Supreme Court Orders Re-evaluation of Assistant Professor Appointments: Pradeep Singh Dehal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 17, 2019

Citation: Not Available in the source

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a High Court direct a university to add marks to a candidate’s score for “publications” during the selection process for Assistant Professors? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, along with the validity of conducting separate interviews for general and reserved category candidates, in a case concerning appointments at Himachal Pradesh University. This case highlights the complexities of academic appointments and the role of judicial review in ensuring fair selection processes. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

In 2010, Himachal Pradesh University advertised seven posts for Assistant Professors. The appellant and the writ petitioner both applied, but no appointments were made. Subsequently, in 2011, the university issued another advertisement for six posts under the unreserved category, along with other reserved category posts. The advertisement stated that candidates who had applied earlier did not need to apply again but could submit additional information. The appellant and the writ petitioner did not reapply or submit additional information. In this selection process, the appellant was recommended for appointment in the OBC category, securing 60.83 marks. The writ petitioner challenged this appointment, arguing that he was not given credit for his “publications,” unlike in the previous selection process of 2010.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The writ petitioner challenged the appointment of the appellant before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, arguing that he was not given credit for “publications” in the 2011 selection process, unlike in the 2010 process. The High Court accepted the writ petitioner’s claim and directed the University to add five marks to his score for “publications.” The High Court further directed that if the writ petitioner ranked first after the addition of marks, he should be appointed as Assistant Professor. The appellant then filed a review petition, which was summarily dismissed by the High Court. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the University Grants Commission (UGC) (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, which prescribe the norms for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The court also refers to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the power of High Courts to issue certain writs. The court also refers to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which allows the state to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens.

The relevant norms for “publications” as per the University policy are:

• International/National referred Journals: 1 Mark each.
• Authored books: 1 Mark each.
• Chapter in Books (excluding proceedings of seminars/conferences): 0.5 Marks each.
• Edited books: 0.5 Marks each.
• Publications in popular magazines, newspapers etc.: Nil.

It is also clarified that the above publications are to be considered only if they are on the relevant subject.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the assessment of marks for “publications” is within the domain of experts.
• Since the writ petitioner did not submit any “publications” with his application form for the 2011 selection, he was not granted any marks under this heading.
• The High Court should not interfere with the expert’s decision on awarding marks.
• If the court finds that marks were not granted, the matter should be remitted to the experts for review, instead of the court itself directing the award of marks.
• The appellant relied on the judgment in University Grants Commission & Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013) 10 SCC 519], which held that courts should not interfere in academic matters unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or regulations.

Respondent’s (Writ Petitioner) Arguments:

• The writ petitioner argued that he was granted five marks for “publications” in the previous selection process of 2010.
• He also pointed out that five marks were granted for “publications” to candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Education under the general category.

University’s Arguments:

• The University contended that the discretion to award marks for “publications” lies with the experts.
• Marks obtained in the earlier selection process cannot be considered as the Selection Committee and the selection process are different.
• The selection process of 2011 was conducted after the framing of the Regulations for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the issues that the court addressed are:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the University to add five marks to the writ petitioner’s score for “publications.”
2. Whether the process of conducting separate interviews for the posts of Assistant Professor under general and OBC categories is legal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• University Grants Commission & Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013) 10 SCC 519]*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that courts should not interfere in academic matters unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or regulations.
• Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217]*: The Court followed this authority to highlight that reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like communal reservations and that reserved category candidates selected on merit should be treated as open competition candidates.
• Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal [(2017) 1 SCC 350]*: The Court followed this authority to highlight that a reserved category candidate who obtains more marks than the last general category candidate is to be treated as a general category candidate, provided they did not avail any special concession.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that academic matters should be left to the expertise of academic bodies unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or regulations. The Court emphasized that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the University to add marks for “publications,” as this is a matter for experts to decide. Additionally, the Court was concerned about the flawed selection process, specifically the separate interviews for general and reserved categories, which it found to be illegal and unfair. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that every candidate is a general category candidate, and the benefit of reservation is only for those who are eligible under law.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments that the writ petitioner was granted marks for “publications” in the previous selection process but rejected the idea that the High Court could direct the University to add marks. The Court also considered the argument that the University has the discretion to award marks for “publications” but rejected the University’s flawed selection process. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that every candidate is a general category candidate, and the benefit of reservation is only for those who are eligible under law.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “But it is equally true that it is for the experts to award marks for “publications”. The High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, does not sit in the arm chair of the experts to award the marks for publications, that too, on the basis of an earlier selection process.”
• “We find that the process of conducting separate interviews for the posts of Assistant Professor under general category and OBC category is wholly illegal.”
• “Every person is a general category candidate. The benefit of reservation is conferred to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category candidates or such other category as is permissible under law.”

The court did not have any minority opinions.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court should not interfere in academic matters, such as the award of marks for “publications,” unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or regulations.
• The selection process should be fair and reasonable, and conducting separate interviews for general and reserved categories is illegal.
• Reserved category candidates who are selected based on their merit should be treated as general category candidates.
• Universities should ensure that their selection processes are in line with the principles of fairness and equality.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the University to re-examine the selection process by constituting an Expert Committee. This committee is to consider the “publications” of all candidates who applied in response to advertisement No. 3 of 2011 and make suitable recommendations. The University is to create a joint merit list of all categories of candidates. The Court also directed that the appointments of candidates already selected should not be disturbed, except for the appellant, whose appointment will be subject to the decision of the University based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee. The University was directed to finalize the revised selections within six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot direct the University to add marks for “publications” as it is a matter of expert opinion, and that the process of conducting separate interviews for general and reserved categories is illegal. This case reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere in academic matters unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or regulations. It also clarifies that every candidate is a general category candidate and that reservations are to be applied as per the law. The judgment also reinforces the principle that reserved category candidates who are selected based on their merit should be treated as general category candidates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order directing the University to add marks to the writ petitioner’s score for “publications.” The Court emphasized that academic matters are best left to experts and that the High Court should not have interfered in this matter. The Court also found the University’s selection process to be flawed, particularly the practice of conducting separate interviews for general and reserved categories. The University was directed to re-examine the selection process by constituting an Expert Committee and to create a joint merit list of all categories of candidates. This judgment underscores the importance of fair and transparent selection processes in academic institutions and the limits of judicial review in such matters.