# Gitanjali Pandey v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 1088
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7114 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddharth
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gitanjali-pandey-v-u-o-i-ors-48718
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A.S.G.I.,
Sri
Kshitij
Shailendra,
Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Art. 226 - Interference in the report of the
expert committee - whether a candidate is
fit for a particular post or not has to be
decided by the duly constituted Selection
Committee which has the expertise on the
subject, it is not for the High Court to
address questions of comparative merit of
the candidates - courts have very limited
discretion to interfere, in the report of the
expert committee - Only where malafides
are proved or violation of any regulation
is proved or if there is patent material
irregularity in the Constitution of the
Committee or its procedure vitiaties the
selection, the court may interfere but it
cannot enter into roving and fishing
inquiry
on
the
basis
of
irrelevant
considerations - Principles of Natural
Justice - principles of natural justice do
not require an administrative authority or
a Selection Committee or an examiner to
record reasons for the selection or nonselection of a person in the absence of
statutory requirement - function of the
Selection Committee is neither judicial nor
adjudicatory, it is purely administrative -
selection
committee
is
not
under
obligation
to
record
reasons
for
its
decision (Para 18, 19, 20 24)

B.
Civil
Law
-
University
Grants
Commission Act, 1956 - UGC Regulations
On
Minimum
Qualifications
For
Appointment
Of
Teachers
And
Other
Academic
Staff
In
Universities
And
Colleges
And
Measures
For
The
Maintenance Of Standards In Higher
Education, 2018 - as per Regulation 6 the
selection procedure is to be conducted in
accordance with the Appendix II, Table 1,
2, 3-A, 3B, 4, 5 and 6 of the UGC
regulations - Short listing of candidates
for interview is to be done as per Apendix
II, Table 3-A, of UGC regulations 2018 -
Table 3-A provides for two marks for one
year each of teaching experience and
maximum 10 marks are to be granted for
teaching experience - regulation 10 (e)
provides that the previous appointment of
such a candidate should not have been as
guest
lecturer
for
any
duration
-
regulation 10(f)(3) provides that any
previous
adhoc
or
temporary
or
contractual services by the candidates for
direct recruitment would be counted
towards his / her experience of teaching
only if the incumbent was drawing total
emoluments equal to monthly gross salary
of a regularly appointed teacher as
monthly gross salary - regulation 13
provides that where the incumbent was
appointed on contract his / her salary
8 All. Gitanjali Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1089
should not be less than monthly gross
salary of a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor - Held - Regular Lecturer / Part
Time Lecturer / Guest Lecturer, all differ
significantly in terms of quality, quantity
and various other aspects - Experience of
a person working as a Lecturer in regular
capacity or as part time or Guest Lecturer
cannot be equated - Lecturer regularly
appointed is not supposed to only take
lectures in the College but he has to
perform various other duties also - A part
time Lecturer discharge duties for a
smaller length of period in a day, whereas
a Guest Lecturer is required to take
lectures in the classes and nothing more
than that

Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in self
finance scheme in duly recognized institution
under the provision of University Grants
Commission - However, appointment of the
petitioner was as guest lecturer & on
contractual basis - Petitioner applied for the
post of Assistant Professor, department of
Sanskrit - petitioner was denied 10 marks
against the experience - University informed
that no marks have been awarded to the
petitioner by the screening committee for a
teaching experience because of regulation
10(e) which provides that the experience of
working as lecturer shall not be relevant and
working as lecturer on contractual basis shall
only be considered if the requirement of
regulation 13 are fulfilled by the incumbent -
pointing

## Text

_Characters 0–39,969 of 58,961. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39969 for what follows._

1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
43 of the Act, 1996 refers to its applicability
only with reference to Section 3 of the
Limitation Act which confers power upon the
court to see as to whether the suit is within
time as provided in Limitation Act, whereas
Section 34 provides period of limitation for
filing objections against an award, and
Section
34
being
special
provision
incorporated in special act i.e. Act, 1996 shall
prevail over the Limitation Act.

22. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly, dismissed with no order as to
costs.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 1088
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Writ A No. 7114 of 2022

Gitanjali Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Sri Rahul Kumar Pandey,
Sri R.K. Ojha (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.,
Sri
Kshitij
Shailendra,
Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Art. 226 - Interference in the report of the
expert committee - whether a candidate is
fit for a particular post or not has to be
decided by the duly constituted Selection
Committee which has the expertise on the
subject, it is not for the High Court to
address questions of comparative merit of
the candidates - courts have very limited
discretion to interfere, in the report of the
expert committee - Only where malafides
are proved or violation of any regulation
is proved or if there is patent material
irregularity in the Constitution of the
Committee or its procedure vitiaties the
selection, the court may interfere but it
cannot enter into roving and fishing
inquiry
on
the
basis
of
irrelevant
considerations - Principles of Natural
Justice - principles of natural justice do
not require an administrative authority or
a Selection Committee or an examiner to
record reasons for the selection or nonselection of a person in the absence of
statutory requirement - function of the
Selection Committee is neither judicial nor
adjudicatory, it is purely administrative -
selection
committee
is
not
under
obligation
to
record
reasons
for
its
decision (Para 18, 19, 20 24)

B.
Civil
Law
-
University
Grants
Commission Act, 1956 - UGC Regulations
On
Minimum
Qualifications
For
Appointment
Of
Teachers
And
Other
Academic
Staff
In
Universities
And
Colleges
And
Measures
For
The
Maintenance Of Standards In Higher
Education, 2018 - as per Regulation 6 the
selection procedure is to be conducted in
accordance with the Appendix II, Table 1,
2, 3-A, 3B, 4, 5 and 6 of the UGC
regulations - Short listing of candidates
for interview is to be done as per Apendix
II, Table 3-A, of UGC regulations 2018 -
Table 3-A provides for two marks for one
year each of teaching experience and
maximum 10 marks are to be granted for
teaching experience - regulation 10 (e)
provides that the previous appointment of
such a candidate should not have been as
guest
lecturer
for
any
duration
-
regulation 10(f)(3) provides that any
previous
adhoc
or
temporary
or
contractual services by the candidates for
direct recruitment would be counted
towards his / her experience of teaching
only if the incumbent was drawing total
emoluments equal to monthly gross salary
of a regularly appointed teacher as
monthly gross salary - regulation 13
provides that where the incumbent was
appointed on contract his / her salary
8 All. Gitanjali Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1089
should not be less than monthly gross
salary of a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor - Held - Regular Lecturer / Part
Time Lecturer / Guest Lecturer, all differ
significantly in terms of quality, quantity
and various other aspects - Experience of
a person working as a Lecturer in regular
capacity or as part time or Guest Lecturer
cannot be equated - Lecturer regularly
appointed is not supposed to only take
lectures in the College but he has to
perform various other duties also - A part
time Lecturer discharge duties for a
smaller length of period in a day, whereas
a Guest Lecturer is required to take
lectures in the classes and nothing more
than that

Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in self
finance scheme in duly recognized institution
under the provision of University Grants
Commission - However, appointment of the
petitioner was as guest lecturer & on
contractual basis - Petitioner applied for the
post of Assistant Professor, department of
Sanskrit - petitioner was denied 10 marks
against the experience - University informed
that no marks have been awarded to the
petitioner by the screening committee for a
teaching experience because of regulation
10(e) which provides that the experience of
working as lecturer shall not be relevant and
working as lecturer on contractual basis shall
only be considered if the requirement of
regulation 13 are fulfilled by the incumbent -
pointing out to any violation of any regulation
of UGC wanting an interference by this court -
No Interference -

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs Dr. H.L. Ramesh & ors.
(2010) 8 SCC 372

2. B.C. Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa Vs
Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & ors. (2008) 14 SCC
306.

3. Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs B.S. Mahajan,
AIR 1990 Supreme Court 434.

4. Baidyanath Yadav Vs Aditya Narayan Roy &
ors., MANU / SC /1586 / 2019.

5. Ram Darash Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
MANU/UP/5319/2018

6. Ram Darash Yadav (Dr.) Vs St. of U.P & ors.,
MANU/SCOR/60031/2019

7. National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro
Sciences Vs K. Kalyana Raman & ors.,
MANU/SC/0342/1992

8. Dr. Deepak Bhatiya Vs St. of U.P & ors.,
2010(5) ESC 3498 (All)

9. Dr. Madhulika Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2013 0 Supreme (All) 1440

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.K.
Upadhyay,
learned
counsels
for
the
petitioner; Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned
counsel for the Allahabad University and
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for
University Grants Commission.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for direction to the Allahabad
University to grant marks on teaching
experience of the petitioner of discharging
duty as Lecturer in department of Sanskrit
in P.G. College affiliated to Deen Dayal
Upadhyay,
Gorakhpur
University
on
contractual basis after following statutory
criteria. Further prayer has been made to
permit the petitioner to participate in
interview
for
the
post
of Assistant
Professor, department of Sanskrit scheduled
to be held from 17.05.2022 to 22.05.2022
in the Allahabad University in pursuance of
Advertisement No. 01 of 2021.

