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

4. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal as emerging from the material on record, are that the respondent-University published an advertisement on November 22, 2012 inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy). The qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the said post is Masters5. in Yoga/Yoga Therapy or Masters in Physical Education with Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy with at least 55% (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed). The appellant applied for the said post and appeared in the selection process with other candidates. The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee consisting of Dr. Arun Kumar Uppal, Prof. Rajesh Tripathi, Prof. Krishna Banerjee, Dr. Sudip Sunder Das, Prof. Sanat Kr. Naskar and Dr. A.N. Dey for an interview on March 26, 2013. He was selected to the said post on March 28, 2013.6. Respondent No. 1 submitted a representation before respondent No.3 challenging the eligibility of the appellant to participate in the selection process as according to respondent No.1, appellant did not fulfil the essential qualification for the said post. Subsequently, in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent No. 1 came to know that the appellant had already been appointed to the said post by a letter of appointment dated March 28, 20137. Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the appointment of appellant to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy), filed writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta. The learned Single Bench of the High Court set aside the appointment of the appellant and held that the duty of the University is to form an Equivalence Committee, which must comprise experts and on the basis of the reports gathered from the institute awarding a certain degree. The committee of the University on its own should not have come to a conclusion that the qualification possessed by a candidate is equivalent or not. It was found that the University has not clarified that the appellant had the requisite qualification to be appointed for the said post as University was required to come to a conclusion that Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education is equivalent to the Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy. It was held that eight candidates were considered by the Selection Committee but why the appellant was considered best even in the teeth of the apparent incongruity in the educational qualification possessed by him and laid down in the advertisement. The University should have found that the Diploma in Yoga Education was equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy. In view of the said fact, the Court directed the University to take appropriate steps for a fresh selection from amongst the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement in accordance with law.8. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellant availed the remedy of intra-court appeal. The learned Division Bench dismissed the appeal and held as under:Admittedly, the appellant did not possess Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy with at least 55% marks which was one of the essential criteria for participating in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education (Yoga Therapy). It was also not in dispute that according to the reply dated April 12, 2013, there was no difference in between the Diploma in Yoga Education and Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education. But the requisite qualification required for the post in question, as mentioned in the advertisement, was Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy, and not Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education. No material was brought on record to show that the Diploma in Yoga Education was equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy. Therefore, there was no error in the decision making process of the learned Single Judge in arriving at a conclusion that the above reply did not resolve the dispute.9. Still aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.

Reasoning: 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.