Holding

A foreign B.A. (Hons.) degree is equivalent to a master’s degree, and the appellant’s appointment as lecturer is valid.

Summary

Aligarh Muslim University advertised a lecturer post requiring at least 55% marks at master’s level or an equivalent foreign qualification. Tariq Islam, who held a B.A. (Hons.) degree from the Council of National Academic Awards, UK, and had subsequently earned M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees from the university, applied and was selected by the university’s selection committee. The university’s Executive Council, however, appointed another candidate, leading Islam to file a writ petition challenging the decision. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, relying on an Association of Indian Universities publication that a B.A. (Hons.) is not equivalent to a master’s degree. The Supreme Court held that the foreign B.A. (Hons.) degree was equivalent to a master’s degree, that the university’s earlier academic council decision on equivalence could not be retrospectively revoked, and ordered Islam’s appointment to be confirmed while also directing suitable accommodation for the alternate candidate.

Issues considered

Whether a foreign B.A. (Hons.) degree can be treated as equivalent to a master’s degree for the purpose of a university lecturer appointment.
Whether the High Court erred in relying solely on an AIU publication without considering the university’s academic council’s equivalence determination.
Whether a university may retrospectively withdraw a previously recognized equivalence of a foreign qualification.

Subjects

lecturer appointmentequivalence of foreign degreeacademic qualificationsuniversity recruitmentjudicial reviewservice law

Judgment

TARIQ ISLAM · A
v.
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

OCTOBER 9, 2001

[S. RAJENDRABABU AND DORAISWAMYRAJU, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Lecturer-Appointment of-Essential qual~fication-Minimum 55% marks
or equivalent grade at masters degree level from an Indian University or an
equivalent grade from aforeign university-Candidate possessing B.A. (Hons.)
c
degree from foreign university-Granted admission to M.Phil leading to Ph.D.
Course-Held, B.A. (Hons.) degree offoreign university equivalent to masters
degree and such candidate's selection to the post lecturer con-ect-Education.

Respondent-University issued an advertisement inviting applications D
for appointment to the post of lecturer. Requirement for the post was
minimum 55 % marks or equivalent grade at masters degree level from an
indian university or equivalent degree from a foreign university. Selection
Committee selected the appellant and respondent No. 7 but it was stated
that in case the appellant's appointment is not approved by the Executive
Council, respondent No. 7 would be appointed. Vice Chancellor approved
E
the appointment of respondent No. 7. Appellant filed a writ petition before
High Court stating that he possessed the necessary qualification, he having
obtained B.A. (Hons.) degree from foreign university and M.Phil. and
Ph.D. degree from the respondent-university. Also at the time of admission
to M.Phil. leading to Ph.D. the academic council approved appellant's F
admission which was ratified based on the recommendations of the
equivalence committee. However, High Court held that the B.A. (Hons.)
degree possessed by the appellant was not equivalent to master's degree
and dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal.
G,.
Allowing the appeal, the court

HELD : t. Selection of the appellant possessing B.A. (Hons.) degree
from foreign university, to the post of lecturer is correct since the B.A.
(Hons.) degree from foreign university is equivalent to masters degree
from Indian university. and on the basis of B.A. (Hons.) degree, the appellant H
689
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A was granted admission to M. Phil leading to Ph.D. course from Indian
university on the approval from the Acedemic Council. In the event of
appellant's qualification not being equivalent to masters degree, he could
not have been admitted to M. Phil leading to Ph.D•. course. However, such
acceptance of equivalence for the purpose of admission to M.Phil leading
to Ph.D. course and not for other purposes will lead to anomalous results.
B
Equivalence of qualification has to be determined before a person is allowed
to undergo a course. [694-F-H; 695-C]

University of Mysore & Am: v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Am:, [1964) 4 SCR
575 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University & Am:, [1986)
C Supp. SCC 740, referred to.

2. High Court was not right in merely relying upon a book on
''Equivalence of foreign degrees" published by the Association of Indian
universities and placing its interpretation that the B.A. (Hons.) degree
possessed by the appellant is equivalent to master's degree of the Indian
D University as the contents of the publication, apart from the Book itself, cannot
be ascribed with any official sanctity of binding force or authority.[ 694-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7076 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2000 of the Allahabad High
E Court in C.W.P. No. 19024 of 1999.

P.P. Rao, B.D. Aga1wal, Prashant Bhushan, Sanjeev Kapoor, Ms. Manjula
Gupta, Chandra Shekhar, Yogesh and S.K. Verma for the appearing patties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.

