Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University & Others
EmailAppeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 830 OF 1994
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.98 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No.1918 of 1990)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.98 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No.1918 of 1990)
Petitioner: Dr. Kumar Bar Das
Respondent: Utkal University & Others
Apeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 830 OF 1994
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.98 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No.1918 of 1990)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.98 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No.1918 of 1990)
Judges: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K. VENKATASWAMI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 30, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, Ms. Pooja Dua, Mr. R.S. Dwivedi, (Mr. L.R. Singh) Advocate for Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate with him for the appellant.
Mr. Sunil Gupta, Mr. Pramod Dayal and Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, Advocate for Respondents.
Mr. Sunil Gupta, Mr. Pramod Dayal and Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, Advocate for Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Orissa Universities Act, 1983
Section 5(10) read with, Universities Employees (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1988 – Stature 5- Appointment – Eligibility Criteria – “About 10 years’ teaching and / or research experi-ence” – Connotation – Candidate having teaching experience of 7 years and 8 months 14 days with research experience of 1 year 5 month 14 days – Consideration at, – Appointment made earlier, cancelled for want of experience of “about 10 years” – If justi-fied – Candidate selected by high powered selection committee of experts – Opinion of such committee – Consideration. Held that having regard to experts’ committee, Chancellors ought not to have interfered with their view on experience of 10 years and set aside appointment. Orders set aside and appointment restored.
Held:
Having regard to the high qualifications of the experts and the reasons furnished by the Syndicate as being the obvious basis of the experts’ opinion, the Chancellor ought not to have interfered with the view of the experts. The experts’ views are entitled to great weight as the Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body unless mala fides or other collateral reasons are shown. (Held – A – Paras 26, 27)
In the present case, the Chancellor failed to notice that the advertisement and the UGC Regulations – even as per the show cause notice – referred only to “about 10 years experience in teaching and/or research”. Hence, it was necessary to take into account not only the teaching experience but also the research experience. (B1 – Para 27)
In view of the elaborate explanation given by the Syndicate and the appellant before the Chancellor and the material produced by them, the Chancellor was satisfied that the appellant was pos-sessing an ‘outstanding career’. (B2 – Para 18)
If the advertisement stressed on the research experience also and not merely the teaching experience, the column in the proforma for awarding marks when it referred to ‘teaching experience’ has to be treated as one meant to cover teaching and research experi-ence. The Selection Committee and the Syndicate followed the right procedure but the Chancellor’s went wrong in confining himself to the actual language of the proforma and in omitting to give effect to the words ‘and/or research experience’ con-tained in the advertisement and the UGC Regulations. (B3 – Para 28)
On the facts of the case, it was for the Selection Committee to consider whether the appellant’s case fell on the right side of ‘about 10 years’. After all they were considering the total length of experience both in teaching and research and in con-junction with his other qualifications to find out whether he can occupy the post of Professor, the opinion of the experts in the Selection Committee must be taken to be that the appellant’s teaching and research experience satisfied the above condition of “about 10 years” (C – Paras 29, 30)
Cases Reffered:
1. Osmania University v. Abdul Rajees Khan (1997 (3) SCC 124).
2. Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal (JT 1990 (2) SC 103)
3. J.P.Kulshrestha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University (1980 (3) SCC 418),
4. University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1964 (4) SCR 575)
5. Morris v. Levison (1870) CPD 155 (34. L.T.576)
6. Cross v. Eglin (1831) (2) B. & Ad.106
7. Re Harrison and Micks, Lambert & Co. 1917 (1) KB 755
JUDGEMENT:
M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.
1. The appellant, Dr. Kumar Bar Das has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 30.9.1993 in O.J.C. No.1910 of 1990. By that judgment, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant chal-lenging the orders of the Chancellor of the Utkal University dated 21.5.1990. The Chancellor, by the said order, had set aside the appointment of the appellant dated 3.2.1990 as Profes-sor of Economics (State Bank of India Chair) (hereinafter called SBI Chair), holding that the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 29.2.1984 was invalid. The said order was passed by the Chancellor on a representation filed by the 5th respond-ent, Dr.(Mrs.) Bedabati Mohanty. The Chancellor, after setting aside the appointment of the appellant further directed that the Vice-Chancellor/Syndicate shall re-advertise the post and conduct the selection afresh to fill up the vacancy to the post of Pro-fessor (SBI Chair). The 5th respondent, being aggrieved by the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 21.5.1990 in so far as it directed re-advertisement, filed OJC No.2144 of 1990. The High Court, by the same common judgment, while upholding the order of the Chancellor to the extent it set aside the appointment of the appellant allowed the 5th respondent’s writ petition OJC No.2144 of 1990 and directed that she, being the next person in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee, be appointed as Professor of Economics(State Bank of India Chair).