3. The petitioner claims that the
University
is
proceeding
with
the
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recruitment process in accordance with
UGC regulations 2018. Short listing of
candidates for interview is to be done as
per Apendix II, Table 3-A of the aforesaid
regulations
subject
to
fulfilment
all
essential eligibility criteria, as mentioned,
for direct recruitment for the post of
Assistant Professor. The petitioner is
possessing
essential
academic
qualifications as per the regulations. Table
3-A of UGC regulations 2018 provides for
two marks for one year each of teaching
experience and maximum 10 marks are to
be granted for teaching experience. There is
no rider that teaching experience of
particular nature shall only be considered
for granting two marks per year. The
petitioner has been getting appointments
after passing rigours of statutory provisions
of UGC Regulations, 2018 and has
imparted teaching in P.G. College affiliated
to Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur
University.

4. Learned counsel for the University,
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, has stated that no
counter affidavit can be filed on behalf of
University on account of the insistence of
the counsels for the petitioner to permit the
petitioner to participate in on going
interview for the post in dispute, which is
not in accordance with the Regulations.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner
has
submitted
that
the
controversy in the present case is regarding
providing marks for work done as a
teacher.
Regulation
6
provides
for
performance of candidates on grading
system proforma based on Appendix - II,
Table - 1, 2, 3-A, 4 and 5. The experience
as mentioned in Regulations is different for
the purpose of counting of past services for
direct recruitment and promotion under
Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as
give in Rule 10, though counting of past
services for direct recruitment does not
relate with respect to the experience as
provided in Regulation 6. Regulation 6
provides for grading for the purpose of
short listing in which experience is one of a
component for providing certain marks for
screening purposes and not for the counting
of the services. The petitioner was
appointed in the self finance scheme
wherein; (a) petitioner had a qualification
as provided by UGC (b) petitioner was
selected as per procedure provided by the
Government Order dated 13.03.2020; (c)
Government order has been issued by the
State
Government
under
the
State
Universities Act read with the direction
given by the UGC; (d) Payment to the
teachers are being given out of total fee
realized in which 70% is used for
disbursing the salary of the staff. Therefore,
as per concurrence of the UGC as well as
State of U.P., petitioner has been appointed
as a Lecturer in self finance scheme in duly
recognized institution by the State of U.P in
college affiliated to the University which is
also duly recognized under the provision of
University Grants Commission, therefore,
appointment of the petitioner is absolutely
as per rule of UGC, therefore, his
experience of working in the self finance
scheme should have been considered by the
screening
committee.
The
relevant
judgments
of
counting
the
services
rendered by the petitioner in self finance
scheme, either for intermediate or for the
Degree Colleges, has been considered in
the judgment reported in 2010 (5) ESC
3498 (All) and in 2013 Vol-4 UPLBEC
2330. Hence, the petitioner has wrongly
been
denied
10
marks
against
the
experience and only 81 marks has been
awarded and if 10 marks had been given
then petitioner would have got 91 marks
and the minimum cut off is 87.17 marks
8 All. Gitanjali Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1091
only. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to be
called for interview.

6. Learned counsel for the University
has submitted that the argument of learned
Senior Counsel made on behalf of the
petitioner are not in accordance with UGC
Regulations, 2018. He has submitted that as
per Regulation 6 the selection procedure is
to be conducted in accordance with the
Appendix II, Table 1, 2, 3-A, 3B, 4, 5 and 6
of the UGC regulations. As per regulation
10, the previous regular service for direct
recruitment and promotion of teacher as
Assistant Teacher is subject to regulation
10 (e) which provides that the previous
appointment of such a candidate should not
have been as guest lecturer for any
duration. Appointment of the petitioner was
as guest lecturer in Allahabad Degree
College in the year 2001 and 2017-2018
and in Allahabad University in the year
2016-2017. Her experience also includes
working as lecturer on contractual basis in
Ishwar Sharan Degree College in the year
2020-2021 and in Imambada Girls Post
Graduate
College,
Gorakhpur
on
contractual basis in the year 2004-2010.

