Page 1

        REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12182 OF 2016  

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 25302 OF 2012)  

J. Ashoka                  .... Appellant(s)

Versus

University of Agricultural Sciences & Ors.      .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) Leave granted  

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order

dated 13.02.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2006

whereby the High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the

appellant  herein  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated

17.11.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of  the High

Court in Writ Petition No. 46069 of 1999.

1

Page 2

3) Brief facts:

(a)    Vide  Notification  dated  14.08.1995,  the  University  of

Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore advertised 3 (three) posts of

Assistant  Professors  in  Sericulture.   Out  of  the  three

vacancies,  one  was  reserved  for  scheduled  caste;  one  for

scheduled  tribe  and  the  third  in  favour  of  general  merit

candidate.  The minimum qualification prescribed for the post

was Master’s Degree in the concerned subject.  The appellant

herein, a post-graduate in Agriculture from the University of

Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad applied for the said post as a

general merit candidate.  The appellant herein was called for

an interview along with the other candidates

(b) The  Selection  Committee,  after  considering  the

qualification, experience and the publications to the credit of

each of the candidates, prepared a Select List wherein Shri J.

Ashoka-the appellant herein was placed at Serial No. 1 and

Shri  R.  Narasimharaju,  Shri  K.C.  Narayanaswamy  and  Dr.

Fathima  Sadathulla  were  placed  at  Serial  Nos.  2,  3  and  4

respectively.  

2

Page 3

(c) The Select List was forwarded to the Board of Regents of

the  University  for  issuing  appropriate  appointment  orders.

The Board of Regents prepared a separate list selecting Shri

K.C. Narayanaswamy (Serial No. 3 in the Select List) for the

post available under the General  Category and Dr. Fathima

Sadathulla (Serial No. 4 in the Select List) under the roster of

reservation.   

(d) Being  aggrieved  by  the  appointment,  as  aforesaid,  the

appellant herein and Shri R. Narasimharaju (Serial No. 2 in

the Select List) preferred Writ Petition Nos. 6360-6361 of 1996

before the High Court of  Karnataka at  Bangalore.   Learned

single Judge of  the High Court,  by order dated 13.08.1996,

allowed the writ petitions while setting aside the order of the

Board  of  Regents  with  a  direction  to  the  University  to

reconsider the case of the appellant herein in the light of the

recommendations made by the Selection Committee.  However,

learned  single  Judge  further  directed  to  accommodate  Dr.

Fathima  Sadathulla  (Serial  No.  4  in  the  Select  List)  either

against any existing vacancy or by creating a new vacancy.  

3

Page 4

(e) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.1996, the University

filed Writ Appeal Nos. 8289-8290 of 1996 before the Division

Bench of  the  High Court.   The Division Bench of  the  High

Court, by order dated 16.02.1999 partly allowed the appeals

by setting aside the order passed by learned single Judge only

in respect of Dr. Fathima Sadathulla (Serial No. 4 in the Select

List)  that  the candidate  may be accommodated against  any

existing vacancy or by creating a new vacancy. However, Dr.

Fathima Sadathulla was permitted to continue in the post till

issuance of the fresh appointment order.

(f) The Board of Regents cancelled the appointments of Shri

K.C.  Narayanaswamy  and  Dr.  Fathima  Sadathulla  in  the

meanwhile.  On 26/27.03.1999, while reconsidering the panel,

the  Board  decided  to  select  afresh  Dr.  (Mrs.)  Fathima

Sadathulla as Assistant Professor of Sericulture, considering

her qualification (Ph.D.), length of regular service as Assistant

Professor and also on humanitarian grounds.   Based on the

decision  of  the  Board  of  Regents  dated  27.03.1999,  by  a

subsequent  order  dated  22.05.1999,  the  University  again

appointed Dr. Fathima Sadathulla.   

4

Page 5

(g) Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  dated  22.05.1999,  the

appellant  herein  preferred  Writ  Petition  No.  46069  of  1999

before  the  High  Court.   Learned  single  Judge  of  the  High

Court, by order dated 17.11.2005, dismissed the petition filed

by the appellant herein.

(h) The  appellant  herein,  aggrieved  by  the  order  dated

17.11.2005  filed  Writ  Appeal  No.  14  of  2006  before  the

Division Bench of the High Court.  The Division Bench of the

High Court, by order dated 13.02.2012, dismissed the appeal

filed by the appellant herein.

