Holding

The High Court cannot award marks for publications and the separate category‑wise interview process is illegal; the university must re‑examine the selection via an expert committee, and the appellant’s appointment is subject to that recommendation.

Summary

The case concerned two recruitment advertisements for Assistant Professor posts at Himachal Pradesh University. The appellant, an OBC candidate, was appointed, while the respondent, a General category candidate, claimed he was denied five marks for "publications" that had been awarded in an earlier, incomplete selection process. The High Court directed that the marks be added to the respondent’s score‑sheet, a decision the appellant challenged. The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot award marks for publications, as that is the domain of academic experts, and that conducting separate interviews for General and OBC categories is unconstitutional and unfair. Consequently, the Court ordered the university to re‑examine the selection through an expert committee and to decide the appellant’s appointment based on that committee’s recommendation. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Can a court of law award marks for "publications" in a university selection process?
Is the practice of conducting separate interviews for General and OBC category candidates constitutionally valid?
Did the selection process comply with UGC regulations and the principles of fairness and equality?
Should the appellant's appointment be set aside pending re‑evaluation by an expert committee?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 16(4)
University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010

Subjects

service lawappointmentselection processpublications marksreservationOBCseparate interviewsexpert committeejudicial reviewUGC regulations

Judgment

340 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 13 S.C.R. 340
REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.

A PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7211-7212 of 2019)
B SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment/Selection – To the post of Asstt. Professor – In
C one advertisement (Adv. No. 3 of 2010) selection process not
completed – Subsequent advertisement (Adv. No.3 of 2011) requiring
that the candidates who had applied pursuant to previous
advertisement need not apply afresh – Appellant (OBC candidate)
and respondent (General Category candidate) did not apply afresh
in response to subsequent advertisement – Appointment of appellant
D
– Challenged by respondent contending that he was not given any
credit for the “publications” in the subsequent selection process,
whereas credit was given for the “publications” in the previous
selection process – High Court allowed the writ petition directing
to add to the score-sheet of the respondent five marks on the
E parameters of “publications” – In review petition High Court order
was affirmed – Plea of appellant that such “publications” were not
before the Search Committee as the respondent had not submitted
any “publications” – Held: In the facts of the case, it cannot be
said that the “publications” were not before the Search Committee
– However, it is for the experts to award marks for “publications”–
F
The Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot award
marks for “publications”.
Selection Process – Process of conducting separate interviews
for the posts under General Category and OBC Category – Held:
Such process is not fair and reasonable – Every person is a General
G Category candidate – If a reserved category candidate is in merit,
he will occupy the General Category seat.

H
340
PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 341

Allowing the appeals, the Court A
HELD : 1.1 As per the conditions pertaining to
advertisement No. 3 of 2011, (subsequent advertisement) the
applications submitted earlier were to be considered. This shows
that the “publications” of the writ petitioner were with the
University when the writ petitioner was granted marks for B
“publications”. Even if the Selection Committee has undergone
a change as well as norms of selection as per the Regulations,
the Selection Committee was within its jurisdiction not to award
any marks for “publications”, if it was not meeting the requisite
conditions. It cannot be said that the writ petitioner has not
submitted any “publications”. Such “publications” were before C
the Search Committee when the writ petitioner was interviewed
on May 13, 2012. [Para 12] [346-D-F]
1.2. However, 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 D
award the marks for publications, that too, on the basis of an
earlier selection process. The marks obtained by the writ
petitioner under the heading “publications” on May 13, 2012
were not before the High Court. The appellant was granted three
marks for “publications” in the earlier selection process initiated E
vide advertisement No. 3 of 2010. Such “publications” were also
required to be taken into consideration by the Selection
Committee. [Para 13] [346-G-H; 347-A]
University Grants Commission & Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde
(Gadekar) (2013) 10 SCC 519 : [2013] SCR 521 F
– relied on.
2. The process of conducting separate interviews for the
posts of Assistant Professor under general category and OBC
category is wholly illegal. Though, none of the parties have raised
any dispute about it but since the same is inherently defective, G
the Court is constrained to observe so. Every person is a general
category candidate. The benefit of reservation is conferred to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC category

H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.

