REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6102    OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 32473 OF 2017)

DR. SRIDIP CHATTERJEE .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DR. GOPA CHAKRABORTY & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  has been preferred against  the impugned judgment dated December 16, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Calcutta, by which the High Court has dismissed the

appeal  preferred  by  the  appellant  Dr.  Sridip  Chatterjee  and

confirmed  the  judgment  dated  April  16,  2014,  passed  by  the

learned Single Judge whereby appointment of the appellant to the

post of  Assistant  Professor  in  Physical  Education (Yoga Therapy)

under the respondent University was set aside.

3) The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the selection and subsequent  appointment  of  appellant  to  the  post  of  Assistant

Page 1 of 10

Professor  in  Physical  Education  (Yoga  Therapy)  of  the  Jadavpur

University.

4) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal as emerging from the material on record, are that the respondent-University published an

advertisement  on November  22,  2012 inviting  applications  from

suitable candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Physical

Education  (Yoga  Therapy).   The  qualification  prescribed  in  the

advertisement for the said post is Masters

5)  in Yoga/Yoga Therapy or Masters in Physical Education with Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy with at least 55% (or an

equivalent  grade  in  a  point  scale  wherever  grading  system  is

followed).  The appellant applied for the said post and appeared in

the  selection  process  with  other  candidates.   The  appellant

appeared before the Selection Committee consisting of  Dr.  Arun

Kumar Uppal, Prof. Rajesh Tripathi, Prof. Krishna Banerjee, Dr. Sudip

Sunder  Das,  Prof.  Sanat  Kr.  Naskar  and  Dr.  A.N.  Dey  for  an

interview on March 26, 2013.  He was selected to the said post on

March 28, 2013.   

6) Respondent No. 1 submitted a representation before respondent No.3 challenging the eligibility of the appellant to participate in the

selection process as according to respondent No.1, appellant did

not fulfil the essential qualification for the said post.  Subsequently,

in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005,

respondent  No.  1 came to know that the appellant  had already

Page 2 of 10

been appointed to the said post by a letter of appointment dated

March 28, 2013.

7) Respondent  No.  1,  being  aggrieved  by  the  appointment  of appellant to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical Education

(Yoga Therapy), filed writ  petition in the High Court of  Calcutta.

The  learned  Single  Bench  of  the  High  Court  set  aside  the

appointment  of  the  appellant  and  held  that  the  duty  of  the

University  is  to  form  an  Equivalence  Committee,  which  must

comprise experts and on the basis of the reports gathered from the

institute  awarding  a  certain  degree.   The  committee  of  the

University on its own should not have come to a conclusion that

the qualification possessed by a candidate is equivalent or not.  It

was found that the University has not clarified that the appellant

had the requisite qualification to be appointed for the said post as

University was required to come to a conclusion that Post Graduate

Diploma  in  Yoga  Education  is  equivalent  to  the  Post  Graduate

Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy.  It was held that eight candidates

were considered by the Selection Committee but why the appellant

was considered best even in the teeth of the apparent incongruity

in the educational qualification possessed by him and laid down in

the  advertisement.   The  University  should  have  found  that  the

Diploma  in  Yoga  Education  was  equivalent  to  Post  Graduate

Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy.  In view of the said fact, the Court

directed  the  University  to  take  appropriate  steps  for  a  fresh

selection from amongst the candidates who had applied pursuant

Page 3 of 10

to the advertisement in accordance with law.   

8) Aggrieved  against  the  said  judgment,  the  appellant  availed  the remedy  of  intra-court  appeal.   The  learned  Division  Bench

dismissed the appeal and held as under:

“Admittedly,  the  appellant  did  not  possess  Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy with at  least 55% marks which was one of the essential criteria for participating  in  the  selection  process  for  the  post  of Assistant  Professor  in  Physical  Education  (Yoga Therapy). It  was also not in dispute that according to the reply dated April 12, 2013, there was no difference in  between  the  Diploma  in  Yoga  Education  and  Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education. But the requisite qualification  required  for  the  post  in  question,  as mentioned  in  the  advertisement,  was  Post  Graduate Diploma in Yoga/Yoga Therapy, and not Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Education. No material was brought on record to show that the Diploma in Yoga Education was equivalent  to  Post  Graduate  Diploma  in  Yoga/Yoga Therapy. Therefore, there was no error in the decision making process of the learned Single Judge in arriving at a conclusion that the above reply did not resolve the dispute.”