7. He has further relied upon
regulation 10(f)(.3) and has stated that any
previous adhoc or temporary or contractual
services by the candidates for direct
recruitment would be counted towards his /
her experience of teaching only if the
incumbent was drawing total emoluments
equal to monthly gross salary of a regularly
appointed teacher as monthly gross salary.
He has pointed out that the regulation 13
also which is to the same effect and
provides that where the incumbent was
appointed on contract his / her salary
should not be less than monthly gross
salary of a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor.

8. The petitioner had claimed that she
was drawing Rs. 50,000/- as salary while
working as guest lecturer in Allahabad
Degree
College
from
02.08.2021
to
15.12.2021; Rs. 25,000/- while working as
lecturer in Ishwar Sharna Degree College
from
12.09.2020
to
28.02.2021;
Rs.
25,000/- while working as guest faculty in
Allahabad Degree College from 01.09.2017
to 28.02.2018; Rs. 25,000/- while working
as guest lecturer in Sanskrit department of
Allahabad University from 05.08.2016 to
30.04.2017 and Rs. 5,000/- as monthly
salary while working as Imambara Girls
P.G. College Gorakhpur from 16.10.2001 to
31.10.2010. In the report of the expert
committee for the purpose of short listing
of the candidates for interview, no marks
have been awarded to the petitioner by the
screening
committee
for
a
teaching
experience because of regulation 10(e)
which provides that the experience of
working as lecturer shall not be relevant
and working as lecturer on contractual
basis shall only be considered if the
requirement of regulation 13 are fulfilled
by the incumbent.

9. He has submitted that the
recommendation of expert committee, in
the absence of any allegation of malafide,
cannot be challenged before the court. He
has relied upon number of judgments
which are as follows :-

1) Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L.
Ramesh and Others (2010) 8 SCC 372. 2)
B.C.
Mylarappa
alias
Dr.
Chikkamylarappa
vs.
Dr.
R.
Venkatasubbaiah and others (2008) 14
SCC 306. 3) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs.
B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 Supreme Court
434. 4) Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya
Narayan Roy and others, MANU / SC
/1586 / 2019. 5) Ram Darash Yadav vs.
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State
of
U.P
and
others,
MANU/UP/5319/2018 6) Ram Darash
Yadav (Dr.) vs. State of U.P and others,
MANU/SCOR/60031/2019
7)
National
Institute of Mental Health and Neuro
Sciences vs. K. Kalyana Raman and
others, MANU/SC/0342/1992.

10.

After
hearing
the
rival
contentions, this court finds it relevant to
refer to Regulation 6 (relevant part), 10 and
13 of the UGC Regulation 2018 which are
as follows:-

"
6.0
SELECTION
PROCEDURES:

I. The overall selection procedure
shall incorporate transparent, objective
and credible methodology of analysis of the
merits and credentials of the applicants
based
on
weightages
given
to
the
performance of the candidate in different
relevant
dimensions
and
his/her
performance
on
a
grading
system
Performa, based on the Appendix III,Tables
1, 2, 3 A, 3 B, 4 and 5.

In order to make the system more
credible, universities may assess the ability
for teaching and/or research aptitude
through a seminar or lecture in a classroom
situation or discussion on the capacity to
use latest technology in teaching and
research at the interview stage. These
procedures can be followed for both direct
recruitment and CAS promotions wherever
selection committees are prescribed in
these Regulations.
II. The Universities shall adopt these
Regulations for selection committees and
selection
procedures
through
their
respective statutory bodies incorporating
Appendix III,Table 1, 2, 3 A, 3 B, 4 and 5at
the
institutional
level
for
University
Departments
and
their
Constituent
colleges/
affiliated
colleges
(Government/Governmentaided/Autonomous/ Private Colleges) to be
followed transparently in all the selection
processes. The universities may devise their
own self-assessment cum performance
appraisal forms for teachers in strict
adherence to the Appendix III,Table 1, 2, 3
A, 3 B, 4 and 5prescribed in these
Regulations.

10.0
COUNTING
OF
PAST
SERVICES FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT
AND PROMOTION UNDER CAS

Previous regular service, whether
national or international, as Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor or Professor
or equivalent in a University, College,
National
Laboratories
or
other
scientific/professional Organizations such
as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR,
ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted
for direct recruitment and promotion under
CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor,
Associate Professor, Professor or any other
nomenclature these posts are described as
per Appendix III Table 1 to 5 provided that:

(a) The essential qualifications of
the post held were not lower than the
qualifications prescribed by the UGC for
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor as the case may be.

