions of advertisement but the members of the Selection Committee were experts in the subject and once the appellant was appointed, it necessarily means that they were satisfied with the qualification possessed by the appellant as one satisfying the eligibility conditions advertised. It is further contended that in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Bench, the University has constituted an Equivalence Committee and has found that the Diploma certificate produced by the appellant satisfies the eligibility conditions, therefore, even if there were some procedural irregularities in not recording the eligibility of the appellant in the initial minutes of the Selection Committee, such irregularities stand cured when the Equivalence Committee considered the appellant eligible for appointment. It is also contended that the suitability of the candidate in terms of eligibility conditions advertised is for the experts to consider and once experts have found that the appellant possesses the required educational qualification, the Court while exercising power of judicial review, could not take a different view that the qualification possessed by the appellant does not meet the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The reliance is placed upon judgment of this Court in B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Ors.(2008) 14 SCC 306 , wherein this Court held as under: 26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any mala fides attributed against the members of the expert body of the University. The University Authorities had also before the High Court in their objections to the writ petition taken a stand that the appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for appointment. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any mala fides either of the expert body of the University or of the University Authorities and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations cannot be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. 13. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 284 , this Court held as under: 29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is not permissible for the Selection Committee to change the selection criteria midway. Since the eligibility condition as per the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy, therefore, Diploma in Yoga Education could not be treated as a qualification in terms of the conditions of the advertisement. Reliance is placed upon judgment of this Court in Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 484 wherein it was held that the Court could not go into the question whether a degree is equivalent or superior to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable in law. 16. The condition of the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. The appellant possesses Diploma in Yoga Education. The Court in exercise of power of judicial review could not come to a conclusion that the Diploma possessed by the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions advertised. The Court has only looked to the bare nomenclature of Diploma possessed by the appellant. No doubt, in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it is not recorded that the Diploma possessed by the appellant is equivalent to the educational qualifications advertised but the Selection Committee was comprised of experts in the subjects and, therefore, even if it was not specifically mentioned, the decision could not have been interfered with only because the Court finds that Diploma in Yoga Education is not the same as Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy 17. On the other hand, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are in respect of change of eligibility criteria midway of the selection process. Such is not the fact in the present case. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement remains the same i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. It is only Diploma in Yoga Education which has been considered as equivalent to Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. Not only the Selection Committee has found the appellant suitable but even the Equivalence Committee, constituted in terms of the directions of the learned Single Bench, also found the Diploma of the appellant as the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement. Therefore, once the Experts have taken a decision that the appellant meets the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the Court could not have interfered with and set aside the appointment of the appellant. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a curriculum of Kaivalyadhama to argue that the Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education and Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy are different. We do not find that such curriculum can be relied upon by the respondents to hold that the appellant is not eligible when the committee of experts have found the appellant eligible.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable in law.16. The condition of the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. The appellant possesses Diploma in Yoga Education. The Court in exercise of power of judicial review could not come to a conclusion that the Diploma possessed by the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions advertised. The Court has only looked to the bare nomenclature of Diploma possessed by the appellant. No doubt, in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it is not recorded that the Diploma possessed by the appellant is equivalent to the educational qualifications advertised but the Selection Committee was comprised of experts in the subjects and, therefore, even if it was not specifically mentioned, the decision could not have been interfered with only because the Court finds that Diploma in Yoga Education is not the same as Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy17. On the other hand, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are in respect of change of eligibility criteria midway of the selection process. Such is not the fact in the present case. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement remains the same i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. It is only Diploma in Yoga Education which has been considered as equivalent to Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy. Not only the Selection Committee has found the appellant suitable but even the Equivalence Committee, constituted in terms of the directions of the learned Single Bench, also found the Diploma of the appellant as the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement. Therefore, once the Experts have taken a decision that the appellant meets the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the Court could not have interfered with and set aside the appointment of the appellant.18. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a curriculum of Kaivalyadhama to argue that the Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education and Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy are different. We do not find that such curriculum can be relied upon by the respondents to hold that the appellant is not eligible when the committee of experts have found the appellant eligible.