2. The appellant, therefore, filed a separate SLP(Civil) No…..(CC 7855 of 1998) questioning the judgment of the High Court dated 30.9.1993 in OJC No.2144 of 1990 to the extent it set aside the orders of the Chancellor directing ‘re-advertisement’ and directing the appointment of the 5th respondent. There is also an application for condonation of delay. In that SLP notice had not been issued but it has been posted before us.
3. The facts of the case are as follows. The State Bank of India (hereinafter called the ‘SBI’) created an Endowment for creation of a Chair called “State Bank Chair in Rural Economics”, with an investment of Rs.6 lakhs in favour of the Utkal Universi-ty so that with the interest accruing from the said amount, the salary of a Professor and 2 Research Associates to the Chair, could be met. We are not concerned with the various terms of the endowment except those relating to the selection and appointment of the Professor and a few other relevant provisions. It is stated in clause 2 of the amendment that the main objective of the endowment is ‘to promote research’ in the applicability in the field of Rural Economics which can be utilised for develop-ment of rural and tribal areas. Clause 13 of the endowment is titled ‘Emphasis on Research’ and states that as the main objec-tive in creating the Chair is to promote research in the fields mentioned above, the professor’s teaching and other assignments in the University shall be such as to provide him sufficient time for independent research. Clause 14 is titled ‘Selection of topics of Research’ and states that the topics for research work to be undertaken by the Chair will be selected in consultation with the Bank. Thus, the emphasis for the Chair is mainly ‘research’ in Economics.
4. Coming to the mode of appointment of Professor to the Chair, this is contained in clauses 8,9 and 10 of the endowment. They read as follows:
“Clause 8: Appointment of Professor to the Chair: The Universi-ty shall take steps to ensure that the Chair does not remain vacant ordinarily for more than six months at a time.
Clause 9: Selection procedure of Professor and other staff: The procedure for selection of the Professor to the Chair would be made as followed by the University in other cases for appoint-ment of Professor of similar status. The Bank shall be asso-ciated with the selection of the Professor. Regarding the 2 Research Associates, the University would advise the Bank their names and bio-data.
Clause 10: The initial terms of the incumbent of the Chair will not exceed five years and will be renewable for further periods as may be decided by the University.”
Clause 11 deals with terms of appointment of the Profes-sor. It says that the Professor would be subject to all the rules and regulations of the University as any other Professor in the University etc.
5. Soon after creation of this Endowment by the SBI, the Utkal University advertised the post on 18.5.87. Clause 10 of the advertisement, upon whose interpretation the entire case de-pends, reads as follows:
“C6clause 10: Essential Qualifications:
(a)Professor: An eminent scholar with prescribed work of high quality, actively engaged in research.
about ten years experience of teaching and/or research and experience of guiding research at doctoral level
OR
An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.
(b) Professor: SBI Chair(same as Professor)
(c)……………………………….”
6. For the post of Professor(SBI Chair), 14 candidates applied, 13 candidates were called for interview and 8 of them appeared at the interview. The appellant and the 5th respondent were among them. The appellant’s application is dated 30.6.1987. The Selection Committee’s proceedings dated 29.12.1989 stated that
“Taking into consideration the academic record, teaching experience, research activities, teaching experience of the candidates and their performance at the interview, the Com-mittee recommends in order of preference:-
(i) Dr. Kumar Bar Das
(ii) Dr.(Mrs.) Bedabati Mohanty.”
In other words, the appellant was placed at No.1 while the 5th respondent was placed at No.2.
7. Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University approved the same on 2.2.1990 and directed appointment of the appellant. Consequently the appellant was appointed as Professor(SBI Chair) on 3.2.1990. The appellant gave his joining report on 10.4.1990.
8. Thereafter, it appears that the 5th respondent filed a representation before the Chancellor of the University in Febru-ary, 1990 stating that the appellant was not eligible to be considered for the post of Professor as he had only 7 years and 7 months of teaching experience on the date of his application though the required period was 10 years. On that, a show-cause notice was issued in April, 1990 by the Chancellor to the appell-ant stating that on a “preliminary enquiry and on scrutiny of the papers, it was found that the appellant had only 7 years and 8 months of teaching experience by the last date of application and no outstanding academic career and, as such, the appellant could not be said to be eligible for consideration to the post of Professor as per qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post and in the UGC (qualification requires of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and other institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1982 which stipulates the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Profes-sor as follows:
“An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, activity engaged in research, About ten years of experience of teaching and/or research and experience of guiding re-search at doctoral level; or
An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.”
9. The show-cause notice further stated that the appellant was awarded 4 marks under the heading ‘teaching experience’ which was not in conformity with the provisions contained in Schedule ‘A’ of the Orissa Universities Employees (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1988 and had he not been awarded such marks deviating from the principles of marking provided in the Statute above-stated, the merit list of the candidates would have been materi-ally affected. The Chancellor, in exercising his powers under section 5(10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1983 asked the Syndicate to show cause why its decision appointing the appellant should not be annulled. A copy of the same was sent to the appellant for his statement in writing.
10. Accordingly, the Syndicate sent its detailed explanation and so did the appellant. We shall advert to the details thereof at the appropriate stage.
11. The Chancellor rejected these replies and passed orders on 21.5.1990 annulling the appellant’s appointment on the ground that the appellant was ineligible. He stated:
(i) that the appellant was not eligible to be considered for the post inasmuch as by the date of the application as per the essential qualifications mentioned in the advertise-ment and the minimum qualifications set out in UGC Regula-tions 1982.
(ii) that in contravention of the provisions mentioned in the Schedule ‘A’ prescribed under Statute 5 of the Orissa Universities Employees (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1988 (then in force), the appellant had been awarded 4 marks under the heading ‘teaching experience’.
(iii) that had the illegality mention in para (ii) above was not committed, the select list of the candidates would have been materially affected.”
The further reason (iv) given by the Chancellor concerns the 5th respondent. It says that there was lapse in “awarding marks to the candidates including the candidate in the 2nd posi-tion” i.e. 5th respondent”, under the heading “teaching experi-ence” without reference to the Honours and PG teaching experience as provided in Schedule A of the Statutes. Thus the Chancellor found that the mistake was common to the selection of the appell-ant as well as the 5th respondent. Consequently the Chancellor set aside the appointment of the appellant and directed fresh advertisement. It may be noticed that the Chancellor did not conclude that, in addition, the appellant did not have an ‘out-standing career’, though such a reason was mentioned in the earlier show-cause notice.
12. Questioning the above order of the Chancellor, the appellant filed OJC No.1910 of 1990 while the 5th respondent filed OJC No.2144/90 in so far as the direction for fresh advertisement was concerned. As already stated, the High Court by judgment dated 30.9.1993, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and allowed the one filed by the 5th respondent.
13. The appellant contended in the High Court that his experi-ence was in fact 9 years and 1 month and not 7 years and 8 months as stated in the show cause notice. The award of 4 marks to the appellant was right inasmuch as the appellant had research ex-perience at the pre- doctoral stage as Junior research scholar from June 1978 to November 1979, teaching experience from Novem-ber 1979 to September, 1984, and as Reader from September 1984 till date of application, 30.6.1987. The total Research experi-ence by date of application was 1 year, 5 months and 14 days and teaching experience by that date was 7 years, 7 months and 14 days – in all 9 years and 28 days, which came within the word “about 10 years teaching and/or research experience” as mentioned in the advertisement.
