REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6057 OF 2010

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9473/2006)

DR. BASAVAIAH …Appellant

VERSUS

DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6058 OF 2010

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9474/2006)

DR. MANJUNATH …Appellant

VERSUS

DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.These appeals are directed against the judgment and

order dated 2.8.2005 passed in Writ Appeal No. 5014 of 2004

and dated 22.3.2006 passed in Review Petition Nos. 593, 594

and 632 of 2005 in Writ Appeal No. 5014 of 2004 by the High

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

3.By this judgment, we propose to decide the cases of both

the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. D. Manjunath, because

exactly similar issues have been raised in both the appeals.

But, for the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Appeal No.

6057 of 2010 arising out of SLP (C) No. 9473 of 2006 are

recapitulated.

4.The short controversy which needs to be adjudicated in

these cases is whether the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr.

D. Manjunath were qualified to be appointed as Readers in

Sericulture?

5.Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeals

are recapitulated as under:

6.The appellants in both the appeals were appointed as

Readers in Sericulture in the year 1999 on the basis of the

qualifications possessed by them in accordance with the

vacancy Notification No. ET.8/335/98-99 dated 12.11.1998.

2

As per the notification, the qualifications necessary for

appointment as Readers as per the said notification are set out

as under:

“READER: Prospective candidates shall have

consistently good academic record with a Doctorate

Degree or equivalent published work. Candidates

from outside the university system, in addition,

shall also possess at least 55% marks or an

equivalent grade at Master’s degree level.

Applicants shall possess eight years

experience of teaching and/or research including 3

years for a Ph.D. Degree, and shall have made some

mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by

quality of publications, contribution to educational

innovation, design of new courses, curricula, etc.”

(emphasis supplied)

7.Dr. Basavaiah obtained M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in

Botany. Thereafter, he served as Senior Research Assistant in

the Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute (for

short CSRTI), Mysore from the years 1986 to 1992. Dr.

Basavaiah, the appellant herein while working as Senior

Research Assistant, joined the Karnataka State Sericulture

Research and Development Institute (for short, KSSRDI) at

Bangalore as Scientific Officer-II and continued to work there

3

till 31.1.1994. In addition to the research work he had taught

many training courses and also worked as the examiner of

M.Sc. Sericulture.

8.The appellant was selected to the higher post of Scientific

Officer-I (Scientist-D). The appellant had also undergone

Overseas Training in Sericulture for two months in the

Department of Sericulture at Zhejiang Agricultural University,

Hangzhou, China and had also passed certificate course in

Genetic Engineering from the Indian Institute of Science,

Bangalore.

9.The appellant had 18 years of research experience and

out of that, 13 years was directly in the field of Sericulture.

He also worked for six years at CSRTI, Mysore, which is an

internationally renowned Sericulture Research and Training

Institute and seven years at KSSRDI, Bangalore.

10.The appellant had more than five years of teaching

experience. The appellant’s twenty Research Papers were

published on Sericulture in Journals of national and

4

international repute. The appellant was the first author in

twelve Research Papers and in other eight Research Papers he

was the second author. The appellant possessed the

equivalent qualification prescribed in the said vacancy

notification dated 12.11.1998.

11.The appellant, Dr. Basavaiah was M.Sc. and Ph.D. in

Botany. He had also got sixteen years of Research experience.

He also possessed postgraduate diploma in Sericulture and

worked as Sericulture inspector in the State Government and

also worked as Senior Research Assistant at the CSRTI,

Mysore. He worked as the Scientific Officer II with effect from

29.5.1992 to 31.1.1994 and he worked as the Scientific

Officer-I with effect from 1.2.1994 till his appointment as the

Reader in the University of Mysore. In addition to these, he

had about twenty publications to his credit.

12.In the counter affidavit of the University it was asserted

that the appellant in C.A. No.6058/2010 @ SLP (C)

No.9474/2006 Dr. Manjunath was M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Zoology

and also had teaching experience. He had got research

5

experience of about twenty two years. He had joined the

CSRTI as Senior Research Assistant on 28.3.1981. He was

promoted to the post of Senior Research Officer on 15.10.1986

and he had worked in that Institute till his appointment in the

University of Mysore. He had also published a number of

Papers in Sericulture and number of connected subjects as

per the certificate produced by him. He was also teaching

M.Sc. Sericultural Technology course, in addition to other

courses.

