Monalisa Joshi v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

14. It is argued that the post of Assistant Professor, in question, was earmarked for Emerging Science and Technology related skills in Teaching and Research. Required Specialization thus focused exclusively on Natural Sciences and Technology and the Master‟s Degree being a minimum qualification as per UGC Rules, Degree in Science or Technology was considered apt. The criteria of short-listing adopted by the Screening Committee and supported by the IQAC meets the requirements of the Specialization as advertised. The impugned list reveals that candidates have been shortlisted on the basis of their Master‟s Degree in Science or Technology i.e. in Physics, Chemistry, Life Sciences, Computer Science and Engineering, Defense and Strategic Studies, Remote Sensing and GIS, Information Technology and Environmental Sciences.

15. Learned counsel further submits that no fault can be found with the Respondents in having adopted a short-listing criteria when the number of applications were large. In Clause 12 of the Advertisement it was mentioned that where the number of applications is large, and it will not be convenient or possible to interview all the candidates, the University, in its discretion, may restrict the number of candidates to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualifications/experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the Advertisement.

16. In rejoinder learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the short affidavit filed in response to the affidavit of the Respondents, wherein it is brought out that the Centre is interdisciplinary in its character and the Advertisement accordingly enabled all those who possessed a Master‟s Degree to apply, irrespective of the subject and thus the Petitioner with a Degree in Social Science was eligible. Learned counsel points to the minutes of the 145th AC Meeting of the Centre wherein it was recorded as under: “Primarily interdisciplinary in character, the students from both Science and Social Science background can be imparted degrees in National Security Studies. The idea to include students from science background is to make them investigate the role of science and technology in tackling evolving threats to India‟s national security.”

17. Taking the argument forward in this background, it is canvassed that keeping in view the special character of the Centre, which was conceived for imparting Degrees in the field of National Security Studies, subject such as Social Sciences, which encompasses in it study relating to History, Political Science etc. shall be covered in the expression “relevant / concerned / allied” fields.

18. Rebutting strenuously the contentions of the Respondents that candidates have been shortlisted only on the basis of Master‟s Degree in Natural Sciences and Allied Technology, it is argued that two of the candidates in the impugned list, namely, Kapil Dhanraj Patil at Seriatim 27 and Abhishek Kumar Singh Visen at Seriatim 36 are shown to have their Master‟s in Defense and Strategic Studies, which clearly points to the arbitrariness in the action of the Respondents. Elaborating the argument it is contended that Kapil Dhanraj Patil has received his Master‟s Degree from Pune University which offers MA/M.Sc in Defense and Strategic Studies. Attention is drawn to the Brochure of the University for this Programme, wherein the Programme includes subjects such as Geopolitics, Indian Military History, Defense Economics etc. which are all interdisciplinary fields. This according to the counsel does not qualify as a Degree in Natural Sciences or Allied Technology. Syllabus, subjects and the curriculum in different Semesters, as reflected from the Brochure, shows that he does not fulfill the requisite short-listing criteria.

19. It is further argued that the Petitioner‟s qualification and experience at the Master‟s level may not be strictly in Natural Sciences, but has a significant overlap with Defense and Strategic Studies. Respondents cannot on one hand consider the Petitioner ineligible on the ground that she does not have Master‟s Degree in Natural Sciences and Allied Technology and yet shortlist two candidates who do not have Master‟s Degree in Science or Technology. Moreover, if this was the requirement, it should have been so spelt out in the Advertisement itself with specific exclusion of Social Sciences.

20. Last but not the least it is argued that the short-listing criteria required the University to select on the basis of qualifications or experience, higher than the one prescribed in the Advertisement and the Petitioner meets even this parameter as her higher qualifications of M.Phil and Ph.D are in the field of Biological Weapons, as reflected from her Curriculum Vitae, placed on record.

21. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival contentions.

22. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that when the petition was filed the interviews were stated to be scheduled on 24.08.2020. During the pendency of the petition, the interviews for the post in question have been conducted and the Respondents have recommended a candidate for appointment, although the Court was informed that the appointment letter has not been issued so far.

23. Controversy in the petition relates to appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Centre, more particularly Post No. 1. As per the Advertisement requisite Essential Qualification was a Master‟s Degree with 55% marks or an equivalent grade in a point scale, wherever the grading system is followed. On a nuanced scrutiny, it cannot be overlooked that „Master‟s Degree‟ is qualified by the words „concerned/relevant/allied subject‟. The question that begs an answer is what is the true interpretation and implication of these words and the answer, in my view, is not far to seek.