Respondent No.1 issued an adve1tisement inviting applications for
appointment to the post of Lecturer in Philosophy on October l, 1997. Apart
from other qualifications, one of the essential qualifications provided for such
G appointment in the said advertisement is "Good academic record with at least
55 per cent marks or equivalent gr~de at master's degree level in the relevant
subject from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign university".
The appellant who had obtained B.A.(Hons.) degree from the Council of
National Academic Awards, North London, securing more than 55% marks and
H who had worked with the first respondent University from 25 .8.1981 to 2.1.1993
TARIQ ISLAM v. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY [RAJENDRABABU, J.) 691
in temporary vacancies for about 10 to 11 years as a Lecturer in Philosophy, A
offered his candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer in response to
the aforesaid advertisement. The Selection Committee selecteu the appellant
and respondent No.7 to the third vacancy. It was stated that in case it is held
that the appellant is not possessing Master's degree and his appointment is not
approved by the Executive Council, Dr. Mohd. Hayat Aamir, respondent No.7,
B
be appointed. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor approved the appointment of
respondent No.7. The appellant filed a writ petition stating that he possessed
the necessary qualifications for the appointment having obtained B.A.(Hons.)
degree from the Council of National Academic Awards and having passed the
M.Phil. in 1986 and having obtained the Doctorate degree in Philosophy in
1991. At the time when his admission came up for consideration in M.Phil. c
leading to Ph.D., a reference was made to the British Council by the Standing
Committee for Equivalence and the Faculty of Arts accepted his admission.
The Dean, the Faculty of Arts, in fact, intimated that the issue was academica1ly
settled. The Academic Council approved the admission of the appellant to
' 1 '
M.Phil. leading to Ph.D. course. Thereafter, on 6.11.1984, his admission to D
M.Phil. was cancelled and he made a representation and his representation was
allowed on 6.4.1985. Then on 13.4.1985, the Controller of Examinations and
Admissions issued an order declaring equivalence for the purpose of admission
to Ph.D. course and thereafter the order of cancellation of admission of the
appellant was revoked. The Academic Council ratified the decision of the Vice
Chancellor based on the recommendation of the equivalence committee by E
resolution passed on 27.7.1985. In this background, the appellant asserted that
he possessed the necessary qualifications for being appointed as a Lecturer.

The High Court relied on a book on equivalence of foreign degrees'
published by Association of Indian Universities to hold that the B.A.(Hons.)
F
degree possessed by the appellant is not equivalent to Master's degree and
thereby the appellant lacks essential qualification for appointment as Lecturer.
On that basis, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, after notice
was issued to the University, the Executive Council passed a resolution on G
31. 7 .2000 asking the Vice Chancellor to re-consider the matter. In view of this
development, this Court made an order 011 27.9.2000 disposing of the matter
observing that the proper course for the Vice Chancellor is to re-examine the
matter afresh uninfluenced by the decision of the High Court. However, later
on respondent No.7 filed an application stating that he had not been served with
notice in the matter though he had been impleaderl as a party. This Court, by H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A order dated 23.4.2001, therefore, recalled the order made on 27.9.2000 and
heard the matter in full.

The Vice Chancellor expressed his view after making a detailed note as
under:

B a. The Academic Council's decision of July 27, 1985 with regard to
the equivalence of Dr.Tariq Islam's degree remained valid for the
entire period from July 1985 up to March 7-8, 1999 and was
treated as such by the University which employed Dr. Tariq Islam
as Lecturer in short-medium terms vacancies in the following
periods:
c
i. 03.11.87 - 14.08.90

ii. 10.01.91 - 09.02.91

iii. 03.08.91 - 08.03.99
D ,. ·~
It can, therefore, safely be assumed that the validity question was
revived only in the context of the General Selection Committee
of 06.03.99 for reasons which are not stated on record but which
have been hinted at or alleged in various quarters.

E b. By inviting Dr. Islam to present himself before the General
Selection Committee the University administration was
acknowledging the validity of his academic credentials for the
purposes of the interview.. This was endorsed by the General
Selection Committee which allowed itself to interview the
candidate and even found him fit for selection (By well established
F
practice the job of a Selection Committee is to select, or not to
select, candidates in categorical terms; conditionalities on selection
are inadmissible and have been frowned upon by the competent
authorities)
~-
G c. While it is true that the name of Dr. Islam was bracketed with that
of another candidate who was recommended, the sequence in
which the two names were mentioned indicates clearly that the
judgment of the General Selection Committee regarding their
respective merit.

H d. The University administration's right to review its earlier decision
TARIQ ISLAM v. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 693
in any matter is undisputed but is subject to the established rule A
(sustained by judicial rulings) that such a review should be
carried out in a reasonable manner within reasonable time wften
time is not stipulated in the statute. Furthermore, the implU:afions
... of such a review, in human terms, cannot be overlooked. On both
these counts the decision taken on 08.03.99 falls short of the
B
expectations of reasonableness more so because the University
administration was aware of humanitarian implications of the
decision.

e. Attendant circumstances relating to the manner in which the
decision was made and notified hint at the existence of subjective C
considerations."

