Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered appeals against a High Court order directing the Himachal Pradesh University to add five marks for 'publications' to the score of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 3) for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Education. The appellant, Pradeep Singh Dehal, and the writ petitioner had applied pursuant to advertisement No. 3 of 2011. The appellant was recommended by the Expert Committee for an OBC category post with 60.83 marks. The writ petitioner challenged his non-selection, claiming he was not given credit for publications despite having been awarded five marks in an earlier selection process under advertisement No. 3 of 2010. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed addition of five marks. The Supreme Court held that while the writ petitioner's publications were indeed before the Selection Committee (as evidenced by marks awarded on May 13, 2012 for a general category interview), the High Court erred in directly awarding marks instead of remitting the matter to the experts. The Court also found the selection process defective because separate interviews were conducted for general and OBC category posts, contrary to the principle that reserved category candidates who are higher in merit should be considered for general category seats. The Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed the University to reconstitute an Expert Committee to re-evaluate the publications of all candidates and conduct a fresh selection process in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Judicial Review - Academic Appointments - Expert Discretion - Courts shall not ordinarily interfere with expert assessment of marks for publications unless there is clear violation of statutory provisions - Held that the High Court erred in directly awarding marks for publications instead of remitting the matter to the expert committee (Paras 6, 13).
B) Service Law - Selection Process - Reservation - Migration from Reserved to General Category - A reserved category candidate who secures more marks than the last general category candidate must be treated as a general category candidate, provided no special concessions were availed - Held that conducting separate interviews for general and reserved category posts is inherently defective (Paras 14-16).
C) University - Appointment - Publications - Assessment by Experts - The decision to award marks for publications lies within the exclusive domain of the expert committee - The High Court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the experts (Paras 6, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could direct addition of marks for 'publications' in an academic appointment without remitting the matter to the expert committee, and whether the selection process conducted by the University was fair and reasonable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court orders dated June 24, 2015 and July 30, 2015, and directed the University to re-examine the selection process by constituting an Expert Committee to consider the publications of all candidates who applied pursuant to advertisement No. 3 of 2011 and make a fresh selection in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Judicial review in academic matters
- Expert committee discretion
- Marks for publications
- Reservation and migration from reserved to general category
- Fair selection process
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (9) 104
Civil Appeal Nos. 7211-7212 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 32081-32082 of 2015)
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court orders directing addition of marks for publications in an academic appointment.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the High Court orders directing addition of five marks for publications to the writ petitioner's score.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the High Court's direction to add marks for publications, arguing that it was for the expert committee to assess publications and that the High Court could not substitute its own assessment.
Previous Decisions
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the writ petition and directed addition of five marks for publications; the review petition was dismissed.
Issues
Whether the High Court could direct addition of marks for publications without remitting the matter to the expert committee.
Whether the selection process conducted by the University was fair and reasonable, particularly regarding separate interviews for general and reserved category posts.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: It is for the experts to assess marks for publications; the High Court cannot interfere with expert assessment; the writ petitioner did not submit publications with his application; the matter should be remitted to the experts.
Writ Petitioner: He was granted five marks for publications in the earlier selection process and also in the general category interview on May 13, 2012; therefore, he should have been awarded those marks in the OBC category interview as well.
University: The discretion to award marks for publications lies with the experts; marks from an earlier selection process cannot be carried over as the Selection Committee and norms had changed.
Ratio Decidendi
In academic appointments, courts should not substitute their own assessment for that of experts; if marks for publications are not awarded, the matter should be remitted to the expert committee. Additionally, the selection process must be fair and not involve separate interviews for general and reserved categories, as reserved category candidates who are higher in merit must be considered for general category seats.
Judgment Excerpts
We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts.
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.
We find that the process of conducting separate interviews for the posts of Assistant Professor under general category and OBC category is wholly illegal.
Procedural History
The writ petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging his non-selection for the post of Assistant Professor. The High Court allowed the writ petition on June 24, 2015, directing addition of five marks for publications. The appellant filed a review petition, which was dismissed on July 30, 2015. The appellant then filed the present appeals in the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 16(4), Article 226
- 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, 2010:
