Supreme Court settles criteria for Professor appointment in Universities: B.C. Mylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah (2008)

Case Background

The appellant, B.C. Mylarappa, along with two others, was appointed as a ‘Research Assistant’ in the Sociology Department of Bangalore University on October 18, 1988. The initial appointment was for three years, with the possibility of year-to-year extensions based on satisfactory performance reports from the Head of the Department. The appointment letter stipulated tutorial work of 3 to 4 hours per week in addition to research duties.

In 1987, some Research Assistants whose tenure was ending requested regularization through promotion. They argued that their experience gained during their tenure (three to five years) should be considered. On October 31, 1988, the University drafted a statute to absorb Research Assistants as Lecturers as a one-time measure, submitting it to the State Government for approval. By October 19, 1991, the University directed that the status quo be maintained for Research Assistants who had continued beyond three years, pending a government decision on their absorption as lecturers.

On November 3, 1992, the State of Karnataka returned the draft statute to the University with suggestions. The University resubmitted the revised draft on February 17, 1993. The Chancellor of the University gave assent to the statute on October 4, 1993. This statute, titled “Conversion of certain posts of Research Assistants to that of Lecturers and abolition of vacant posts of Research Assistants in various Departments of Bangalore University,” was notified on November 8, 1993.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

In 1995, the appellant and other Research Assistants filed writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka, challenging Clause 3.6 and 3.8 of the Statute and Conditions 1 & 6 of the appointment order dated March 21, 1994. They sought a declaration that these clauses were illegal and a direction to the University to consider their past services as Research Assistants for seniority as Lecturers.

A Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the writ petitions on April 12, 2000, upholding the validity of Clauses 3.6 and 3.8 of the Statute and Condition No. 1 of the appointment order but cancelling the Condition No. 1 of the appointment order dated 21st of March, 1994. Appeals were filed by the writ petitioners, the University, and the State. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petitioners’ appeal and allowed the appeals of the State and the University on March 7, 2002, concluding that Research Assistants’ posts are lower than Lecturers’ posts and cannot be equated.

Challenging the selection, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking for a writ declaring the selection and appointment of appellant to the post of Professor in the Department of Sociology. By a Judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2007, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and thereby directed the University to readvertise the post and fill the vacancy in accordance with law within a period of three month s from the date of reply of the order. Being aggri eved by the Judgment and order date d 31st of July, 2007, the appellant preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by its Judgment and final order dated 6th of August, 2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the Statute titled “Conversion of certain posts of Research Assistants to that of Lecturers and abolition of vacant posts of Research Assistants in various Departments of Bangalore University.” Key clauses of this statute include:

• ✓ Clause 3.1: “As from the date on which these Statutes shall come into force the posts of Research Assistants as mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ to these Statutes shall stand converted to the posts of Lecturer.”
• ✓ Clause 3.2: “As from the date on which these Statutes shall come into force all posts of Research Assistants, which are vacant as on 13.11.1992, shall stand abolished and there shall be no further appointment of Research Assistants in any of the Departments of the University.”
• ✓ Clause 3.4: “The Research Assistants holding the post as such and as mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ to these Statutes as on the date on which these Statutes shall come into force shall be eligible to be absorbed and appointed as Lecturers.”
• ✓ Clause 3.6: “The Research Assistants absorbed and appointed under the Statutes as Lecturers for the purpose of seniority as Lecturers will rank below the Lecturer already working in the University as on the date on which these Statutes shall come into force.”

The judgment also considers the appointment order issued on March 21, 1994, which stipulated that for seniority purposes, the absorbed Lecturers would rank below existing Lecturers and that those without Ph.D./NET/M.Phil qualifications must acquire them within three years to continue earning increments. Additionally, the services as Research Assistants would not be counted for granting senior or selection scale pay.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (B.C. Mylarappa):

• ✓ The High Court should not have interfered with the decision of the Board of Appointment, which comprised experts, in the absence of any evidence of mala fide intentions by the University or its authorities.
• ✓ The High Court erred in not considering both the appellant’s teaching experience as a Lecturer (8 years, 7 months, and 2 days) and research experience as a Research Assistant (5 years, 5 months, and 10 days) when assessing eligibility for the post of Professor.
• ✓ The appellant relied on the decision in Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University & Ors. [1999 (1) SCC 453] and The University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491] and Nation al Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC 481], arguing that the combined experience should have been considered sufficient for appointment.
• ✓ The expert’s views are entitled to great weight as stated in University of Mysore’s case.