9) Still aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.

10) The University has filed an affidavit dated May 01, 2019 before this Court wherein, a report of Equivalence Committee dated May 24,

2016  has  been  produced.   Such  Equivalence  Committee  was

constituted in terms of the directions of the learned Single Bench.

The Committee observed as under:

“1.  Going by the contents of the course, the degree in M.Sc. (Human Consciousness and Yogic Sciences) and Master’s in Yoga/Yoga Therapy are equivalent.

2.  Based on the following points the committee opines

Page 4 of 10

that P.G. Diploma in Yoga Therapy and Diploma in Yoga Education are equivalent:

(i)  Qualifying examination for the said courses is any graduate degree;

(ii)  The papers taught in the said courses are almost are the same with the only difference being that the P.G. Diploma in Yoga Therapy (of J.U.) has been under semester-system whereas Diploma in Yoga Education (of  Kaivalyadhama  SMYM  Samiti)  has  been  under annual-system;

(iii)  Contents of the papers taught in the said courses are almost the same;

(iv)  Some flexibilities in the curriculum frame work for NCTE  programs  are  allowed  by  itself,  including  the said courses;

3.   The committee also  finds  the degree/diploma in Yoga courses of other applicants as equivalent to the essential qualifications specified in the advertisement A2/C/2/2012 dt. 22.11.2012.”

11) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has a Master Degree in Physical Education and Post Graduate Diploma in

Yoga Education.  The requirement for appointment to the post is

Post  Graduate  Diploma  in  Yoga  or  Yoga  Therapy.   The  relevant

condition reads as under:

“Master’s in Yoga/Yoga Therapy or Master’s in Physical Education  with  Post  Graduate  Diploma  in  Yoga/Yoga Therapy with  at  least  55% marks  (or  an  equivalent grade  in  a  point  scale  wherever  grading  system  is followed).”

12) Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the statement given by Principal and Joint Director of the Kaivalyadhama Shriman Madhava

Yoga Mandir (S.M.Y.M.) Samiti  vide Annexure S-11 and submitted

Page 5 of 10

that  the  qualification  possessed  by  the  appellant  meets  the

requirement of Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy.  It

is contended that different institutes grant Diploma with different

nomenclature.   The  Diploma  in  Yoga  Education  is  nothing  but

Diploma in  Yoga,  therefore,  the  appellant  satisfies  the  eligibility

requirement.  Though, the Selection Committee has not specifically

recorded  that  the  qualification  possessed  by  the  appellant  is  in

terms of the conditions of advertisement but the members of the

Selection  Committee  were  experts  in  the  subject  and  once  the

appellant  was  appointed,  it  necessarily  means  that  they  were

satisfied with the qualification possessed by the appellant as one

satisfying  the  eligibility  conditions  advertised.   It  is  further

contended that  in terms of  the directions  issued by the learned

Single  Bench,  the  University  has  constituted  an  Equivalence

Committee and has found that the Diploma certificate produced by

the appellant satisfies the eligibility conditions, therefore, even if

there  were  some  procedural  irregularities  in  not  recording  the

eligibility  of  the appellant  in  the initial  minutes  of  the Selection

Committee, such irregularities stand cured when the Equivalence

Committee considered the appellant eligible for appointment.  It is

also  contended that  the  suitability  of  the  candidate  in  terms of

eligibility conditions advertised is for the experts to consider and

once experts have found that the appellant possesses the required

educational  qualification,  the  Court  while  exercising  power  of

judicial review, could not take a different view that the qualification

Page 6 of 10

possessed  by  the  appellant  does  not  meet  the  qualification

prescribed  in  the  advertisement.   The  reliance  is  placed  upon

judgment  of  this  Court  in B.C.  Mylarappa  v.  Dr.  R.