(i) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2012, the appellant

herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before

this Court.

(4) Heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel

for the appellant and Mr. P.V. Shetty, learned counsel for the

respondents.

Rival Submissions:

5) Learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant

contended before this Court that the resolution passed by the

5

Page 6

Board of Regents selecting the third respondent suffers from

patent illegality inasmuch as totally irrelevant materials were

taken into consideration and the case of the appellant was not

at all considered while selecting the third respondent who was

ranked lower in the panel of Select List recommended by the

Selection  Committee.  Elaborating  his  contentions,  learned

senior counsel submitted that once the Selection Committee

empanels the candidates in the order of merit and sends its

recommendation, the Board of Regents shall have to follow the

order of merit. In support of this contention, he placed reliance

on  the  judgment  in  Dr.  (Mrs.)  G.  Durga  Nageswari  vs.

University of Agricultural Sciences ILR 1991 Kar. 14.

6) According to learned senior counsel, the third respondent

has  been  appointed  against  the  post  which  was  never

advertised.  He referred to Statute 15 (2)(a) of the University of

Agricultural Sciences Statute, 1964 and also the provisions of

Statute  30(2)(d)  contending  that  the  impugned order  is  the

result of  male fide action and violates the rights guaranteed

under  Articles  14  and  16  of  the  Constitution.   The

6

Page 7

appointments  were  made  on  extraneous  considerations

against the appellant whose merit is much superior to that of

the third respondent.  It was further contended that once the

Selection  Committee  has  selected  the  appellant  herein  and

placed  him  at  Serial  No.  1,  the  first  respondent  cannot

over-look  him on  totally  extraneous  considerations  and  the

exercise of such power is mala fide.   

7) It was further contended by learned senior counsel that

the  factors  taken into  consideration for  preferring  the  third

respondent such as possessing Ph.D. qualification, length of

regular  service  and  humanitarian  considerations  were  all

irrelevant  and  hence  the  entire  decision  of  the  Board  of

Regents  is  vitiated.  In  support  of  this  contention,  he  relied

upon  P.M.  Latha  and  Another vs.  State  of  Kerala  and

Others (2003) 3 SCC 541 wherein it was held as under:-

“10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by  the  respondents  that  BEd  qualification  is  a  higher qualification  than TTC and therefore,  the  BEd  candidates should be held to  be  eligible  to compete  for  the post.  On behalf  of  the  appellants,  it  is  pointed  out  before  us  that Trained Teacher’s  Certificate  is  given to  teachers  specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students of

7

Page 8

classes  above  primary.  BEd  degree-holders,  therefore, cannot  necessarily  be  held  to  be  holding  qualification suitable  for  appointment  as  teachers  in  primary  schools. Whether  for  a  particular  post,  the  source  of  recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or BEd qualification,  is  a  matter  of  recruitment  policy.  We  find sufficient  logic  and  justification  in  the  State  prescribing qualification for  the post  of  primary teachers as only TTC and  not  BEd. Whether  BEd  qualification  can  also  be prescribed  for  primary  teachers  is  a  question  to  be considered  by  the  authorities  concerned  but  we  cannot consider  BEd  candidates,  for  the  present  vacancies advertised, as eligible.

13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written  or  settled  law.  The  Division  Bench  forgot  that  in extending  relief  on  equity  to  BEd  candidates  who  were unqualified  and  yet  allowed  to  compete  and  seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were  TTC  candidates  and  would  have  secured  a  better position  in  the  rank  list  to  get  appointment  against  the available vacancies, had BEd candidates been excluded from the  selections.  The  impugned  judgment  of  the  Division Bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of  due chance of selection and appointment.  The impugned  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench,  therefore, deserves  to  be  set  aside  and of  the  learned  Single  Judge restored.”

8) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-University

contended before this Court that the action of the Board in

selecting the third respondent is  strictly  in accordance with

the  relevant  Statutes  framed  by  the  University.  Learned

counsel while placing reliance on Statute 15(4) of the Statute

8

Page 9

framed by the University contended that the Board has the

power to select the best candidate as per the provisions of the

Statute and, in the present circumstances, had exercised its

power judiciously by assigning cogent reasons as to why the

third respondent was preferred. It was further contended that

a perusal of the resolution would disclose that the Board of

Regents, after considering the entire panel of the Select List,

has preferred the 3rd respondent as she possessed Ph.D. in

Sericulture  and  was  found  more  suitable  for  the  post  of

Assistant  Professor  of  Sericulture.   The  other  aspects

considered by the Board were that she had been working in

the University since the date of her initial appointment, and

that  if  she was not  preferred she would lose all  avenues of

alternative  appointment  whereas  the  appellant  herein,  who

was appointed in a regular post of Assistant Professor and was

working in another University in the same post, would not be

put to any hardship.  It is further submitted that the Board

was well within its province in examining the matter keeping

in  mind  these  humanitarian  considerations  also  without

ignoring the merit.  

9

Page 10

9) Learned counsel  further contended that the Board has

preferred  a  person  possessing  an additional  qualification  of

Ph.D.  in  Sericulture  to  a  candidate  who  only  possessed  a

Master’s Degree.  Having regard to the nature of the functions

of an Assistant Professor, requiring deeper knowledge of the

subject and the third respondent having Ph.D. to her credit,

was  found  well  suited  and  more  equipped  for  the  post  in

question,  which  cannot  be  considered  as  an  arbitrary  or

unreasonable method adopted or of taking irrelevant materials

into consideration.  

10) Learned  counsel  further  contended  that  there  is

absolutely no failure of justice insofar as the action taken by

the Board of Regents in preferring the third respondent to the

appellant,  as  the  appellant  is  holding  a  regular  post  of

Assistant Professor in the Agricultural University at Dharwad

and  his  non-selection  has  in  no  way  affected  his  interest,

whereas if  the third respondent  was to be ignored it  would

have deprived her of her livelihood and would have rendered

her jobless for the rest of her life despite possessing such a

1

Page 11

high  qualification  of  Ph.D.  Therefore,  these  considerations

which had obviously weighed in the mind of the Board, cannot

be termed as irrelevant and hence there is no failure of justice

so as to call for interference by this Court.   

Discussion:

11) From the material  on record, it  is undisputed that the

Selection Committee constituted for  the purpose prepared a

panel of candidates in the order of merit and recommended

the name of the appellant herein along with three others for

selection. In the said list, the name of the appellant was at

Serial  No.  1  while  that  of  the  others,  namely,  Sri.  R.

Narasimharaju,  Dr.  K.C.  Narayanaswamy  and  the  third

respondent  Dr.  (Mrs.)  Fathima  Sadathulla  were  placed  at

Serial Nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. The Board of Regents selected

the third respondent and one Dr. K.C. Narayanaswamy for the

posts  of  Assistant  Professors  of  Sericulture.  The  appellant

herein,  who  was  placed  at  Serial  No.1,  along  with  one  R.

Narasimharaju, whose name was shown at Serial No. 2 in the

Select  List  recommended  by  the  Selection  Committee,

approached  the  High  Court  by  filing  Writ  Petition  Nos.

11

Page 12

6360-6361 of 1996. The said writ petitions were allowed on

13.08.1996  holding  that  the  Board  of  Regents  has  not

exercised its power in a reasonable manner as it did not assign

any reason for  preferring the  third respondent  and another

candidate,  viz.,  Dr.  K.C.  Narayanaswamy, who  were  placed

below  in  the  Select  List.  Thus,  while  setting  aside  the

appointment  of  the  two  candidates  made  on  18.12.1995,  a

direction was issued to the University to reconsider the case of

the appellants therein as also of the two other candidates, viz.,

Dr.  (Mrs.)  Fathima Sadathulla,  the  third  respondent  herein

and Dr. K.C. Narayanaswamy. However, as Dr. (Mrs.) Fathima

Sadathulla, (the third respondent herein) had been continuing

in service,  she was directed to continue till  the matter  was

considered afresh or the University could find a way out to

accommodate her either in the existing vacancy or by creating

a new vacancy. This direction was issued to enable the third

respondent herein to continue in the service of the University.

As Dr. K.C. Narayanaswamy had not joined the service despite

his  appointment,  it  was  held  that  his  case  need  not  be

reconsidered. The petitioners therein, viz., Shri J. Ashoka (the

1

Page 13

appellant herein) and Shri R. Narsimharaju were directed to be

absorbed  straight  away  in  service.  The  University  preferred

writ appeals against the said order. The Division Bench of the

High Court, by order dated 16.02.1999, in Writ Appeal Nos.