14. The Division Bench of the High Court held that assuming that the appellant had experience of 9 years and 1 month, – which assertion was disputed by the University and the 5th ~4~ it could not be said that the appellant had ‘about’ ten years of experience. On the contrary, at the most, it could be said that he had ‘about 9 years’ of teaching experience on the date of application but not ‘about 10 years’. The High Court further held that “there is no material in support of Kumar Bar’s plea that he had acquired 9 years and 1 month experience. On the contrary, materials considered by the Selection Committee and the Chancellor would show that it was 7 years and 8 months and hence appellant was ‘not eligible’.
15. Having held that the appellant was not eligible, the Divi-sion Bench of the High Court proceeded to go into the teaching experience of the 5th respondent. There was a difference of opinion between the two Judges. The matter was then referred to the third Judge. He held that the 5th respondent had enough teaching experience and the Chancellor was not right in holding her ineligible and that too without giving notice to her. Conse-quently, the High Court held that the 5th respondent was eligible and her writ petition OJC No.2144/90 stood allowed.
16. In this appeal against the judgment of the appellant’s writ petition, OJ 1910/90 we have heard elaborate submissions of Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and of Sri Pramod Dayal and Sri Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents.
17. The points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the appellant was not eligible to be appointed as Professor(SBI Chair) on the basis of the qualifications possessed by him as on the last date for filing application?
(2) To what relief?
Point 1:-
18. It will be seen from the statement of facts that the show-cause notice issued in April, 1990 proceeded on the footing that (i) the appellant had only 7 years, 8 months as teaching experi-ence as on the last date for filing application and also that (ii) he did not have an ‘outstanding career’ and thdrefore was not eligible to be appointed as Professor. But in the impugned order of the Chancellor, it is not stated that the appellant was ineligible on the ground that he had no ‘outstanding career’. In our opinion, it is clear that in view of the elaborate explana-tion given by the Syndicate and the appellant before the Chancel-lor and the material produced by them, the Chancellor was satis-fied that the appellant was possessing an ‘outstanding career’.
1. The appellant, Dr. Kumar Bar Das has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 30.9.1993 in O.J.C. No.1910 of 1990. By that judgment, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant chal-lenging the orders of the Chancellor of the Utkal University dated 21.5.1990. The Chancellor, by the said order, had set aside the appointment of the appellant dated 3.2.1990 as Profes-sor of Economics (State Bank of India Chair) (hereinafter called SBI Chair), holding that the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 29.2.1984 was invalid. The said order was passed by the Chancellor on a representation filed by the 5th respond-ent, Dr.(Mrs.) Bedabati Mohanty. The Chancellor, after setting aside the appointment of the appellant further directed that the Vice-Chancellor/Syndicate shall re-advertise the post and conduct the selection afresh to fill up the vacancy to the post of Pro-fessor (SBI Chair). The 5th respondent, being aggrieved by the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 21.5.1990 in so far as it directed re-advertisement, filed OJC No.2144 of 1990. The High Court, by the same common judgment, while upholding the order of the Chancellor to the extent it set aside the appointment of the appellant allowed the 5th respondent’s writ petition OJC No.2144 of 1990 and directed that she, being the next person in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee, be appointed as Professor of Economics(State Bank of India Chair).
2. The appellant, therefore, filed a separate SLP(Civil) No…..(CC 7855 of 1998) questioning the judgment of the High Court dated 30.9.1993 in OJC No.2144 of 1990 to the extent it set aside the orders of the Chancellor directing ‘re-advertisement’ and directing the appointment of the 5th respondent. There is also an application for condonation of delay. In that SLP notice had not been issued but it has been posted before us.
3. The facts of the case are as follows. The State Bank of India (hereinafter called the ‘SBI’) created an Endowment for creation of a Chair called “State Bank Chair in Rural Economics”, with an investment of Rs.6 lakhs in favour of the Utkal Universi-ty so that with the interest accruing from the said amount, the salary of a Professor and 2 Research Associates to the Chair, could be met. We are not concerned with the various terms of the endowment except those relating to the selection and appointment of the Professor and a few other relevant provisions. It is stated in clause 2 of the amendment that the main objective of the endowment is ‘to promote research’ in the applicability in the field of Rural Economics which can be utilised for develop-ment of rural and tribal areas. Clause 13 of the endowment is titled ‘Emphasis on Research’ and states that as the main objec-tive in creating the Chair is to promote research in the fields mentioned above, the professor’s teaching and other assignments in the University shall be such as to provide him sufficient time for independent research. Clause 14 is titled ‘Selection of topics of Research’ and states that the topics for research work to be undertaken by the Chair will be selected in consultation with the Bank. Thus, the emphasis for the Chair is mainly ‘research’ in Economics.