(b) The post is/was in an
equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale
of pay as the post of Assistant Professor
(Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader)
and Professor.

(c)
The
concerned
Assistant
Professor,
Associate
Professor
and
Professor
should
possess
the
same
minimum qualifications as prescribed by
the UGC for appointment to the post of
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor, as the case may be.

(d) The post was filled in
accordance with the prescribed selection
8 All. Gitanjali Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1093
procedure as laid down in the Regulations
of
University/State
Government/Central
Government/ Concerned Institutions, for
such appointments.

(e) The previous appointment was
not as guest lecturer for any duration.

(f) The previous ad-hoc or
Temporary or contractual service (by
whatever nomenclature it may be called)
shall be counted for direct recruitment and
for promotion, provided that:

(i) the essential qualifications of
the post held were not lower than the
qualifications prescribed by the UGC for
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor
and Professor, as the case may be

(ii) the incumbent was appointed
on
the
recommendation
of
a
duly
constituted Selection Committee / Selection
Committee constituted as per the rules of
the respective university;

(iii) the incumbent was drawing
total gross emoluments not less than the
monthly gross salary of a regularly
appointed Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor, as the case may
be; and

(g) No distinction should be made
with reference to the nature of management
of the institution where previous service
was
rendered
(private/local
body/Government), was considered for
counting past services under this clause.

13.0
APPOINTMENTS
ON
CONTRACT BASIS

The teachers should be appointed
on contract basis only when it is absolutely
necessary and when the student-teacher
ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms.
In
any
case,
the
number
of
such
appointments should not exceed 10% of the
total number of faculty positions in a
College/University. The qualifications and
selection procedure for appointing them
should be the same as those applicable to a
regularly appointed teacher. The fixed
emoluments paid to such contract teachers
should not be less than the monthly gross
salary of a regularly appointed Assistant
Professor. Such appointments should not be
made initially for more than one academic
session, and the performance of any such
entrant teacher should be reviewed for
academic performance before reappointing
her/him on contract basis for another
session. Such appointments on contract
basis may also be resorted to when
absolutely necessary to fill vacancies
arising due to maternity leave, child-care
leave, etc."

11. Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has heavily and repeatedly relied
upon the judgments of this court in the case
of Dr. Deepak Bhatiya vs. State of U.P and
others, 2010(5) ESC 3498 (All), the
relevant
paragraphs
of
the
aforesaid
judgment being paragraph nos. 2, 3, 7 and 8
are quoted hereinbelow :-

" 2. Petitioners had been working
as full time teacher in institutions which
are affiliated from the Central Board for
Secondary Education, New Delhi, is
recognised Intermediate Colleges which
have been granted recognition under selffinance.T
he
petitioners
have
made
applications for being.considered for the
post of Principal available in various High
School
and
Intermediate
Institutions
recognised by the Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad in terms of the advertisement
published by U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board established under
U.P. Act No. 5/1982. The application of the
petitioners have not been considered by the
Selection Board because the petitioners
have been working in self financing
institution and hey were not being giVing
salary from the State exchequer.
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Altaf and
others v: Public Service Commission and
another, in C.A. No. 961-962 of 1999 as
also upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in Contempt Petition (c) No. 372/20O02 In
G.A. No. 962/1999, Shamim Khanam v.
K.B. Pandey and another, it is submitted
that teachers working in self-financed
institution cannot, as a class, be excluded
from consideration. Relevant portion of the
order of the Supreme Court relied upon by
the petitioner is quoted herein below

"Part time teachers would be
excluded from consideration. However, it is
made clear hat there cannot be a class of
exclusion of teachers who are working in
self-financed institutions. Any exclusion of
a candidate on the basis that he or she is a
part time teacher must be made only in
individual cases after proper verification."

...................................

7. So far as teachers working in
recognized Intermediate Colleges having
recognition under section 7A of the
Intermediate Education Act are-concerned;
this Court may notice that since 1986 all
Intermediate and High Schools have been
granted recognition under self finance only
i.e., under Section 7A. The teachers are
appointed for such institutions under
Section 7AA read with Government order
dated 16.4.2004. Although termed as part
time hey in fact are required to work as full
time, teachers. Therefore, their claim also
cannot be excluded en masse.

8. This Court holds that the
Commission has not justified in excluding
such teachers who are working in self
finance institutions en masse. The Board
must scrutinize the application of the
candidates concerned working in such
self-financed recognized institutions and
satisfy itself as to whether they are part
time teachers or full part time teachers.
All full time teachers appointed in
accordance with rules applicable to such
institution
are
within
the
zone
of
consideration and the Selection Board
shall take appropriate action accordingly.