24. The author of the Advertisement has cautiously stipulated in the Advertisement itself the Qualifications, Specializations and Desirable Qualifications etc. against each post. Against Post No.1 the Specialization prescribed is ‘Emerging Technology and National Security-Cyber warfare / biological warfare for Indian Security‟. It is the Specialization, which in my view, would give colour and complexion to the words concerned/relevant/allied subject. The three words connote the relative degree of proximity with the requirements of the post in question which can only be determined keeping in background, the specialization. Purpose and intent is to give discretion to the Competent Authority to choose the „subject‟ keeping in mind the specialization of the post, starting from „concerned‟ to „relevant‟ and then „allied‟. It is clear that only those who possess the Essential Qualification of a Master‟s Degree either in the concerned or allied or the relevant subject are eligible for the post. Advertisement has to be read as a whole and in my considered view the Essential Qualifications required for the post cannot be isolated from the required specialization.

25. The proposition that an Advertisement has to be read as a whole to give a meaningful interpretation to the requirements therein, is settled by the Supreme Court in Punjab University vs. Narinder Kumar (1999) 9 SCC 8, relevant para of which is as follows:-

26. This leads to the next question as to whether a particular subject is the „concerned, relevant or allied subject‟ and clearly this can only be decided by the academicians and the experts in the field and not by the Court. It has been repeatedly affirmed that the Court is not an expert in academic matters and cannot have any expert knowledge to decide the equivalency or relevancy of a subject prescribed in an Advertisement. In this context, I may usefully refer to a passage from the judgement of the Supreme Court in Medical Council of India vs. Sarang and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 427 which is as follows:-

student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic attainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India, set forth above by us."

27. In Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. v. Aarya K. Babu, (2019) 8 SCC 587, Supreme Court observed as follows:-

28. The stand of the Respondent in the Affidavit is that on account of large number of applications, a short-listing criteria had been adopted wherein the selection was narrowed down to candidates possessing a Master‟s Degree in Natural Sciences and Allied Technology. Learned counsel for the Respondent argues and in my view, rightly so, that the words concerned, allied and relevant have to be interpreted in a manner that the subject of the Master‟s Degree co-relates to the required specialization, as the post in question requires Teaching and Research in an extremely technical field of Emerging Technology and National Security. It is a settled law that the author of the Advertisement is the best person to know and understand the selection criteria he had intended to earmark for selection.

29. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing the attention of the Court to the Advertisement, wherein the required „essential qualification‟ has been stipulated, vehemently argues that once the original Advertisement does not restrict the canvass to any particular subject, it is not open to the Respondents to exclude Social Sciences, while short-listing, as this would amount to changing the rules of the game, midstream. There cannot be any debate on the proposition of law that once the selection criteria is laid down, the same cannot be altered or modified midway, as that would amount to changing the rules of the game after the goal post is set. However, in the present case, there has been no change of criteria midway as alleged by the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner could have been accepted in case the Advertisement mentioned specific subjects in the Master‟s Degree and thereafter the subjects were changed or where the Advertisement specifically included Social Sciences, but the same was excluded, after the selection process had begun. In the present Advertisement there is neither an inclusion nor an exclusion of a specific subject. Keeping in view the nature of the post and the character of the Centre which has been developed with an objective and purpose, the Advertisement consciously qualified and co-related the Master‟s Degree to the specializations required against each of the post, leaving it to the discretion of the Competent Authority to decide the subjects in the Master‟s Degree that would be most suited to the post. It cannot therefore be argued that there is an exclusion of Social Sciences so as to change the rules of the game. Petitioner is reading the words Master‟s Degree with 55% marks in isolation and bereft of the words which qualified the Master‟s Degree in the Advertisement.

30. Learned counsel also sought to argue that the Petitioner has a Master‟s Degree in Social Sciences wherein certain subjects such as History are same as in Technology or Defense & Strategic Studies or Environmental Sciences and thus Petitioner cannot be held ineligible. This argument falls for twofold reasons. Firstly, it is not for this Court to interpret as to which subject would be relevant or most suited to the requirements of a particular post and this decision has to be left to the Respondents with their expert knowledge and technical knowhow in the field. Secondly, only because some subjects like History are taught as a part of the Degree course in Social Sciences and is also a part of the curricula in course relating to Technology or Defense & Strategic Studies or Environmental Sciences, cannot ipso-facto lead to a conclusion that the Master‟s Degree in Social Sciences would make the Petitioner eligible for the post, where in the expert opinion of the Respondents Science and Technology are the relevant subjects.