8289-8290  of  1996  allowed  the  appeals  in  part  by  setting

aside  the  direction  issued  by  learned  single  Judge  to

accommodate  Dr.  (Mrs.)  Fathima  Sadathulla  either  in  the

existing vacancy or by creating new one.  

12) Pursuant to the directions issued by the Court, the Board

of  Regents  has  reconsidered  the  matter  on  merits  on

27.03.1999  and  has  resolved  to  select  afresh  Dr.  (Mrs.)

Fathima Sadathullah as Assistant Professor of Sericulture. It

is useful to extract the resolution passed which is at item No.

2D of  the  Minutes  of  271st   (Spl.)  Meeting  of  the  Board  of

Regents held on 26th and 27th March 1999, which is as under:-

“Item  2D.  Appointment  of  Assistant  Professor  in  the Department  of  Sericulture  (In  the  pay  scale  of  Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000) After judicious examination of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated 13.08.1996 in Writ Petition Nos. 6360 and 6361 of 1996 filed by Mr. J. Ashoka and  Mr.  Narasimha  Raju,  respectively,  challenging  the appointment  of  Dr.  K.C Narayanaswamy and Dr.  Fathima Sadathulla  as  Assistant  Professors  of  Sericulture  under General Merit Category and the orders dated 16-2-1999 of

1

Page 14

the  Hon’ble  High  Court  of  Karnataka  dismissing  the  Writ Appeal  No.  8289  and  8290/96  filed  by  the  University  to defend  its  action,  the  Board  decided  to  quash  the appointments of the following two candidates :

1. Dr.  K.C  Narayanaswamy  as  Assistant  Professor  of Sericulture, and  

2. Dr. (Mrs).  Fathima Sadathulla as Assistant Professor of Sericulture (vide Order No. AO/Est.I(1)Appt/95-96 dated December 18, 1995)

However, the Board while reconsidering the panel, decided to select  afresh  Dr.  (Mrs).  Fathima  Sadathulla  as  Assistant Professor  of  Sericulture,  considering  Ph.D.,  qualification, length of regular service as Assistant Professor possessed by her and also on humanitarian grounds.

    (emphasis supplied by us)

Since Dr. K.C Narayanaswamy has already  been appointed as  Associate  Professor  of  Sericulture  vide  Order  No. AO/EST-I(1)/Appt/98-99 dated 16-11-1998,  the Board did not find any reason to consider his case for this position.”

By a subsequent order dated 22.05.1999, the University again

appointed  Dr.  Fathima  Sadathulla.   Being  aggrieved,  the

appellant herein preferred a Writ Petition being No. 46069 of

1999 before the High Court.  Learned single Judge of the High

Court, by order dated 17.11.2005, dismissed the petition filed

by  the  appellant  herein.   The  appellant  herein  filed  a  Writ

Appeal being No. 14 of 2006 before the Division Bench of the

High Court.  The Division Bench of the High Court, by order

1

Page 15

dated 13.02.2012, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant

herein.   

13) In  this  context,  it  would  be  relevant  to  quote  the

impugned notification which reads as under:-

“UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES No. AO/RT/11/13/95-96      Administrative Office

                       GKVK, Bangalore-65       Date : 14.8.95

NOTIFICATION

Ref: This office advertisement notification      No. AO/RT/11/13/94-95 dated 30.6.1994.  

Posts of Assistant Professors advertised under above reference are reclassified in accordance with the Govt. order dated 20-5-1995.

SI. NO.

Discipline Backlog Current

Classification and No. of

Posts 1 2 3 4

1 to 3

9

10 to 39

Xxx

Sericulture

Xxx

Xxx

Current-3

Xxx

Xxx

SC-1, GM-1, ST-1

Xxx-   For the following posts of Assistant Professor, applications  are invited afresh.