12. Second reliance has been placed
on the judgment in the case of Dr.
Madhulika Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2013 0 Supreme (All) 1440,
which is as follows :-

"
A
perusal
of
the
said
appointment order indicates that the
petitioner was appointed on a fixed
honoraria basis after approval of the Vice
Chancellor of the University. In such
circumstances,
the
said
appointment
cannot be said to be an appointment
either de-hors the rules or not in
accordance with law so as to disentitle
the petitioner to get the said period of
experience counted for the purpose of
selection.

The petitioner has described
herself as a full time teacher supported
by a certificate from the institution.
Payment of a fixed honoraria is not
necessarily an indicator of full time or
part-time
experience.
Receipt
of
emoluments are not a substitute for
experience.

A teacher getting a fixed salary at
times is more devoted towards performance
than those who have secured permanent
berths. The experience of a teacher in a
particular subject can be gauged by
performance and the status of involvement
in the institution. and not on some
subjective
assumption.
However
the
genuineness of such experience. like in the
present case, would also have to be
assessed by the nature of engagement. In
the present case the petitioner claims her
8 All. Gitanjali Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1095
status of a teacher in a degree college upon
approval by the Vice Chancellor of a
recognized University.

So far as her experience as a
teacher in an Intermediate College is
concerned, that experience has also to be
examined in accordance with the modes of
appointment in an unaided Inter College.

In both cases payment of honoraria
cannot be the criteria of rejection of
experience. Merely because a teacher has
received lower emoluments, though working
on an equivalent post, cannot be the ground
to reject a candidature. The judgments
referred to hereinabove have to be taken into
account that relies on the Apex Court
decision in the case of Mohd. Altaf and
others Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission
and another reported in 2008( 14) SCC 139;
2008 ( 14) SCC 144; 2008 ( 14) SCC 146and
2002 ( 93) FLR 1208."

13. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment
in the case of Dr. Deepak Bhatiya (Supra)
shows that it has nothing to do with
application of regulation 10 and 13 of the
UGC Regulation 2018 nor it has been pointed
out how the provisions regarding the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would be
relevant for consideration of compliance of
the requirements of UGC Regulations
aforesaid.

14. The judgment in the case of Dr.
Madhulika Singh (Supra) is also not
relevant for deciding the present controversy.
Since in that case a teacher appointed on
fixed honorarium was held to be entitled for
consideration for appointment by Porvanchal
University, a State University. In this case
also the application of UGC Regulations was
not involved.

15. The judgments cited on behalf of
University clearly proves that the court
should show deference to recommendation
of expert committee and should not sit over
appeal on such decision.

16. In the case of Dr. Basavaiah
(Supra) the Supreme Court disapproved the
conduct of the High Court in sitting over
appeal over the recommendations made by
the expert committee in paragraph 25 to 37
which are as follows :-

" 25. The teaching experience of
foreign teaching institutions can be taken
into consideration if it is from the
recognized and institution of repute. It
cannot be said that the State University of
New York at Buffalo, where appellant no.2
served as an Assistant Professor would not
be an institution of repute. The experts
aiding and advising the Commission
mustbe quite aware of institutions in which
the teaching experience was acquired by
him and this one is a reputed University.
According to the experts of the Selection
Board, both the appellants had requisite
qualification
and
were
eligible
for
appointment. If they were selected by the
Commission
and
appointed
by
the
Government, no fault can be found in the
same. The High Court interfered and set
aside the selections made by the experts
committee. This Court while setting aside
the judgment of the High Court reminded
the High Court that it would normally be
prudent and safe for the courts to leave the
decision of academic matters to experts.
The Court observed as under:

"7. ....When selection is made by
the Commission aided and advised by
experts having technical experience and
high
academic
qualifications
in
the
specialist field, probing teaching research
experience in technical subjects, the Courts
should be slow to interfere with the opinion
expressed by experts unless there are
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations of mala fides against them. It
would normally be prudent and safe for the
Courts to leave the decision of academic
matters to experts who are more familiar
with the problems they face than the Courts
generally can be..."

26. In Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha &
Others
v.
Chancellor,
Allahabad
University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418, the
court observed that the court should not
substitute
its
judgment
for
that
of
academicians:

"17. Rulings of this Court were
cited before us to hammer home the point
that the court should not substitute its
judgment for that of academicians when the
dispute relates to educational affairs. While
there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to
dislodge decisions of academic bodies. ... ...
..."

