Holding

The appointment was irregular as the appellant failed to satisfy the mandatory 55% mark requirement in the relevant subject, and the Chancellor’s annulment under Section 5(10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 stands.

Summary

Dr. B.P. Panda, a Research Assistant at Sambalpur University, applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The selection committee recommended him and he was appointed, but an unsuccessful candidate challenged the appointment on the ground that Panda did not meet the minimum academic qualification of 55% marks in the relevant subject as prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The Chancellor, invoking Section 5(10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989, issued a show‑cause notice, found Panda ineligible, and annulled his appointment, a decision affirmed by the High Court. Panda contended that his marks in Public Administration satisfied the requirement and that the competent authority’s approval should not be interfered with. The Supreme Court held that the qualification must be in the specific subject advertised (Political Science), that the UGC’s rejection of any relaxation was conclusive, and that the Chancellor’s action was proper. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of the appellant as Lecturer in Political Science is valid despite not having the minimum required 55% marks in the relevant subject.
Whether the Chancellor can annul the appointment under Section 5(10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 when the academic qualification requirement is not met.
Whether the rejection of relaxation by the University Grants Commission precludes the appointment.

Subjects

appointmentminimum academic qualificationlecturerpolitical scienceUniversity Grants CommissionSection 5(10)annulmentservice terminationhigher education

Judgment

A DR. BHANU PRASAD PANDA
v.
THE CHANCELLOR, SAMBALl>UR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2001

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]

Service Law:

Appointment of lecturer-Minimum relevant academic qualifications
C prescribed .for the post-Relaxation of qualifications-Rejected by University
Grants Commission-On challenge by an unsuccessful candidate, Chancellor
tenninating the services of the candidate-A.[fim1ed by High Court-On appeal
held, no inte~ference called.for-Held, appointment irregular-Section 5( JO) of
the Orissa Universities Act, 1989-Universities.

D The appellant was working as Research Assistant, who applied for
the Post of Lecturer in Political Science against the advertisement issued
by the respondent-University. The Seleciion Committee found him suitable
and recommend him for appointment. He joined the post. One of the
unsuccessful candidates challenged the appointment of the appellant.
E The Chancellor issued 'show cause notice' to the appellant as to why
his appointment should not be cancelled and ultimately ·found him
not eligible as he lacked minimum academic qualifications and that the
selection of the appellant was made ignoring the claims of the qualified
candidates. In exercise of power u/s. 5(10) of Orissa Universities Act, the
Chancellor annulled the appointment with a direction to terminate the
F service of appellant and to make,fresh appointment. Appellant approached
the High Court and it affirmed the order of the Chancellor. Hence this
appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that he was fully qualified and
G satisfied the norms prescribed and minimum prescribed marks was se-
cured in the subject of 'Public Administration' which constit~te sufficient
compliance and satisfaction of academic qualification stipulated and that
the competent authority had found him eligible and such a decision ought
not to have been interfered by the Chancellor and the High Court.

H Dismissing the appeal, the Court
62
DR. B.P. PANDA v. THE CHANCELLOR, SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY [ RAJU, J.] 63
HELD: The stipulation regarding the minimum academic qualification A
was good academic record with requisite marks in/equivalent grade at
master degree level in the relevant subject. The appointment was for the
Post of Lecturer in 'Political Science' and not in 'Public Administration'
and matterwise, these two subjects are different. Merely because the
Department is of Political Science and Public Administration, the essential
academic qualification of particular standard and grade in the relevant
B
subject for which the 'Post' is advertised, cannot be rendered redundant/
violated by ignoring the relevant subject by the name of the Department
only. Which in substance encompass two different disciplines that merely
the post referred is being available in the Department is no justification to do
away/disprove with the essential academic qualifications in the relevant c
subject for which the post is advertised. Besides 'University Grants
Commission' rejected the proposal for relaxation of minimum marks
condition in the relevant subject for the appellant. Hence no exception could
be taken to the decision of Chancellor and no challenge could be countenanced
against the decision of High Court. (66-E-F; G-H; 67-A; B-C]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3525 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.97 of the Orissa High Court
in O.J.C. No. 2521 of 1995.