13.Dr. H. L. Ramesh, the respondent in both the appeals

challenged the appointments of both the appellants in the

High Court on the ground that the appellants were not

qualified to be appointed as Readers in Sericulture. The

learned single Judge on 11.10.2004 after examining the

pleadings and scrutinizing the arguments of the parties

dismissed the writ petition filed by the 1

st

respondent (Dr. H.L.

Ramesh) in the Writ Petition No. 24300 of 1999.

14.Respondent Dr. H. L. Ramesh, aggrieved by the said

judgment preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of

6

the High Court. The writ appeal was allowed and the

appointments of the appellants were set aside leaving it open

to the University of Mysore to make fresh selection in

accordance with the law.

15.The appellants aggrieved by the said judgment have filed

these special leave petitions against the judgment of the

Division Bench of the High Court.

16.In the Writ Petition No. 24300/99 before the learned

Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, the University of

Mysore filed a separate counter affidavit. It was contended in

the said counter affidavit filed by the University that the

qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader, according to

the Advertisement issued on 12.1.1998, are as under:

“…..According to notification prospective

candidate shall have consistently good academic

record with a doctorate degree or equivalent

published work.

It further specified that applicant shall possess

8 years experience of teaching and/or Research

including 3 years of a Ph.D. degree and shall have

made some mark in the areas of scholarship as

evidenced by quality of publication, contribution to

educational innovation, design of new courses etc.

7

Therefore, it is very clear that the

advertisement does not specify that only those who

possess M.Sc. in Sericulture are eligible for the post

of Reader in Sericulture. It is submitted that the

candidates with the Master Degree and Ph.D. are

also qualified to apply for the post and for

consideration for the post. Therefore, the

contention of respondent, Dr. H.L. Ramesh that the

qualification required for the post of Reader in

Sericulture in Master Degree and Ph.D. Degree only

in Sericulture is not correct. It is needless to

mention that Botany, Zoology and Sericulture are

all interrelated subjects.”

17.The University of Mysore further submitted that there was

no merit in the contention of Dr. H.L. Ramesh that the

appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. Manjunath were not qualified

to be appointed as Readers in the Sericulture.

18.We deem it appropriate to mention that the University

had constituted an Expert Committee consisting of the leading

experts. The said Committee consisted of the following

eminent experts:

(a)Prof. Y. Srinivasa Reddy

Chairman, DOS in Sericulture

Manasagangothri, Mysore – 6.

8

(b)Prof. M. C. Devaiah,

Dept. of Sericulture.

University of Agri. Sciences

Bangalore.

(c)Prof. S. Govindappa,

Dept. of Sericulture

Sri Venkateswar University

Tirupati.

(d)Dr. S. B. Dandin,

Director

Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development

Institute,

Bangalore

(e)Prof. V. Subramaniam

Dept. of Textile Technology

Anna University

Chennai.

19.The Committee appointed by the University thoroughly

scrutinized the qualification, experience and published works

of both the candidates and made its unanimous

recommendations in favour of their appointments. The

University also clearly stated that the appointments of the

appellants were made in consonance with the terms of the

provisions of the Act. Admittedly, for the selections to the post

of Readers, an Expert Committee was constituted and

thereafter, its recommendations were accepted by the

University and issued orders accordingly. No one had any

9

grievance so far as the constitution of Experts Committee was

concerned and no mala fides have been levelled against any

member of the expert committee.

20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

21.According to the advertisement, a relevant portion of

which has been set out in the preceding paragraph it is clearly

indicated that the qualification for appointment to the post of

Reader was that candidates must possess consistently good

academic record with a Doctorate Degree or equivalent

published work.

22.According to respondent no.1, the appellants were not

eligible to be appointed because they had degrees in Zoology

and Botany respectively whereas only respondent no.1 was

eligible because he was the only one who had the Doctorate

degree in the subject of Sericulture.

23.In the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2005, the Division

Bench did not properly comprehend the qualifications for the

appointment of the Reader given in the advertisement. It is

10

clearly indicated in the advertisement that the qualification for

appointment as Reader was a Doctorate degree or equivalent

published work. Admittedly, both these appellants had

extensive published work in the national and international

journals of repute to their credit. This is clearly indicated in

extenso in the application forms which they had filled for the

appointments for the posts of Readers.

24.The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed

by respondent no.1 on the ground that selection had taken

place in 1999 and the appellants were working in their

respective teaching posts and the court did not deem it

appropriate to disturb the existing arrangement and dismissed

the petition.