Respondents’ Arguments (Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors.):

• ✓ The Division Bench and the Single Judge of the High Court were correct in holding that the appellant’s experience as a Research Assistant could not be treated as equivalent to postgraduate teaching experience.
• ✓ The Board of Appointment did not adequately consider whether the appellant’s experience could be treated as research experience.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the Board of Appointment in the absence of any allegations of mala fides.
2. Whether the High Court erred in holding that the experience of the appellant as a Research Assistant could not be treated as equivalent to postgraduate teaching experience for the purpose of determining eligibility for the post of Professor.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University & Ors. [1999 (1) SCC 453] (Supreme Court of India): Relied upon to support the argument that teaching and research experience can be combined to meet the eligibility criteria for the post of Professor.
• ✓ G.N.Nayak vs. Goa University & Ors. [2002 (2) SCC 712] (Supreme Court of India): Followed the principle established in Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University, stating that a candidate can combine teaching and research qualifications to meet the required experience.
• ✓ The University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491] (Supreme Court of India): Cited to emphasize that courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions of experts in academic matters.
• ✓ National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC 481] (Supreme Court of India): Referred to in order to highlight that the function of a Selection Committee is purely administrative and not judicial, and that there is no requirement to record reasons for selection.
• ✓ M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [2008 (2) SCC 119] (Supreme Court of India): Cited to support the view that in the absence of any mala fides attributed to the expert body, court should not draw any conclusion on the recommendation of the expert body unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt.

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and rejecting the writ petition filed by the respondents. The Court directed the University to reinstate the appellant within two months.

Treatment of Submissions Table

Treatment of Authorities

• ✓ Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University & Ors. [1999 (1) SCC 453]: The Court relied on this authority to support the view that teaching and research experience can be combined to meet the eligibility criteria for the post of Professor.
• ✓ G.N.Nayak vs. Goa University & Ors. [2002 (2) SCC 712]: The Court followed the principle established in Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University, stating that a candidate can combine teaching and research qualifications to meet the required experience.
• ✓ The University of Mysore vs. C.D.Govinda Rao & Anr. [AIR 1965 SC 491]: The Court cited this authority to emphasize that courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions of experts in academic matters.
• ✓ National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC 481]: The Court referred to this authority in order to highlight that the function of a Selection Committee is purely administrative and not judicial, and that there is no requirement to record reasons for selection.
• ✓ M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [2008 (2) SCC 119]: The Court cited this authority to support the view that in the absence of any mala fides attributed to the expert body, court should not draw any conclusion on the recommendation of the expert body unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The absence of any evidence of mala fide intentions on the part of the expert selection committee.
• ✓ The principle that courts should be cautious in interfering with the decisions of academic experts.
• ✓ The precedent set in Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University & Ors. [1999 (1) SCC 453], which allowed for the combination of teaching and research experience to meet eligibility criteria.
• ✓ The fact that the appellant had satisfied the necessary qualifications when both his experience as a Lecturer and Research Assistant were considered.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the Board of Appointment

Issue 2: Whether the High Court erred in holding that the experience of the appellant as a Research Assistant could not be treated as equivalent to postgraduate teaching experience

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Courts should be hesitant to interfere with the decisions of expert academic bodies unless there is evidence of mala fides.
• ✓ Prior research experience can be considered equivalent to teaching experience when evaluating candidates for professorships, especially when supported by expert opinions.
• ✓ Universities have the autonomy to set their own criteria for appointments, but these criteria must be applied fairly and without arbitrariness.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the University to reinstate the appellant within two months from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in the absence of mala fides, courts should respect the decisions of expert academic bodies, and prior research experience can be considered equivalent to teaching experience when evaluating candidates for professorships. This judgment reinforces the principles established in previous cases like Dr. Kumar Bar Das vs. Utkal University.

Conclusion

In B.C. Mylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah, the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the decision of the expert selection committee, as there was no evidence of mala fides. The Court also clarified that prior research experience can be considered equivalent to teaching experience when evaluating candidates for professorships. The University was directed to reinstate the appellant.

Category

• ✓ Education Law
  • ✓ University Appointments
  • ✓ Professor Eligibility
  • ✓ Research Experience
• ✓ Service Law
  • ✓ Appointment
  • ✓ Seniority

FAQ

1. Can a University’s decision to appoint a professor be challenged in court?

   Yes, but courts are generally hesitant to interfere with the decisions of expert academic bodies unless there is evidence of mala fides or a violation of statutory rules.

2. Does research experience count towards the eligibility criteria for a professorship?

   Yes, research experience can be considered equivalent to teaching experience when evaluating candidates for professorships, especially when supported by expert opinions and university regulations.

3. What happens if a selection committee’s decision is challenged?

   The court will examine whether the selection process was fair, transparent, and in accordance with the university’s regulations. The court will also consider whether the selection committee acted with any bias or mala fide intentions.