Rakesh Diwedi, Naresh K. Sharma and R.P. Wadhwani for the Appellant. E
P.N. Misra, S. Misra and Debasis Misra for Respondent No. l.

A. Subba Rao for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

G.K. Banerjee and Ms. Nandini Gore for Respondent No. 4. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJU, J. This appeal filed against the order of a Division Bench of the
Orissa High Court at Cuttack dated 25.2.97, involves a challenge to the order
sustaining in its turn the order passed by the Chancellor, Sambalpur University, G
annulling the appointment of the appellant to the post of Lecturer in Political
Science, on the ground that he did not possess the minimum required academic
qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission.

The appellant was initially appointed as a Research Assistant in the Post-
Graduate Department of the respondent-University and joined as such on H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A 6. 7. 79. In the course of his employment, he performed his duties for collection,
compilation, tabulation and interpretation of data in addition to assisting the M.
Phil. Programme. On·30.ll.92, the University issued an advertisement inviting
applications in the prescribed form for certain posts enumerated therein, of
which the Lecturer in Political Science was also one. Note 4 indicated that the
details with regard to the nature specialization, qualification required etc. for
B
the different posts will be available along with the application form. The details
so made available contained certain stipulations and so far as the posts of
Lecturer are concerned, in the following terms:

"Lecturer: Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education,
c Physical Education, Foreign Languages. and Law. Good academic
record with at least 55 percent marks or an equivalent grade of Master's
degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an
equivalent degree from a foreign university.
[emphasis supplied]

D Candidates, besides fulfilling the above qualification should have
cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by University Grants
Commission, CSR at similar tests accredited by U.G.C. Exception
from passing the Lecturers eligibility test (GATE or Engineering
graduates only) is only applicable to these candidates who have done
E Ph.D. upto December, 1992 or M. Phil upto March 1991, provided
such candidates have secured 55 percentage marks at the Master's
level. Research Assistants of Sambalpur university having 2nd class
Master's degree but have secured less than 55 per cent marks at the
Master's degree level and have earned M.Phil. upto March 1991 or
Ph.D. upto December, 1992 with certificates, mark sheets, evidence of
F teaching/research experience, testimonials and other publications.
Applications incomplete in any manner are liable to be summarily
rejected.

(b) Candidates in service should route a copy of their applications
through proper channel. No applicant will be interviewed unless his/
G
her application has been duly submitted through his/her employer or
he/she produces a "No Objection" certificate from his/her employer at
the time of interview.

(c) All applications and correspondence are to be addressed to the
H undersigned by designation and not by name.
DR. B.P. PANDA v. THE CHANCELLOR, SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY [RAJU, J.] 65
(d) The candidates are required to appear at an interview before the A
Selection Committee at their own expenses.

(e) Issue of this advertisement does not make it binding on the University
to make· appointment.

(f) Retired persons who have not attained the age of 65 years may also B
apply for the appointment on tenure basis.

(g) SC/ST candidates are required to obtain Caste Certificate from the
District Magistrate/Collector to be eligible to apply. However, the
consideration of their application is subject to the approval of U.G.C."
c
As to the nature of posts, specialization etc. it has been stated as follows:

"S.No. Name of the Name of No. of Specialisation
Dept. College Post Post

xx xx xx xx xx 0
17. Pol. Science Lecturer One Open
& Pub. Admn."

The appellant was one of the applicants to the Post of Lecturer in
Political Science and the Selection Committee found him suitable and
recommended his only name for appointment, as such. On 30.8.93, he was E - -
appointed and joined in the post. One of the unsuccessful candidates Sri B.S.
Chandel made representation to the Chancellor that the appointment of the
appellant was irregular and in violation of the provisions of the Act and
statutes. The Chancellor issued a show-cause notice as to why the appointment
should not be cancelled. Sri B.S. Chandel also appears to have filed a Writ F
Petition in the High Court but the same was disposed of to await the decision
of the Chancellor and to approach the High Court, if aggrieved, against the
decision to be taken by the Chancellor. The Chanc.~llor ultimately found that
the appellant was not eligible for the appointment in question as he lacked the
minimum academic qualifications prescribed by the University Grants
Commission, that he was awarded excess marks towards academic career and G
teaching experience and that the selection of the appellant was made by ignoring
the claims of the qualified candidates. By his order dated 5.4. 95, the Chancellor,
in exercise of powers under Section 5( 10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989,
annulled the appointment with a direction to terminate the services of the
appellant and re-advertise the post for being filled up afresh. Aggrieved, the H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A appellant filed OJC No.2521 of 1995 before the High Court. The High Court
also affirmed the decision of the Chancellor and did not agree with the claims
of the appellant, by dismissing the Writ Petition.