A candidates or such other category as is permissible under law. If
a reserved category candidate is in merit, he will occupy a general
category seat. Therefore, the selection process conducted by the
University cannot be said to be fair and reasonable. Consequently,
the University is directed to re-examine the selection process
by constituting an Expert Committee who shall consider the
B
“publications” of the candidates who were being considered in
pursuance of advertisement No. 3 of 2011 and make suitable
recommendations accordingly by having a joint merit list of all
the categories of candidates who applied for appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor. However, in such selection process,
C the appointment of candidates already selected will not be
disturbed, except the appellant whose appointment shall be
subject to the decision of the University on the basis of
recommendation of the Expert Committee. [Paras 14 and 17]
[347-B-C; 348-B-C]
D Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992)
Supp. (3) SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454
– followed.
Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC
350 : [2016] 7 SCR 639 – relied on.
E Case Law Reference
[2013] SCR 521 relied on Para 6
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454 followed Para 14
[2016] 7 SCR 639 relied on Para 15
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7211-
7212 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2015 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in CWP No. 4060 of 2014 and order dated
30.07.2015 in Rev. Pet. No. 92 of 2015.
G
Abhijat P. Medh, Adv. for the Appellant.
Rameshwar Singh Malik, Harikesh Singh, Satyendra Kumar, Ajay
Dig Paul, Surender Kumar Gupta, Piyush Beriwal, Ms. N. Annapoorani,
Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Pankaj Sharma,Advs. for the Respondents.
H
PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 343

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeals is to orders passed by the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on June 24, 2015 and July 30,
2015 whereby, the Himachal Pradesh University1 was directed to add
five marks on the parameter of “publications” in favour of the respondent B
No. 32 in respect of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the
Department of Education in the International Centre for Distance
Education and Open Learning, Shimla.
2. Initially, an advertisement No. 3 of 2010 was published inviting
applications for seven posts of Assistant Professor viz. four posts under C
Unreserved category, one post under Other Backward Classes3 category,
one post under Scheduled Castes category and one post in Scheduled
Tribes category. The appellant and the writ petitioner were the applicants
for such posts. However, none of the candidates were appointed to such
posts. Thereafter, another advertisement No. 3 of 2011 was published. D
This time, advertisement was published for the post of Assistant Professor
inviting applications for six posts under Unreserved category, one post
under OBC category, one post under Scheduled Castes category and
one post under Scheduled Tribes category. One of the conditions in the
advertisement was that the candidates who have applied earlier as per
revised UGC guidelines and also with reference to previous E
advertisements need not to apply again. However, they may send
additional information, if any.
3. The appellant and the writ petitioner did not apply again nor
said to have furnished any additional information. In such selection
process, the appellant was recommended by the Expert Committee for F
appointment against the post meant for OBC category, having obtained
60.83 marks.
4. Such appointment was challenged by the writ petitioner, inter
alia, on the ground that he has not been given any credit of “publications”
whereas, for such “publications”, he has been given credit when he was G
considered in pursuance of the post applied in response to advertisement

1
for short, ‘University’
2
hereinafter referred to as ‘writ petitioner’
3
for short, ‘OBC’
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.

A No. 3 of 2010. The High Court accepted the claim of the writ petitioner
with the following directions:
“The writ petition is accepted and respondents No. 1 and 2 are
directed to add to the score-sheet of the petitioner five marks on
the parameter of “publications”. In case the petitioner then is
B ranked first, then subject to completion of all necessary formalities
the respondent concerned shall proceed to in accordance with
law appoint him to the post of Assistant Professor, Education.”
5. The appellant filed review petition which came to be summarily
dismissed on July 30, 2015. Still aggrieved, the appellant filed the present
C appeal.
6. The argument of the appellant is two-fold. First, it is for the
experts to assess the marks for “publications”. Since the writ petitioner
has not sent any “publications” along with his application form, therefore,
he has not been granted any marks under the heading “publications”. It
D is also argued that decision of the experts as to how much marks should
be awarded cannot be interfered with by the High Court, while exercising
the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Even if, the Court finds that certain marks under heading
“publications” have not been granted, the only course of action open to
the Court is to remit the matter to the experts to examine the grant of
E marks under the heading “publications”, if any. The reliance is placed
upon judgment of this Court in University Grants Commission & Anr.
v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar)4 wherein this Court held as under:
“31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there
is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the
F notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those
issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court
in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC
491] , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University [(2001) 8 SCC
546 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1] and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary
G Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S)
887] , has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in
appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies
and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision
of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem
4
(2013) 10 SCC 519
H
PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 345
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body A
has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think
fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in the university. For attaining the said
standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteria”,
which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for
B
maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research.
The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered
for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges
and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus
with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to
the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only C
implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying
criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or
discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
7. Learned counsel for the University refers to the policy and
programme for recruitment of Lecturers in the University including D
contemplating marks for “publications”, which is as under:

(vi) Publications 5 International, National referred Journals:
1 Mark each.
Authored books*: 1 Mark each.
Chapter in Books*
(Excluding proceedings of seminars/ E
conferences): 0.5 Marks each.
Edited books*: 0.5 Marks each.
Publications in popular magazines,
newspapers etc.: Nil.
*On the relevant subject only.