4. Coming to the mode of appointment of Professor to the Chair, this is contained in clauses 8,9 and 10 of the endowment. They read as follows:
“Clause 8: Appointment of Professor to the Chair: The Universi-ty shall take steps to ensure that the Chair does not remain vacant ordinarily for more than six months at a time.
Clause 9: Selection procedure of Professor and other staff: The procedure for selection of the Professor to the Chair would be made as followed by the University in other cases for appoint-ment of Professor of similar status. The Bank shall be asso-ciated with the selection of the Professor. Regarding the 2 Research Associates, the University would advise the Bank their names and bio-data.
Clause 10: The initial terms of the incumbent of the Chair will not exceed five years and will be renewable for further periods as may be decided by the University.”
Clause 11 deals with terms of appointment of the Profes-sor. It says that the Professor would be subject to all the rules and regulations of the University as any other Professor in the University etc.
5. Soon after creation of this Endowment by the SBI, the Utkal University advertised the post on 18.5.87. Clause 10 of the advertisement, upon whose interpretation the entire case de-pends, reads as follows:
“C6clause 10: Essential Qualifications:
(a)Professor: An eminent scholar with prescribed work of high quality, actively engaged in research.
about ten years experience of teaching and/or research and experience of guiding research at doctoral level
OR
An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.
(b) Professor: SBI Chair(same as Professor)
(c)……………………………….”
6. For the post of Professor(SBI Chair), 14 candidates applied, 13 candidates were called for interview and 8 of them appeared at the interview. The appellant and the 5th respondent were among them. The appellant’s application is dated 30.6.1987. The Selection Committee’s proceedings dated 29.12.1989 stated that
“Taking into consideration the academic record, teaching experience, research activities, teaching experience of the candidates and their performance at the interview, the Com-mittee recommends in order of preference:-
(i) Dr. Kumar Bar Das
(ii) Dr.(Mrs.) Bedabati Mohanty.”
In other words, the appellant was placed at No.1 while the 5th respondent was placed at No.2.
7. Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University approved the same on 2.2.1990 and directed appointment of the appellant. Consequently the appellant was appointed as Professor(SBI Chair) on 3.2.1990. The appellant gave his joining report on 10.4.1990.
8. Thereafter, it appears that the 5th respondent filed a representation before the Chancellor of the University in Febru-ary, 1990 stating that the appellant was not eligible to be considered for the post of Professor as he had only 7 years and 7 months of teaching experience on the date of his application though the required period was 10 years. On that, a show-cause notice was issued in April, 1990 by the Chancellor to the appell-ant stating that on a “preliminary enquiry and on scrutiny of the papers, it was found that the appellant had only 7 years and 8 months of teaching experience by the last date of application and no outstanding academic career and, as such, the appellant could not be said to be eligible for consideration to the post of Professor as per qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post and in the UGC (qualification requires of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and other institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1982 which stipulates the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Profes-sor as follows:
“An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, activity engaged in research, About ten years of experience of teaching and/or research and experience of guiding re-search at doctoral level; or
An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.”
9. The show-cause notice further stated that the appellant was awarded 4 marks under the heading ‘teaching experience’ which was not in conformity with the provisions contained in Schedule ‘A’ of the Orissa Universities Employees (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1988 and had he not been awarded such marks deviating from the principles of marking provided in the Statute above-stated, the merit list of the candidates would have been materi-ally affected. The Chancellor, in exercising his powers under section 5(10) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1983 asked the Syndicate to show cause why its decision appointing the appellant should not be annulled. A copy of the same was sent to the appellant for his statement in writing.
10. Accordingly, the Syndicate sent its detailed explanation and so did the appellant. We shall advert to the details thereof at the appropriate stage.