Venkatasubbaiah & Ors.1, wherein this Court held as under:

“26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any mala fides attributed against the members of the expert body of the University.  The University Authorities had also before the High Court in their objections to the writ petition  taken  a  stand  that  the  appellant  had  fully satisfied the requirement for appointment. In this view of  the  matter  and  in  the  absence  of  any  mala  fides either  of  the expert  body of  the University  or  of  the University  Authorities  and  in  view  of  the  discussions made hereinabove, it would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations cannot be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction.”

13) In  Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.)  v.  Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr.2, this Court held as under:

“29. It  may  be  mentioned  that  on  a  clarification sought  from  UGC  whether  a  candidate  who possesses  a  Masters  degree  in  Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3-1992 to  the Registrar,  M.D.  University, Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated,  and  a  candidate  who  possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as  Lecturer  in  Political  Science  and  vice  versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view.”

14) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended

1  (2008) 14 SCC 306 2  (2008) 9 SCC 284

Page 7 of 10

that it is not permissible for the Selection Committee to change the

selection criteria midway.  Since the eligibility condition as per the

advertisement  was  Diploma in  Yoga  or  Yoga Therapy,  therefore,

Diploma in Yoga Education could not be treated as a qualification in

terms of the conditions of the advertisement.  Reliance is placed

upon judgment of this Court in Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.3 wherein it was held that the Court

could not go into the question whether a degree is equivalent or

superior to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement.

15) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable

in law.   

16) The condition of the advertisement was Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy.  The appellant possesses Diploma in Yoga Education.  The

Court in exercise of power of judicial review could not come to a

conclusion that the Diploma possessed by the appellant does not

satisfy  the  eligibility  conditions  advertised.   The  Court  has  only

looked  to  the  bare  nomenclature  of  Diploma  possessed  by  the

appellant.   No  doubt,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Selection

Committee, it is not recorded that the Diploma possessed by the

appellant is equivalent to the educational qualifications advertised

but  the  Selection  Committee  was  comprised  of  experts  in  the

subjects and, therefore, even if it was not specifically mentioned,

3  (2015) 8 SCC 484

Page 8 of 10

the decision could not have been interfered with only because the

Court  finds  that  Diploma in  Yoga Education  is  not  the  same as

Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy.   

17) On  the  other  hand,  the  judgments  referred  to  by  the  learned counsel for the respondents are in respect of change of eligibility

criteria midway of the selection process.  Such is not the fact in the

present  case.   The qualification prescribed in  the advertisement

remains  the  same  i.e.  Post  Graduate  Diploma  in  Yoga  or  Yoga

Therapy.   It  is  only  Diploma in  Yoga  Education  which  has  been

considered as equivalent to Diploma in Yoga or Yoga Therapy.  Not

only the Selection Committee has found the appellant suitable but

even  the  Equivalence  Committee,  constituted  in  terms  of  the

directions of the learned Single Bench, also found the Diploma of

the  appellant  as  the  one  satisfying  the  requirement  of  the

advertisement.  Therefore, once the Experts have taken a decision

that  the  appellant  meets  the  eligibility  conditions  of  the

advertisement, the Court could not have interfered with and set

aside the appointment of the appellant.  

18) Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a curriculum of Kaivalyadhama to argue that the Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga

Education  and Post  Graduate  Diploma in  Yoga/Yoga Therapy are

different.  We do not find that such curriculum can be relied upon

by the respondents to hold that the appellant is not eligible when

the committee of experts have found the appellant eligible.   

Page 9 of 10

19) Consequently,  we  allow  the  present  appeal  and  set  aside  the judgment  passed  by  the  High  Court.   The  appellant  shall  be

reinstated  in  service  forthwith  with  all  consequential  benefits,

seniority and pay fixation but will  not be entitled to pay for the

period he was out of service.  No order as to costs.

.............................................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

.............................................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 06, 2019.

Page 10 of 10