JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. With consent of parties, the matter was heard for disposal.
2. The petitioner complains arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in regard to the appointment of the second respondent as Assistant Professor by the first respondent, Jawahar Lal Nehru University (hereafter called the JNU ).
3. The petitioner is working as Lecturer in senior scale in Political Science at Zakir Hussain College, University of Delhi. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the JNU inviting applications from the eligible candidates on 1st – 7th January, 2002, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor. The relevant portions of the advertisement are extracted below:
(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (Rs. 9000-13500): Good academic record with at least 55% marks (50% marks for SC/ST candidates and for those Ph.D. degree holders who have passed their Master’s degree prior to 19.11.1991) or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O.A. B,C,D,E and F at the Master’s degree level. In the relevant subject from an Indian University of an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Besides fulfillling the said qualifications the candidates…have cared the eligibility test (NET) for the post of Assistant Professor conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. In addition to the above, the specialized/desirable qualifications are indicated against each post as under:
23. Assistant Professor in Afghanistan Studies (One) Desirable Qualification (a) Ph.D., in Afghanistan Studies (b) Specialisation in Society, Centre and Politics, Government in Afghanistan (c) Knowledge of Pashtoo language.
4. The petitioner is a Ph.D, in Afghanistan studies from the JNU, having submitted his thesis in 1992. He had completed post-graduation in Political Science from JNU in the year 1983. He was called for interview as also was the case with the second respondent. The second respondent had completed his M.A. in Geography in the year 1997 and submitted his Ph.D. Thesis in Political Geography with South Asia and Central Asia : Geo-economic Linkages and Geo- political Imperatives . This was accepted by the South Asia Studies Centre, University of Rajasthan which awarded the Doctorate in that discipline on 29th January, 2002.
5. The petitioner and the second respondent were called for interview which was held on 15th September, 2002. The selection committee comprised of eight persons which included inter alia three outside experts nominated by the Executive Council, one Professor Neera Chandoke, Head of the Department of the Political Science, University of Delhi and was chaired the then Vice-Chancellor of the JNU. It is thus clear that the Selection Committee comprised of experts numbered half its total compoisition. The Committee recommended the candidature of the second respondent who was eventually appointed to the post in September/October 2002.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement spelt out the relevant qualifications and that in the context of the facts in these proceedings, the expression desirable qualifications appearing at item 23 has to be construed as an essential qualification since the essential qualifications merely made a mention of educational attainments in the relevant file. It was submitted that the post of Assistant Professor in Afghan studies was sanctioned for the first time by virtue of a UGC policy. Hence, the JNU could not have ignored the petitioner’s candidature who was more suitable for the post having regard to his experience in concerned field having completed his Ph.D. in Afghan studies and have also presented several papers and publications in that regard.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the qualifications held by the second respondent were suspect since it was more general in nature; he had obtained it from the School of South Asian Studies and that the Afghanistan cannot be form part of the Sough Asia. It was also urged that the basic qualification held by the second respondent was itself Political Geography and no attempt was made by the JNU to justify the contents of that qualification. It was lastly contended that the list of publication of the second respondent do not anywhere show that he was conversant with the subject and the only paper to his credit was mentioned as one submitted but not accepted for publication.
8. Learned counsel for the JNU submitted that the comparative merits of the candidates, namely, the petitioner and the second respondent were evaluated by the Selection Committee which comprised of not less than four experts out of a total eight members. The Committee unanimously recommended the candidature of the second respondent. It was submitted that the nomenclature of the Political Geography or Geo-political Economic Linkages itself would not be determinative as to the qualification of the second respondent. What was necessary was his general awareness of the subject and his aptitude vis-a-vis the job requirement.
9. Learned counsel also submitted that the Court should be slow in interfering with decisions taken in academic matters which is best left to the judgment of experts who have relevant knowledge and expertise in the field. It was submitted that an investigation into whether the educational attainments of the second respondent matched the job description to the post to which he was appointed cannot be undertaken by the Court. In the absence of any mala fides or illegality, the appointment cannot be faulted.
