University Appointments | Court Can't Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Experts Sans Violation Of UGC Regulations/ Alleged Malafides: MP High Court

In a recent decision, Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the court cannot interfere with the findings of an expert committee in the absence of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal noted that the petitioner was not appointed as an Associate Professor at Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU) Amarkantak because the expert committee found that he was not as meritorious as the private respondent who was appointed instead of him. To reinforce the stand that even the petitioner has not taken any plea of mala fides or impleaded the expert committee members, the court resorted to the factual matrix of the case and stated as below:

“…the difference between the score secured by the private respondent No.4 and petitioner is so huge that minor or marginal errors even if taken into consideration are not sufficient to give an edge to the petitioner's case. Therefore, on both the touchstone of there being no violation of the UGC guidelines and further there being no material to show that the experts were acting in a mala fide or partial manner, this Court cannot definitely sit as an appellate authority over the judgments of the experts”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur reasoned.

While dismissing the petition preferred by the candidate, High Court also relied on the judgment in Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. , (2010) 8 SCC 4 372 to underscore that the conclusions derived by a committee consisting of distinguished experts can't be brushed aside lightly by an appellate court, merely based on the petitioner's plea. In Basavaiah, the apex court had opined that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert Committee consisting of five experts who scrutinised candidates for the posts of Readers in Sericulture. Therein, the apex court laid down in unequivocal terms that in academic matters, courts have a very limited role, particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee.

Returning to the current factual scenario, according to the University officials, though two vacancies were advertised, only one out of them was filled and the other was left vacant. This was apparently because of the stark difference between the API marks secured by Private Respondent No. 4 when compared with the marks of the petitioner and other candidates.

The University cited the potential mismatch in the calibre of faculties to refuse appointment of the petitioner candidate. The court, therefore, refused to accept the argument of the petitioner's counsel that the decision in Shailesh Kumar Son Wane v. State of M.P. & Ors (2021) would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Justice Vivek Kumar pointed out that the petitioner was unable to prove the presence of arbitrariness in denying selection to the vacant post, unlike in Shailesh Kumar.

Moreover, UGC was also not impleaded as a necessary party to adjudicate the grievance raised by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any specific violation of UGC guidelines, the court added.

Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner had argued that the methodology used by the Committee for calculating API Score Cards was riddled with discrepancies and turned out to be unevenly favourable to Private Respondent No.4.

However, rejecting such contentions, the court dismissed the petitioner's plea for setting aside the appointment of Private Respondent No. 4 as Associate Professor in Mathematics.

Advocate Brindavan Tiwari represented the petitioner. Advocate Arpan J. Pawar appeared for the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University.

Case Title: Dr. Yadvendra Prasad Dubey v. Principal Secretary Higher Education Department Vallabh Bhawan

Case No: Writ Petition No. 18628 of 2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 37

Click Here To Read/ Download Order