1) Agronomy Cat.II-A – 1 2) Agril. Entomology Cat. II-A – 1 3) Kannada SC (Backlog) 4) Poultry Science ST (Backlog) 5) Fishery Engineering Technology SC (Backlog)  

1

Page 16

Candidates  who  have  applied  for  the  posts  of  Assistant Professor  in  response  to  the  Notification  dated  30-6-94 (Other than the above post), need not apply again. If eligible candidates  belonging  to  Cat.II  (A)  are  not  available, candidates belonging to GM will be considered as per Govt. order dated 20.6.95. Qualifications : A minimum of Second Class Master’s degree in  the  concerned  subject.  Preference  will  be  given  to Experienced candidates.              (emphasis supplied by us)

1. Application fee is Rs. 20/-

2. Application to SC/ST candidates will be issued free of cost only if they submit a requisition enclosing a xerox copy of the certificate issued by the competent  authority in the form prescribed in Government Order No. SBC 213 SAD 85 dated 28.3.1987.

3. Number of  vacancies notified is subject  to alteration and the University reserves the right to Increase or decrease the number.  

4. ‘Application form’ and other instructions may be had from the  undersigned  or  presentation  of  a  crossed  postal order/challan of the value indicated above drawn in favour of  the comptroller,  University  of  Agril.  Sciences,  Banglore, purchased/remitted only after 21.8.95 at the State Bank of India GKVK/Hebbal.

5. Application can also be had by post  by sending the requisite postal order with self addressed envelope (12” x 4”) affixing  the  stamp of  the  value of  Rs.  3.00  indicating the category to which he/she belongs.  

6. Ex-Servicemen of children of Defence Personnel killed or  disabled  in  action  are  exempted  from  payment  of application fee provided they furnish a certificate issued by the appropriate authority.  

7. Separate application shall be submitted for each post.  

8. Last  date  for  obtaining  blank  application  form  is 20.9.95.

1

Page 17

9. Last date for receipt of filled in application form from the candidate is 25.9.95. The candidates staying abroad may send equivalent prescribed fee in foreign currency either in the form of Demand Draft/Cheque drawn in favour of the Comptroller,  University  of  Agriculture  Sciences,  GKVK, Banglore 560 065,  INDIA. Candidates staying abroad may send their  application in plain  paper  giving  details  of  the Bio-data  and  enclosing  copies  of  their  educational qualifications.  

SD/-14.8

   (A.KOTRESH)   Administrative Officer”

14) In the case at hand, the question is not as to whether the

Board could  not  proceed to  select  and appoint  a  candidate

whose name according to the recommendation made by the

Selection Committee is  lower in preference to the candidate

who is placed above, but the question is whether the Board

can do so without recording reasons for preferring a person

placed below in preference to a person placed above by the

Selection Committee.  In this regard, it is necessary to state

that Clause (2) of Statute 30 requires the Selection Committee

to recommend the names in the order of merit and when the

Selection Committee has done so, there must be some basis to

alter  the  merit  as  fixed  by  the  Selection  Committee.

1

Page 18

Otherwise, the exercise of the power would be arbitrary and

come into  conflict  with the  right  to  equality  and injunction

against arbitrariness in State action and the right to equality

and equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment

under the State guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the

Constitution.

15) At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote Statute 30

(2) which is as under:-

“(2)(a) The Selection Committee shall review applications for the  posts  and consider  the  qualifications of  all  applicants including University Officers and other employees who may be qualified for the post.  If a qualified candidate(s) is found, the Committee shall recommend in order of merit not more than three qualified persons for appointment.

    (emphasis supplied by us) (b) In case  no qualified  person is  recommended and/or appointed as under (2) above, the Selection Committee shall

(a) contact various institutions and agencies (such as ICAR,  State  Departments,  Colleges,  etc.)  for  the purpose  of  obtaining  applications  from  qualified persons  and  (b)  otherwise  advertise  for  qualified applicants in such manner as may be approved by the Vice-Chancellor.   On  receipt  of  such  further applications the Committee shall prepare a list of all applicants and shall recommend in order of merit, not more than three qualified persons for appointment.

(3) If  the  Selection  Committee  fails  to  nominate  an acceptable person for an office,  the Board shall  take such steps as are necessary to select a suitable person. (4) Out  of  the  qualified  persons  recommended  by  each Selection  Committee  the  Board  shall  choose  the  best individual for appointment in all cases of appointments to be made by the Board.”

1

Page 19

It can be seen from the above that under Clause 2 of Statute

30,  the  Selection  Committee  constituted  for  the  purpose  is

required to make recommendation of names for appointment

in the order of merit not more than three qualified persons for

appointment.  Clause (4) of Statute 30, however, empowers the

Board  of  Regents  to  choose  the  best  individual  for

appointment in the case of  appointment to be made by the

Board.