25.The Division Bench in the impugned judgment allowed

the appeal filed by Dr. H.L. Ramesh, respondent no. 1 herein,

on the short ground that the appellants herein did not have

Doctorate degree in Sericulture. Therefore, they were not

qualified for appointment as Readers in Sericulture. In the

impugned judgment, the court did not properly comprehend

11

the advertisement in which it was clearly mentioned that the

prescribed qualification was Doctorate degree or equivalent

published work. According to the affidavit which has been

filed by the University, the Expert Committee consisting of

highly qualified five distinguished experts evaluated the

qualification, experience and the published work of the

appellants. They found them eligible and suitable. The

relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:-

“All the abovesaid members of the committee are

experts in the field of Sericulture. The said

selection committee thoroughly scrutinized the

relative merits and demerits of each candidates

and made its recommendations. It is needless to

mention that the selection and appointment of

teachers is to be made in terms of Section 49 of

the Act. This respondent University has strictly

followed the Government orders issued from time

to time regarding reservations. After taking into

consideration the orders issued by the

Government and the guidelines issued by the

University, the recommendation of the expert

selection committee has been accepted by the

University and accordingly impugned orders have

been issued.”

26.It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the

University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined

and scrutinized the qualification, experience and published

12

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

scrutinized the merits and de-merits 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.

27.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, 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 country’s leading experts in the field of Sericulture.

13

28.A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding

appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader

in English in the Central College, Bangalore, in the case of

The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao

and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491, in which the Constitution Bench

unanimously held that normally the Courts should be slow to

interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts

particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides

against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board.

The court further observed that it would normally be wise and

safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters

to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they

face than the courts generally can be.

29.We have been called upon to adjudicate the similar

matter of the same University almost after half a century. In

a judicial system governed by precedents, the judgments

delivered by the Constitution Bench and other Benches must

be respected and relied on with meticulous care and sincerity.

14

The ratio of the Constitution Bench has not been properly

appreciated by the learned judges in the impugned judgment.

30.In Dr. M.C. Gupta & Others v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta

& Others (1979) 2 SCC 339, somewhat similar controversy

arose for adjudication, in which the State Public Service

Commission invited applications for two posts of Professors of

Medicine in the State Medical Colleges. The two appellants as

well as respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post.

Appellant no.1 had teaching experience of about 6 years and 6

months as a Lecturer in Cardiology in the department of

medicine and about 3 years and 2 months as Reader in

Medicine in S. N. Medical College, Agra. Since there was no

separate Department of Cardiology in that College, Cardiology

formed part of general medicine and as such he was required

to teach general medicine to undergraduate students and to

some post-graduate students in addition to Cardiology.

Similarly, appellant no.2 had one year’s experience as post-

doctoral teaching fellow in the Department of Medicine, State

University of New York, Buffalo, one year’s teaching experience

15

as Lecturer while posted as a Pool Officer and 15 months’

teaching experience as post-doctoral research fellow in the

Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur

and about 4 years’ and 6 months’ teaching experience as

Assistant Professor of Medicine, State University of New York,

Buffalo. The cardiology is a part of medicine and the teaching

experience acquired while holding the post of Lecturer in

Cardiology, was teaching experience in a subject which

substantially formed part of general medicine and over and

above the same. The Commission was amply justified in

reaching to the conclusion that he had the requisite teaching

experience. The High Court was, therefore, in error in

quashing his selection of the appellant in this case.

31. 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 must

16

be quite aware of institutions in which the teaching experience

was acquired by him and this one is a reputed University.

32.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 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…”

17

33.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. … … …”

34.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. .. … …”

18

35.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.

36.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. …

… …”

19

37.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 emphasise 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 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.”

38. The 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 not

20

is 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….”

39.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.

40.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.

21

41.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.

42.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.

43.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.

44.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.

22

45.We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate

and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters,

the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala

fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the

selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome

and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the

academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts

should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the

decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and

appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.

46.In the impugned judgment, the High Court has ignored

the consistent legal position. They were expected to abide by

the discipline of the precedents of the courts. Consequently,

we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the

Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of

the Single Judge of the High Court.

47.The University of Mysore, respondent herein, is directed

to give regular pay-scale to the appellants from 1

st

August,

2010. To avoid any further litigation, we may make it clear

23

that the appellants would not be entitled to claim any arrears

or benefits for the past period.

48.The appeals are allowed, but, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their

own costs.

…………………………J.

(DALVEER BHANDARI)

………………………….J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi;

July 29, 2010

24