27. In Maharashtra State Board
of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education
&
Another
v.
Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others (1984) 4
SCC 27, the court observed thus:

"29. ... As has been repeatedly
pointed out by this Court, the Court should
be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise, prudent and
proper in relation to academic matters in
preference
to
those
formulated
by
professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual
day-to-day
working
of
educational
institutions and the departments controlling
them. .. ... ..."

28.
In
Neelima
Misra
v.
Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others (1990) 2
SCC 746, the court relied on the judgment
in University of Mysore (supra) and
observed that in the matter of appointments
in the academic field, the court generally
does not interfere. The court further
observed that the High Court should show
due regard to the opinion expressed by the
experts
constituting
the
Selection
Committee and its recommendation on
which the Chancellor had acted.

29. In Bhushan Uttam Khare v.
Dean, B.J. Medical College & Others
(1992) 2 SCC 220, the court placed
reliance on the Constitution Bench decision
in University of Mysore (supra) and
reiterated the same legal position and
observed as under:

"8. ... the Court should normally
be very slow to pass orders in its
jurisdiction because matters falling within
the jurisdiction of educational authorities
should normally be left to their decision
and the Court should interfere with them
only when it thinks it must do so in the
interest of justice. ... ... ..."

30. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke
& Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others
(1990) 1 SCC 305, the court in some what
similar matter observed thus:

"... ... ...It is needless to emphasis
that it is not the function of the court to
hear appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committees and to scrutinize the
relative merits of the candidates. Whether a
candidate is fit for a particular post or not
has to be decided by the duly constituted
Selection
Committee
which
has
the
expertise on the subject. The court has no
such expertise. The decision of the
Selection Committee can be interfered with
only on limited grounds, such as illegality
or patent material irregularity in the
constitution of the Committee or its
procedure vitiating the selection, or proved
mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is
not disputed that in the present case the
University had constituted the Committee
in due compliance with the relevant
statutes. The Committee consisted of
experts and it selected the candidates after
going through all the relevant material
8 All. Gitanjali Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1097
before it. In sitting in appeal over the
selection so made and in setting it aside on
the ground of the so called comparative
merits of the candidates as assessed by the
court, the High Court went wrong and
exceeded its jurisdiction."

31. In Chancellor & Another etc.
v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Others (1994) 1
SCC 169, the court observed thus:

"9. This Court has repeatedly
held that the decisions of the academic
authorities
should
not
ordinarily
be
interfered with by the courts. Whether a
candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications
or notis a matter which should be entirely
left to be decided by the academic bodies
and the concerned selection committees
which invariably consist of experts on the
subjects relevant to the selection...."

32. In Chairman J&K State
Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed
Malik & Others(2000) 3 SCC 59, the court
while stressing on the importance of the
functions of the expert body observed that
the expert body consisted of persons
coming from different walks of life who
were engaged in or interested in the field of
education and had wide experience and
were entrusted with the duty of maintaining
higher standards of education. The decision
of such an expert body should be given due
weightage by courts.

33. In Dental Council of India v.
Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust &
Another (2001) 5 SCC 486, the court
reminded the High Courts that the court's
jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion
exercised by the expert body is extremely
limited.

34. In Medical Council of India
v. Sarang & Others (2001) 8 SCC 427, the
court again reiterated the legal principle
that the court should not normally interfere
or interpret the rules and should instead
leave the matter to the experts in the field.

35. In B.C. Mylarappa alias Dr.
Chikkamylarappa
v.
Dr.
R.
Venkatasubbaiah & Others (2008) 14 SCC
306, the court again reiterated legal
principles
and
observed
regarding
importance of the recommendations made
by the expert committees.

36. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v.
Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa &
Another (2008) 9 SCC 284, the court
reminded that it is not appropriate for the
Supreme Court to sit in appeal over the
opinion of the experts.

37. In All India Council for
Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar
Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726,
again the legal position has been reiterated
that it is a rule of prudence that courts
should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic bodies."