Heard, Shri Rakesh Diwedi, Senior Advocate, for the appellant, Shri P.
N. Misra, Senior Advocate, for the Chancellor and Sri A. Subba Rao for the
B University and Sri G.K. Banerjee for the University Grants Commission. The
learned senior counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant
was fully qualified and satisfied the norms prescribed, that the minimum
prescribed marks was secured by him in the subject of Public Administration
and this constitutes sufficient compliance and satisfaction of the academic
c qualification stipulated. It was also contended that the competent authority,
well-versed in academic matters, have found the appellant to be fully eligible
and such a decision ought not to have been interfered with by the Chancellor
and that the High Court was in error in not setting aside the order of termination
of the services of the appellant. All the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, with equal vehemence, attempted to demonstrate that the Chancellor
D
was right in his decision and when the University Grants Commission also
declined to grant relaxation, the services of the appellant had to be necessarily
terminated for want of prescribed academic qualification on his part. ·

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
E appearing on either side. The stipulation regarding the minimum academic
qualification reads, "good academic record with at least 55 per cent marks or
an equivalent grade of Masters degree level in the relevant subject from an
Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university". Though
the Department concerned for which the appointment is to be made is that of
p 'Political Science & Public Administration', the appointment, with which we
are concerned, is of the Lecturer in Political Science and not Public
Administration and subject matter-wise they are different and not one and the
same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in Public Administration
and in Political Science are distinct and separate and on selection the appellant
could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration be it in the
G Department of Political Science and Public Administration since the
advertisement was specifically to fill up the vacancy in the post of Lecturer in
Political Science. Merely because the Department is of Political Science and
Public Administration - the essential requirement of academic qualification
of a particular standard and grade, viz., 55%, in the "relevant subject" for which
H the post is advertised, cannot be rendered redundant or violated by ignoring the
DR. B.P. PANDA v. THE CHANCELLOR, SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY [ RAJU, J.] 67
relevant subject and carried away by the name of the Department only which, A
in substance, encompass two different disciplines. That merely depending upon
the context he was being referred to or the post is referred to as being available
in the Department of political science and Public Administration, is no
justification to do away or dispense with the essential academic qualification
in the relevant subject for which the post has been advertised. Consequently,
B
the Resolution No. 6.2 dated 18.2.92 or extracts provided from the proceedings
of the Board of Studies dated 2.3.96 cannot be of any assistance to support the
claim of the appellant. The rejection by the U.G.C. of the request of the
Department in this case to relax the condition relating to 55% marks at Post-
Graduation level for Research Assistant having M. Phil upto March 1991 or
Ph.D. upto December 1992, is to be the last word on the claim of the appellant c
and there could be no further controversy raised in this regard. In view of the
above, no exception could be taken to the decision of the Chancellor and no
challenge could be countenanced in this appeal against the well-merited decision
of the High Court.

Consequently, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. Our attention D
has been invited by the learned counsel for the University Grants Commission
to certain latest amendments made effective from March 2000 issued by the
University Grants Commission, and the fact that if the post is re-advertised, the
appellant may be eligible in respect of academic qualification also, as per the
revised standards and norms for any future appointment. These are matters for E
the consideration of the concerned and competent authorities, as and when
occasion arise therefor and it is not for this Court to advert to those aspects in
this appeal, which deserves to be considered only in the light of the stipulations
in force and governing the appointment made during the relevant point of time.
The parties shall bear their respective costs.
F
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.