16) In Dr. Mrs. G. Durga Nageswari (supra), it was held as

under:-

“9. The  above  case  no  doubt  interpreted  the  Indian Administrative  Service  Regulations.  Regulation  5(5)  of  the said  Regulations  required  recording  of  reasons  for suppression. But as can be seen from the above paragraph of the Judgment, the Supreme Court based its conclusion on the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution and observed that recording of reasons for overlooking the claim of a person who is above and select a  person  below  was  necessary.  The  said  principle  was applied  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  T.K.  DEVARAJU  vs STATE  OF  KARNATAKA.  This  Court  pointed  out  that  the Regulation  5(5)  of  the  Indian  Administrative  Service Regulation was only for the purpose of giving effect to Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and the position would be the same even in the absence of such a regulation because of recording of reasons is the only way to ensure obedience to the  fundamental  right  guaranteed  under  Articles  14  and 16(1). Therefore, in our opinion, clause (4) of the Statute 30 must  be  read  along  with  Articles  14  and  16(1)  of  the Constitution, for the reasons, the University of Agricultural

1

Page 20

Sciences is state as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution and  hence  bound  by  the  Articles  included  in  the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Therefore, when under clause (2)  of  Statute  30,  a  Selection  Committee  constituted  for making  selection  on  the  basis  of  the  performance  of  the candidate  at  the  interview  recommends  the  names  in  the order of merit, the power of the Board of Regents to choose best among them means normally it should proceed in the order of merit as arranged by the Selection Committee, and if it is of the view that any person placed lower is the best, it can  do  so,  but  it  has  to  record  reasons.  If  reasons  are recorded then it can be said that the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) are complied with. But if a person placed below is appointed without assigning any reason, there is no other alternative  than  to  hold  that  such  a  selection  and appointment  is  arbitrary  and  violative  of  Articles  14  and 16(1) of the Constitution.  

10. In the present case, it is not disputed that no reasons had been recorded by the Board of Regents as to why the 2nd respondent was selected for appointment in preference to the petitioner though the petitioner was placed at SI.No. 1 and the  2nd respondent  was  placed  at  SI.No.3.  The  learned Counsel for the University submitted that reasons were not recorded  in  view  of  the  earlier  decision  of  this  Court  in Keshayya’s  case  in  which  it  was  held  that  the  Board  of Regents  had  the  power  to  select  any  one  of  the  persons whom it considers best and make the appointment. But the precise  question  raised  in  this  case  and  which  was  not raised  in  Keshayya’s  case  is  as  to  whether  the  Board  of Regents could do so without assigning any reason. As shown earlier, the recording of reasons is a must having regard to the Right guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, we are of the view that whenever  the  Board  of  Regents  considers  that  a  person placed  lower  in  merit  in  the  list  of  selected  candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, it can do so only by recording reasons as to why the case of the person placed above is being overlooked and the person below is considered the best for being appointed. In the present case, no reasons have  been  recorded,  may  be  for  the  reason  the  Board considered that it was unnecessary as stated by the learned Counsel.  He however submitted that the Board of Regents has  stated  that  respondent-2  is  more  suitable  than  the petitioner. That is the conclusion and not the reason. That

2

Page 21

conclusion must be preceded by the reason which is wanting in this case.  

17) As  per  the  impugned  notification,  the  requisite

qualification for  the post  of  Assistant  Professor was Second

Class Master’s Degree in the concerned subject.  The appellant

possessed the requisite qualification to be eligible for the said

post.  However, the Board of Regents, considered Respondent

No.  3  herein  as  the  suitable  candidate  considering  her

qualification  (Ph.D),  continuous  service  as  an  Assistant

Professor  and  also  on  humanitarian  grounds.   Whenever  a

selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance, it

cannot be for the purpose of eliminating all others preventing

thereby even an effective  and comparative  consideration  on

merits, by according  en bloc precedence in favour of those in

possession  of  additional  qualification  irrespective  of  the

respective  merits  and  demerits  of  all  candidates  to  be

considered.  There is no escape for anyone from this ordeal

and claim for any en bloc favoured treatment merely because,

any  one  of  them  happened  to  possess  an  additional

qualification  than  the  relevant  basic/general  qualification

2

Page 22

essential  for  applying  the  post.   It  would  amount  to  first

exhausting in the matter of  selection all  those,  dehors their

inter  se merit  performance,  in  possession  of  additional

qualification  and  take  only  thereafter  separately  those  with

ordinary  degree  and  who  do  not  possess  the  additional

qualification.   