10. The advertisement in question is in two parts. The first part outlines the desirable qualifications. In this case, undisputedly the desirable qualification is a Ph.D. in Afghanistan Studies with specialization in Society, Centre and Politics, Government of Afghanistan. One of the desirable qualifications also knowledge of Pashtoo language. To some extent, the contention of the petitioner as to the essential qualifications taking colour from the desirable qualifications spelt out in the advertisement can be understood. However, I am not prepared to accept the submission that the essential qualifications and the desirable qualifications have to be read together and that the latter are integrally and essentially connected with the essential qualifications. The weight to be attached to a particular qualification has to depend upon the needs of the post. In this case, the post advertised was of an Assistant Professor in the School of National Studies.
11. The petitioner’s attainments have not been disputed by the respondents. Perhaps, that is the reason why he was called to participate in the recruitment process and interviewed in the first place. Having thus established that he held the qualification, what the petitioner could have insisted that his candidature ought to be seen and considered fairly vis-a-vis other candidates. While doing so, the petitioner is entitled to canvas that one of the other candidates did not possess the qualification.
12. What emerge from the narration of the facts in this case is that the second respondent was ad-judged to possess the requisite qualification of Political Geography, bearing the title South and Central Asia: Geo-Economic Linkages and Geo-Political Imperatives . If one goes only by appellations, the petitioner had had a very good case. The Courts however, are hardly equipped to pronounce in this issue. It has been held far too often that in matters pertaining to selection to academic and research positions in educational institutions, the autonomy of experts ought not to be lightly interfered with [See Union of India v. Shambu Singh Saran 2001 (93) DLT 236]. 12-a. In this case, what is the content of the second respondent’s Ph.D. thesis, whether it contains Afghan Studies and to what extent are arreas considered by the Selection Committee which comprises not less than four extent members out of eight members. The Court cannot appoint itself as a Super Selection Committee and decide that the qualification of one or the other candidate is preferable. It also ought not to ordinarily enquire into the course contents to determine equivalence or even while considering issues of recruitment, go into issues such as whether the academic qualifications fit the job description.
13. In the present case, apart from the contention raised that the desirable qualifications have to be read as essential qualifications and further submissions that the second respondent did not possess the said desirable qualifications, the petitioner has not been able to make out the case of bias or mala fides. As concluded earlier, though the argument that desirable qualifications have to be read as past of the essential qualifications, is per se attractive yet it is an issue best left for determination by the experts. All these issues have been considered by the experts who after evaluation of the candidates and their attainments determined the second respondent as more suitable.
14. While it is true that qualifications play an important role in determining the desirability or suitability of the candidate, that by no means is a conclusive factor. The suitability for the post and the needs of the institution, vis-a-vis the individual candidate are some of other factors which are perhaps equally important because an academic institution is a continuing organisation with its own objectives. The weight attached by the experts in the Selection Committee particularly and the employer generally to each of these factors may vary at given points of time. Hence, it cannot be stated as thumb rule or invariable principle that the qualifications of a candidates alone would conclude the issue as to the suitability.
15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that prayer ‘C’ ought to be acceded to since it is general in character and in the absence, detailed guidelines with regard to the conduct of selection process, the decisions are likely to be arbitrary. I do not see any force in this submission. The enactment in question, namely, the Jawahar Lal Nehru University Act, 1966 undoubtedly provides for setting up of Selection Committees. Section 27 (3) and (5) provide for formulation of guidelines and ordinances.
These provisions are by way of conferment of power. Even in the absence of ordinances and guidelines, the over arching duties which are imposed upon a public authority as the JNU undoubtedly is, while making appointment is to a fair and non-arbitrary procedure. I am not persuaded to hold that in this case the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee was in any manner arbitrary or unreasonable.
16. For the foregoing reason, the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.