Case: Sajeesh Babu K Vs. N.K.Santhosh

the High Court has criticized the report made by the Board and rejecting the criticism of the High Court in such academic matters, held as under: “…….We are unable to see the point of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters. Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be………….” 17) In a recent decision of this Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein similar issue, namely, recommendations of Expert Committee and evaluation as well as judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution was considered by this Court. A short question involved in that case was that whether the appellants therein (Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. Manjunath) were qualified to be appointed as Readers in Sericulture? One Dr. H.L. Ramesh, respondent in both the appeals therein challenged the appointments of both the appellants on the ground that they were not qualified for the post of Readers in Sericulture. Learned single Judge, on 11.10.2004, after examining the pleadings and scrutinizing the arguments of the parties dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. H.L. Ramesh – respondent in W.P. No. 24300 of 1999. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The writ appeal was allowed and the appointments of the appellants therein were set aside leaving it open to the University of Mysore to make fresh selection in accordance with the law. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment, filed special leave petitions before this Court. In the High Court as well as in this Court, the University filed affidavit stating that the Expert Committee consisting of highly qualified 5 distinguished experts evaluated the qualification, experience and the published works of the appellants and found them eligible and suitable. In such circumstance, this Court observed in paragraph Nos. 20 & 21 as under: “20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined and scrutinised the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants before selecting them for the posts of Readers in Sericulture. 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 scrutinised the merits and demerits of each candidate including qualification and the equivalent published work and its 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, the 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 countrys leading experts in the field of Sericulture.” 18) It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the 3 experts in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the work. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the experience certificates produced by the appellant herein, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks. In such circumstances, we hold that the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee.19) In addition to the same, it is also asserted by the Corporation and informed to the High Court as well as to this Court that in order to ascertain the genuineness of the contents of experience certificates Exh. Nos. P2 and P3, the Corporation deputed responsible persons for verification and, in fact, they met the issuing authority and satisfied with the correctness of their statement. In view of this aspect, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench committed an error in interfering with the decision of the Selection Committee. We have already noted that there is no allegation of mala fides against the members of the Selection Committee. Even on equity, the appellant is an unemployed M.Tech post-Graduate and the contesting respondent No.1 is working as an Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, in other words, he is fully employed on the date of the selection of LPG distributorship. Looking at from any angle, the High Court was not justified in upsetting the decision of the Selection Committee, particularly, in the absence of any mala fides against them and there is no warrant for direction to re-assess the marks of the appellant afresh by excluding the marks for certificates (Exh. Nos. P2 and P3), particularly, in the light of the detailed explanation offered by the Corporation about the mode of selection.20) In the light of the above discussion, we

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

Explanation:
1[ds]18) It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the 3 experts in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the work. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the experience certificates produced by the appellant herein, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks. In such circumstances, we hold that the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee.19) In addition to the same, it is also asserted by the Corporation and informed to the High Court as well as to this Court that in order to ascertain the genuineness of the contents of experience certificates Exh. Nos. P2 and P3, the Corporation deputed responsible persons for verification and, in fact, they met the issuing authority and satisfied with the correctness of their statement. In view of this aspect, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench committed an error in interfering with the decision of the Selection Committee. We have already noted that there is no allegation of mala fides against the members of the Selection Committee. Even on equity, the appellant is an unemployed M.Tech post-Graduate and the contesting respondent No.1 is working as an Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, in other words, he is fully employed on the date of the selection of LPG distributorship. Looking at from any angle, the High Court was not justified in upsetting the decision of the Selection Committee, particularly, in the absence of any mala fides against them and there is no warrant for direction to re-assess the marks of the appellant afresh by excluding the marks for certificates (Exh. Nos. P2 and P3), particularly, in the light of the detailed explanation offered by the Corporation about the mode of selection.