11. The Chancellor rejected these replies and passed orders on 21.5.1990 annulling the appellant’s appointment on the ground that the appellant was ineligible. He stated:
(i) that the appellant was not eligible to be considered for the post inasmuch as by the date of the application as per the essential qualifications mentioned in the advertise-ment and the minimum qualifications set out in UGC Regula-tions 1982.
(ii) that in contravention of the provisions mentioned in the Schedule ‘A’ prescribed under Statute 5 of the Orissa Universities Employees (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1988 (then in force), the appellant had been awarded 4 marks under the heading ‘teaching experience’.
(iii) that had the illegality mention in para (ii) above was not committed, the select list of the candidates would have been materially affected.”
The further reason (iv) given by the Chancellor concerns the 5th respondent. It says that there was lapse in “awarding marks to the candidates including the candidate in the 2nd posi-tion” i.e. 5th respondent”, under the heading “teaching experi-ence” without reference to the Honours and PG teaching experience as provided in Schedule A of the Statutes. Thus the Chancellor found that the mistake was common to the selection of the appell-ant as well as the 5th respondent. Consequently the Chancellor set aside the appointment of the appellant and directed fresh advertisement. It may be noticed that the Chancellor did not conclude that, in addition, the appellant did not have an ‘out-standing career’, though such a reason was mentioned in the earlier show-cause notice.
12. Questioning the above order of the Chancellor, the appellant filed OJC No.1910 of 1990 while the 5th respondent filed OJC No.2144/90 in so far as the direction for fresh advertisement was concerned. As already stated, the High Court by judgment dated 30.9.1993, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and allowed the one filed by the 5th respondent.
13. The appellant contended in the High Court that his experi-ence was in fact 9 years and 1 month and not 7 years and 8 months as stated in the show cause notice. The award of 4 marks to the appellant was right inasmuch as the appellant had research ex-perience at the pre- doctoral stage as Junior research scholar from June 1978 to November 1979, teaching experience from Novem-ber 1979 to September, 1984, and as Reader from September 1984 till date of application, 30.6.1987. The total Research experi-ence by date of application was 1 year, 5 months and 14 days and teaching experience by that date was 7 years, 7 months and 14 days – in all 9 years and 28 days, which came within the word “about 10 years teaching and/or research experience” as mentioned in the advertisement.
14. The Division Bench of the High Court held that assuming that the appellant had experience of 9 years and 1 month, – which assertion was disputed by the University and the 5th ~4~ it could not be said that the appellant had ‘about’ ten years of experience. On the contrary, at the most, it could be said that he had ‘about 9 years’ of teaching experience on the date of application but not ‘about 10 years’. The High Court further held that “there is no material in support of Kumar Bar’s plea that he had acquired 9 years and 1 month experience. On the contrary, materials considered by the Selection Committee and the Chancellor would show that it was 7 years and 8 months and hence appellant was ‘not eligible’.
15. Having held that the appellant was not eligible, the Divi-sion Bench of the High Court proceeded to go into the teaching experience of the 5th respondent. There was a difference of opinion between the two Judges. The matter was then referred to the third Judge. He held that the 5th respondent had enough teaching experience and the Chancellor was not right in holding her ineligible and that too without giving notice to her. Conse-quently, the High Court held that the 5th respondent was eligible and her writ petition OJC No.2144/90 stood allowed.
16. In this appeal against the judgment of the appellant’s writ petition, OJ 1910/90 we have heard elaborate submissions of Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and of Sri Pramod Dayal and Sri Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondents.
17. The points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the appellant was not eligible to be appointed as Professor(SBI Chair) on the basis of the qualifications possessed by him as on the last date for filing application?
(2) To what relief?
Point 1:-
18. It will be seen from the statement of facts that the show-cause notice issued in April, 1990 proceeded on the footing that (i) the appellant had only 7 years, 8 months as teaching experi-ence as on the last date for filing application and also that (ii) he did not have an ‘outstanding career’ and thdrefore was not eligible to be appointed as Professor. But in the impugned order of the Chancellor, it is not stated that the appellant was ineligible on the ground that he had no ‘outstanding career’. In our opinion, it is clear that in view of the elaborate explana-tion given by the Syndicate and the appellant before the Chancel-lor and the material produced by them, the Chancellor was satis-fied that the appellant was possessing an ‘outstanding career’.