8. It may be noticed that the post of Lecturer has been renamed F
as Assistant Professor and that the norms of the appointment to the
posts of Assistant Professor are prescribed by the 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, 20105.
G
9. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the discretion
as to whether any marks for “publications” are to be awarded or not
falls within an exclusive domain of the experts. It is argued that marks
obtained in the earlier selection process which was not completed cannot
5
for short, ‘Regulations’ H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.

A be directed to be taken into consideration as not only the Selection
Committee is different but also the selection in response to advertisement
No. 3 of 2011 is being conducted after framing of the Regulations for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner
B pointed out that not only the writ petitioner was granted five marks in the
earlier selection process but also five marks were granted to the post of
Assistant Professor in Education against the general category post. Such
document has been appended with Annexure R-3/5.
11. In this background, we examine the respective contentions of
C the parties.
12. As per the conditions pertaining to advertisement No. 3 of
2011, the applications submitted earlier were to be considered. This
shows that the “publications” of the writ petitioner were with the
University when the writ petitioner was granted marks for “publications”.
D Even if the Selection Committee has undergone a change as well as
norms of selection as per the Regulations, the Selection Committee was
within its jurisdiction not to award any marks for “publications”, if it was
not meeting the requisite conditions. But surprisingly, the writ petitioner
has not been granted any marks under the heading “publications” in the
interview held on May 12, 2012, when the candidates for under OBC
E category were interviewed but the writ petitioner was granted five marks
for “publications” when the interview was being conducted for the post
of Assistant Professor under general category on May 13, 2012. Though,
the writ petitioner has not appeared in the interview but the fact remains
that he has been granted five marks for “publications”. It is the same
F Selection Committee who conducted interview on May 12, 2012 and on
May 13, 2012. Therefore, the stand of the appellant that the writ petitioner
has not submitted any “publications” does not merit acceptance. Such
“publications” were before the Search Committee when the writ
petitioner was interviewed on May 13, 2012.

G 13. 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.
The marks obtained by the writ petitioner under the heading “publications”
on May 13, 2012 were not before the High Court. The appellant was
H
PRADEEP SINGH DEHAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 347
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

granted three marks for “publications” in the earlier selection process A
initiated vide advertisement No. 3 of 2010. Such “publications” were
also required to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee.
14. We find that the process of conducting separate interviews
for the posts of Assistant Professor under general category and OBC
category is wholly illegal. Though, none of the parties have raised any B
dispute about it but since the same is inherently defective, we are
constrained to observe so. 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. It is a consistent view of this Court starting from
Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.6 that if a reserved C
category candidate is in merit, he will occupy a general category seat.
In Indra Sawhney’s case, the Court held as under:
“811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations
under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation.
It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled D
Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of
their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved
for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition
candidates.”
15. In judgment reported as Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar E
Agarwal7 one of the questions examined was whether reserved category
candidate who obtains more marks than the last general category
candidate is to be treated as general category candidate. It was held
that such reserved category candidate has to be treated as unreserved
category candidate provided such candidate did not avail any other special F
concession. The Court held as under:
“84.2. Migration from reserved category to general category shall
be admissible to those reserved category candidates who secured
more marks obtained by the last unreserved category candidates
who are selected, subject to the condition that such reserved G
category candidates did not avail any other special concession. It
is clarified that concession of passing marks in TET would not be
treated as concession falling in the aforesaid category.”
6
1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217
7
(2017) 1 SCC 350 H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R.

A 16. The concessions which were availed by the reserved category
candidates are in the nature of age relaxation, lower qualifying marks,
concessional application money than the general category candidates.
17. In view of the said fact, we find that the selection process
conducted by the University cannot be said to be fair and reasonable.
B Consequently, the University is directed to re-examine the selection
process by constituting an Expert Committee who shall consider the
“publications” of the candidates who were being considered in pursuance
of advertisement No. 3 of 2011 and make suitable recommendations
accordingly by having a joint merit list of all the categories of candidates
who applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. However,
C in such selection process, the appointment of candidates already selected
will not be disturbed, except the appellant whose appointment shall be
subject to the decision of the University on the basis of recommendation
of the Expert Committee.
18. We hope that University will be able to finalise the revised
D selections within a period of six months from today.
19. The appeals are, thus, allowed in the above terms.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H