Conclusion:

18) Reasons are the links between the materials  on which

certain  conclusions  are  based  and  the  actual  conclusions.

They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for

a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial.

They  should  reveal  a  rational  nexus  between  the  facts

considered and the conclusions reached.  Only in this way can

opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just

and reasonable.  We, therefore, are of the considered opinion

that the relevant provisions of the Statute were fully complied

with.   

19) In our considered view, Clause (2) of Statute 30 must be

read  in  consonance  with  Articles  14  and  16(1)  of  the

Constitution, for the reasons, the University is covered under

2

Page 23

the definition of State given under the Articles.  Hence, when

under  Clause  (2)  of  Statute  30,  the  Selection  Committee

constituted  for  making  selection  on  the  basis  of  the

performance of  the candidates at the interview recommends

the names in the order of  merit,  the power of  the Board of

Regents to choose best among them means normally it should

proceed  in  the  order  of  merit  as  arranged  by  the  Selection

Committee, and if it is of the view that any person placed lower

is the best, it can do so, but it has to record reasons for doing

the same.  But if a person placed below is appointed without

assigning any reasons or on irrelevant considerations, there is

no other alternative than to hold that such a selection and

appointment is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1)

of the Constitution.

20) The Board has power to select the best candidate as per

the  provisions  of  the  Statute  and in the  case  at  hand,  the

Board re-considered the matter on 27.03.1999 and assigned

cogent  reasons as  to  why  Respondent  No.  3  was preferred.

Though learned senior  counsel  for  the appellant  very much

relied  upon  P.M.  Latha  (supra),  we  are  of  the  considered

2

Page 24

opinion that the above case does not have any bearing on the

decision  of  this  case.   Respondent  No.  3  possesses  the

qualifying  post  graduate  degree  coupled  with  additional

qualification  of  Ph.D.  in  the  same  subject.  The  instant

selection is for the post of Assistant Professor of Sericulture.  If

deeper knowledge of the subject, coupled with possessing the

qualifying  degree  as  prescribed  in  the  notification  inviting

application, is possessed by a candidate and if the Board takes

into consideration all these factors including the qualification

of  Doctorate in the said subject,  it  cannot  be said that  the

Appointing  Authority  has  taken  irrelevant  materials  into

consideration.   

21) Whenever  the  Board  of  Regents  considers  a  person

placed  lower  in  merit  in  the  list  of  selected  candidates

recommended by the Selection Committee, it can do so only by

recording  reasons  as  to  why the  case  of  the  person placed

above is being overlooked and the person below is considered

the best  for  being appointed.  In the present case,  adequate

reasons  have  been  recorded  by  the  Board,  viz.,  her

qualification, length of regular service as Assistant Professor

2

Page 25

and humanitarian grounds.  The competence and merit of a

candidate  is  adjudged  not  on  the  basis  of  the  qualification

he/she  possesses  but  also  taking  into  account  the  other

necessary factors like career of the candidate, his educational

curriculum,  experience  in  the  field,  his  general  aptitude,

personality  of  the  candidate  and  all  other  germane  factors

which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability of

the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be

held.  

22) It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the

present appellant is at present working on a regular post of

Assistant  Professor  in  some  other  University  whereas

Respondent  No.  3  would  be  put  to  undue  hardship  if  she

would discontinue from the post.  In this view of the matter,

we are of the considered opinion that the action of the Board

in selecting the third respondent is strictly in accordance with

the relevant Statutes framed by the University and the Board

had  exercised  its  power  judiciously  by  assigning  cogent

reasons as to why the third respondent was preferred.

2

Page 26

23) In view of  the  above,  the  appeal  is  dismissed with no

order as to costs.

...…………….………………………CJI.             (T.S. THAKUR)                                  

.…....…………………………………J.         (R.K. AGRAWAL)                         

.…....…………………………………J.         (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)             

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 15, 2016.  

2