31. A similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767 wherein the advertisement invited applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Master‟s in Computer Application. The Appellant had acquired M.Sc degree in Mathematics and was selected. Respondent, Shivanand possessed a Post Graduate Degree in Computer Application but was not selected and filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Ganpat. The advertisement in the said case required as minimum qualification, a good academic record with at least 55% marks in the relevant subject. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Shivanand observing as follows:-

32. Aggrieved by the judgement, Shivanand preferred an Appeal before the Division Bench and his submission found favour with the Division Bench and it was observed as follows:-

33. The Division Bench therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the appointment of Ganpat, which judgement was then challenged by Ganpat before the Supreme Court.

34. The main contention of the Appellant therein was as under:-

22. It shall not make any difference even if Mathematics is taught in the Masters of Computer Application course. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely erred in upholding the contention of Ganpat and the University that “relevant subject” would mean “such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA course”. If Mathematics is taught in a postgraduate course in Commerce, a Masters degree in Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. There may be a situation in which Masters degree in MCA is differently christened and such a degree may be considered relevant but it would be too much to say that a candidate having postgraduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA would make the holders of a Masters degree in those subjects as holder of Masters degree in Computer Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment.

23. The language of the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to. Since the appellant Ganpat did not have a Masters degree in Computer Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a candidate possessing Masters degree in MCA is available, the Board of Appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal and invalid. The natural corollary thereof is that the University acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside his appointment. In our opinion, an unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the recommendee. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in Masters of Computer Application.”

36. Therefore, in my view, merely because some subjects taught in Social Sciences overlap with some subjects in the Master‟s Degree Course in Science or Technology cannot inure to the advantage of the Petitioner. For the same reason, the argument of the Petitioner with respect to the two shortlisted candidates, namely Kapil Patil and Abhishek Kumar Singh fails.

37. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken pains to take the Court through the Brochure of the Pune University to show that even in the Post Graduate course of Defense and Strategic Studies, Indian Military History was taught in the first Semester as also that there were various subjects which were very close and overlapping with the subjects taught in the Post Graduate Course of Social Sciences. It is pertinent at this stage to notice that during the course of the argument, counsel for the Petitioner drawing the attention of the Court to the Brochure has pointed out that the Post Graduate Degree offered by the Pune University was both M.A. and M.Sc and therefore the claim of the Respondent that they have shortlisted based on Post Graduate Degree in Science is belied. Confronted with this Ms. Monika Arora counsel for the Respondent, on instructions, rebuts this contention and submits that both the candidates possess M.Sc Degree. Thus even on this count the Petitioner cannot succeed.

38. It is apparent from a perusal of the List of shortlisted candidates that the same has been prepared by the Respondent on the basis of the Master‟s Degree in field of Science and Technology, closely related to and/or allied with the required specializations. There is no dispute between the parties that the University had clearly prescribed in Clause 12 of the Advertisement that where the number of Applications is large and it will not be convenient or possible to interview all the candidates, the University, at its discretion may restrict the number of candidates to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualification or experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the Advertisement. Supreme Court in case of University of Delhi v. Waseem Begum in LPA Nos. 236-39/2006 decided on 06.05.2010 has upheld the power of short-listing and observed that it is for the academic body to devise ways and means to find out the best suitable candidates for the concerned post. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the earlier Bench of the Supreme Court in B. Ramakichenin Alias Balagandhi v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 362 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

39. In Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6103/1994 decided on 19.09.1994 the Supreme Court upholding the power of the Competent Authority to resort to short-listing criteria held as under:-

40. In view of the dicta of the Supreme Court, no fault can be found with action of the Respondent in resorting to a short-listing criteria nor can it be held that the criteria so adopted was wrong. Respondents have shortlisted 44 candidates based on their subjects and fields in Master‟s Degrees, aligning with the specialization of the post and this Court cannot substitute its own wisdom to direct the Respondent to include the Master‟s Degree in Social Science, as a criteria for short-listing.

41. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending Application.

JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2020 yo/yg