17. Similarly in the case of B.C
Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa
(supra), the Apex Court disapproved the
interference of the High Court in the
decision of the expert committee in the
absence of any malafide in paragraph nos.
21, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 which are as
follows :-

" 21. Before we go into the two
grounds, we may keep it on record that it
was the stand of the University before the
High Court as well that the appellant was
duly qualified for appointment to the post
of Professor. The learned Single Judge
while allowing the writ petition of the
respondents, however, reckoned the service
of the appellant as Lecturer, but ignore to
consider the experience of the appellant as
Research Assistant. It cannot be disputed
that
these
two
experiences,
namely,
experience as Lecturer and experience as
Research
Assistant,
if
counted,
the
eligibility of the appellant for appointment
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the post of Professor could not be
questioned. In Dr. Kumar Bar Das (supra),
this court in detail had considered this
aspect of the matter and in the said
decision, this Court observed that the
opinion
of
experts
in
the
Selection
Committee must be taken to be that the
appellant's
teaching
and
Research
experience satisfied the above conditions of
10 years as mentioned for appointment to
the post of Professor. In that case, this
Court at para 27 at page 462 observed as
follows :

" 27. In our view, having regard
to the high qualifications of the experts and
the reasons furnished by the Syndicate as
being the obvious basis of the experts'
opinion, the Chancellor ought not to have
interfered with the view of the experts. The
expert's views are entitled to great weight
as stated in University of Mysore's case."

In Para 28 of the said decision,
this Court also observed :

"28.
In
our
opinion,
the
Chancellor cannot normally interfere with
the subjective assessment of merit of
candidates made by an expert body unless
mala fides or other collateral reasons are
shown. In Neelima Misra case abovereferred to, this Court observed, referring
to the powers of the Chancellors in matters
of appointment of Professors/Readers as
being purely administrative and not quasijudicial."

24. There is another aspect of this
matter which is also relevant for proper
decision of this appeal. We have already
indicated earlier that the Board of
Appointment was constituted with experts
in this line by the University Authorities.
They have considered not only the
candidature of the appellant and his
experience as a Lecturer and Research
Assistant along with others came to hold
that it was the appellant who was the
candidate who could satisfy the conditions
for appointment to the post of Professor.
Such being the selection made by the expert
body, it is difficult for us to accept the
judgments of the High Court when we have
failed to notice any mala fides attributed to
the members of the expert body in selecting
the appellant to the said post.

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 herein
above, 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.

27. Again in M.V.Thimmaiah &
Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission
& Ors. [2008 (2) SCC 119], this Court
clearly held that in the absence of any mala
fides attributed to the expert body, such
plea is usually raised by an interested party
(in this case the unsuccessful candidate)
and, therefore, court should not draw any
conclusion on the recommendation of the
expert
body
unless
allegations
are
substantiated beyond doubt. That apart, the
challenge to the selection made by the
expert body and approved by he University
Authorities was made by the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 who were unsuccessful
candidates and were not selected for
appointment to the post of Professor in the
Department of Sociology.

28. In National Institute of
Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs.
8 All. Gitanjali Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1099
Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp
(2) SCC 481], this Court considered in
detail the role of an expert body in deciding
the candidature for selection to a particular
post. While doing so, this Court at Para 7
at P. 484 of the said decision observed as
follows:

"7. ..... In the first place, it must
be noted that the function of the Selection
Committee
is
neither
judicial
nor
adjudicatory. It is purely administrative.
The High Court seems to be in error in
stating that the Selection Committee ought
to have given some reasons for preferring
Dr. Gauri Devi as against the other
candidate. The selection has been made by
the assessment of relative merits of rival
candidates determined in the course of the
interview of candidates possessing the
required eligibility. There is no rule or
regulation brought to our notice requiring
the Selection Committee to record reasons.
In
the absence
of any
such
legal
requirement the selection made without
recording reasons cannot be found fault
with. The High Court in support of its
reasoning has, however, referred to the
decision of this Court in Union of India v.
Mohan
Lai
Capoor.
That
decision
proceeded on a statutory requirement.
Regulation 5(5) which was considered in
that case required the Selection Committee
to record its reasons for superseding a
senior member in the State Civil service.
The decision in Capoor case was rendered
on 26 September, 1973. In June, 1977,
Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the
requirement of recording reasons for the
supersession of senior officers of the State
Civil services. The Capoor case cannot,
therefore, be construed as an authority for
the proposition that there should be reason
formulation for administrative decision.
Administrative authority is under no legal
obligation to record reasons in support of
its decision. Indeed, even the principles of
natural
justice
do
not
require
an
administrative authority or a Selection
Committee or an examiner to record
reasons for the selection or non-selection of
a person in the absence of statutory
requirement. This principle has been stated
by this Court in R. S. Dass v.