Taking these factors into consideration, the Vice Chancellor made an
order on November 29, 2000 as follows:

"It does not appear reasonable that the decision taken on July, 1985 be
retrospectively revoked, particularly when both Dr. Tariq Islam and the D
University have stood by that decision. Any reversal of this decision
is bound to cause an irreparable harm to him. In this particular situation,
therefore, it does appear to me that the ends of the justice will only be
served if conferment of both the M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees upon Dr.
Tariq Islam be treated as valid for all purposes and the recommendations E
of the General Selection Committee dated 8.3.1999 in his favour is
accepted.

Taking all these factors into account, the undersigned, on behalf of the
Executive Council and notwithstanding the contents of the Office
Memo No.D-376(A)/WS/Gen-2.l/Reg. Dated 8.3.1999, has accepted p
the recommendations of the General Selection Committee in respect
of Dr. Tariq Islam and sanctioned his appointment as temporary Lecturer
in the Department of Philosophy, with effect from December 01,
2000."

In the meanwhile, respondent No.7 had been appointed as a Lecturer G
whose name was suggested as an alternate to the appellant by the Selection
Committee, but he has been continued as ·iemporary Lecturer in the Women's
College until further orders.

In the University of Mysore & Am: v. C.D.Govinda Rao & Am:, (1964]
4 SCR 575, the appointment of one Anniah Gowda was set aside by the High H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q01] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Court on the basis that he did not satisfy the qualification that he "must possess
either a first or a high second class Master's degree of an Indian University". ·
This Court stated that normally, it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the
decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems
they face than the courts generally are. Area of interference by courts would
be limited to whether the appointment made by the academic body had
B
contravened any statutory or binding rule and while doing so, the Court should
show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts and on whose
recommendations the academic body had acted and not to treat such expert
body as a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision.
Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and courts
c would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it
appears that the experts were satisfied that the equivalence has already been
considered and ~eclared by it. This view has been reiterated by this Court in
several decisions on the question of equivalence of qualifications including the
one in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Kamataka University & Am:, [1986] Supp.
D sec 740.
In the present case, the High Court has merely relied upon a book
publis~ed as 'equivalence of foreign degrees' by the Association of Indian
Universities and places its interpretation that the B.A.(Hons.) degree possessed
by the appellant is not equivalent to Master's degree of the Aligarh University
E and, therefore, the appellant lacks essential qualification for appointment as the
Lecturer. The contents of the publication, apart from the Book itself, cannot be
ascribed with any official sanctity of binding force or authority. The glaring
facts arising in this case have not been taken note of by the High Court. The
appellant had already obtained M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees from the respondent
University. At the time of his admission to M.Phil. leading to Ph.D. course in
F
the Department of Philosophy, the question of equivalence in qualification was
examined in detail and the Academic Council approved his admission to
M.Phil. or Ph.D. course. In the event his qualification of B.A.(Hons.) degree
from the Council of National Academic Awards is not equivalent to Master's
degree, he could not have been admitted to M.Phil. leading to Ph.D. course.
G But to say that such acceptance of such equivalence is only for the purpose of
admission to M.Phil. leading to Ph.D. course and not for other purposes will
lead to anomalous results. Equivalence of qualification has to be determined
before a person is allowed to undergo a course. When the appellant as a result
of such admission obtained such high qualifications as M.PhiL/Ph.D., it is
difficult to imagine that the equivalence of qualification obtained by him earlier
H
TARIQ ISLAM v. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY [RAJENDRABABU, J.] 695
was not considered by the University. After having obtained such degrees to A
nullify the equivalence declared by the Academic Council and the Vice
Chancellor will be to put the clock back causing grave injustice to the appellant.
Had he been denied admission on the ground that his qualification is not
equivalent to the Master's degree, he might have obtained an equivalent
qualification or pursued his studies else where. That opportunity having been
B
deprived to him and his admission to such courses having been ratified based
on the recommendations of the equivalence committee, it cannot be nullified
in the manner it has been done.

In these circumstances, when now a better view had prevailed over the
Vice Chancellor and the Academic Council which has now decided that the C
qualification possessed by him is sufficient we set aside the order made by the
High Court and allow the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court
directing the respondents to give effect to the order made by the Vice Chancellor
on November 29, 2000 with all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

However, we must notice that the position of respondent No.7 is none D
too enviable because he was appointed as an alternate to the appellant and he
continued in such appointment till now. It is clear that in the special features
arising in this case as he has been appointed and he was hopeful of being
continued pursuant to the selection made and having found the appellant's
appointment to be not correct, which has now been reversed by the University E
itself, this turn about of the University in flip-flop-flip stance has put him in
a predicament. We, therefore, direct the University to accommodate respondent
No.7 in an appropriate post as well.

The appeal stands allowed in the terms stated above. No costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.