Page 1

REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9866 OF 2013 (@ SLP (C) No. 35063 of 2009)

GANAPATH SINGH  GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT … APPELLANT

Versus GULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS  …    RESPONDENTS

WITH     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9867 OF 2013 (@ SLP (C) No. 35173 of 2009)

GULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS … APPELLANTS

Versus SHIVANAND & OTHERS …    RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as also the  

Gulbarga University, aggrieved by the judgment and  

order dated 19/24th of November, 2009 of the Karnataka  

High Court in Writ Appeal No. 3216 of 2004 quashing  

the appointment of aforesaid Ganpath Singh Gangaram

Page 2

Singh Rajput as Lecturer in MCA in the Post-graduate  

Department of the University, have preferred these  

special leave petitions.

Leave granted.

Short facts giving rise to the present appeals  

are as follows:

The appellant, Gulbarga University, hereinafter  

referred to as ‘the University’, issued notification  

dated  May  22,  1998  inviting  applications  for  

appointment to various posts including the post of  

Lecturer  in  Masters’  in  Computer  Application,  for  

short,  MCA.   The  minimum  qualification,  for  

appointment to the post of Lecturer and with which we  

are  concerned  in  these  appeals,  is  good  academic  

record with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent  

grade at the Masters’ Degree level in the relevant  

subject from an Indian University or an equivalent  

degree from a foreign University.

Shivanand, respondent no. 3 herein, and Ganpath  

Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput, respondent no. 3 of the  

2

Page 3

writ  petition  (appellant  herein),  besides  other  

persons offered their candidature for appointment to  

the post of Lecturer in MCA.  The appellant claims to  

have passed the M.Sc. examination in Mathematics with  

First  Class  with  distinction.   It  is  an  admitted  

position  that  Shivanand  possessed  a  post-graduate  

degree  in  MCA  and  was  eligible  in  terms  of  the  

advertisement.  The University, in terms of Section  

53 of the Karnataka Universities Act constituted a  

‘Board  of  appointment’  for  selecting  suitable  

candidates.   It  consisted  of  experts  holding  high  

positions  in  academic  field  including  a  Professor  

each from University of Pune, Bombay University and  

Kuvempu  University.   The  Board  of  appointment  

interviewed  the  candidates  and  ultimately  made  a  

recommendation for the appointment of the appellant,  

hereinafter referred to as ‘Ganpat’, who admittedly  

did not have a post-graduate degree in MCA, but had a  

Masters’ Degree in Mathematics.  The recommendation  

so  made  was  placed  for  consideration  before  the  

Syndicate which approved his appointment.   

3

Page 4

Shivanand challenged the aforesaid selection and  

appointment in a writ petition filed before the High  

Court, inter alia, contending that Masters’ Degree in  

Mathematics will not make Ganpat eligible in terms of  

the advertisement and, therefore, his selection and  

appointment  to  the  post  of  Lecturer  in  MCA  is  

illegal.  Shivanand further pointed out that since he  

possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA and fulfils  

all other conditions, he ought to have been selected  

for  appointment.   Ganpat  as  also  the  University  

resisted the prayer of Shivanand and contended that  

the  expression  ‘relevant  subject’  used  in  the  

notification would mean any subject which is relevant  

for the purpose of holding the post of Lecturer in  

MCA.   It  was  contended  that  Masters’  degree  in  

Mathematics is a degree in a relevant subject and  

thus Ganpat possessed the basic qualification.  While  

defending the appointment it was further contended  

that in the syllabus for MCA, Mathematics is the core  

subject and, therefore, a candidate having a post-

graduate  degree  in  Mathematics  is  eligible  for  

appointment as Lecturer in MCA.  It was also pointed  

4

Page 5

out  that  when  an  expert  body  like  the  Board  of  

appointment had found that a post-graduate degree in  

Mathematics is a relevant subject for the purpose of  

adjudging the eligibility and the same having been  

approved by the Syndicate  of the University, a body  

consisting of experts, the same was not fit to be  

interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its  

writ  jurisdiction.   The  learned  Single  Judge  

considered  the  submission,  dismissed  the  writ  

petition and upheld the appointment of Ganpat, inter  

alia, observing as follows:

“8…….The use of the word ‘relevant  subject’  in  relation  to  the  qualification for Lecturers’ post is  the  bone  of  contention  between  the  parties.   It  is  also  Sri.  Chandrashekar’s  assertion  that  it  should relate only to a Master degree  in Computer Applications and nothing  else,  while,  the  University  would  contend that it could also mean such  of those who have secured a Masters  degree in Mathematics.  It is not in  dispute  that  the  Head  of  the  Department,  M.C.A.  is  held  by  a  person who is also a Ph.D. holder in  Mathematics.  It is not in dispute  that  Mathematics  is  also  subject  which is taught in the Masters degree  in  Computer  Applications  course.  What  one  can  reasonably  infer  from  the pleadings of the parties is that  

5

Page 6

‘relevant  subject’  could  mean  candidates  who  possessed  Masters  Degree in such of those subjects as  are  offered  in  the  M.C.A.  course.  Mathematics  being  one  of  the  subjects,  it  cannot  be  said  that  Masters Degree in Mathematics was not  a “relevant subject” and it was only  a Masters in Computer Applications.

It would be very unreasonable to  hold “relevant subject” to mean only  a  Masters  in  Computer  Applications.  It  would  also  be  irrational  to  conclude that the non mention of the  specific  educational  qualification  for the post of Lecturer in M.C.A.  could  lead  to  only  one  conclusion  that  a  candidate  with  a  Masters  degree  in  Computer  Applications,  alone, would meet the requirement.”

Shivanand,  aggrieved  by  the  same,  preferred  

appeal  and  both  the  parties  reiterated  the  same  

contentions.  The submission made by Shivanand found  

favour with the Division Bench of the High Court and  

while doing so it observed as follows:

“28. This is nothing sort of trickery  and fraud on persons applying to the  post.   The  University  had  perhaps  deliberately  or  with  a  design  to  achieve  this  result  of  selecting  a  person  with  post-graduate  qualification in Mathematics, though  it  had  called  for  applications  to  fill up the post of Lecturer in MCA  course.  That is why the action of  

6

Page 7

the  University  falls  short  of  the  constitutional  mandate  of  the  State  being in conformity with Articles 14  and  16(1)  of  the  Constitution  of  India, affording equal opportunity to  all eligible candidates.  In fact the  method of selection made by adopting  this procedure, is so flawed that it  can  never  pass  the  test  before  a  Court, more so while in exercise of  jurisdiction  of  judicial  review  of  administrative action.  We say so far  the reason that the post notified for  being filled up by the University in  MCA  course  should  be  one  with  reference  to  the  vacancy  and  the  vacancy can only be in a particular  subject of the department and cannot  be  generally  with  reference  to  the  course.”

Accordingly, the Division Bench of the High Court  

allowed  the  appeal  and  quashed  the  appointment  of  

Ganpat as Lecturer in MCA.   

Ms. Kiran Suri, advocate appears on behalf of the  

appellant  Ganpat  whereas  the  University  is  

represented by Mr. S.N. Bhat, advocate.  They contend  

that Mathematics is a relevant subject for MCA course  

and, therefore, a person holding post-graduate degree  

in  Mathematics  is  eligible  for  appointment  as  

Lecturer in MCA.  It is further pointed out that in  

Gulbarga University, different Mathematics subjects  

7

Page 8

are taught in MCA and, therefore, it cannot be said  

that  a  person  possessing  Masters’  degree  in  

Mathematics  is  not  eligible  for  appointment  as  

Lecturer in MCA.  It has also been pointed out that  

as to whether a particular qualification is relevant  

or not for holding a post is best decided by the  

experts  concerned  and,  in  the  present  case,  

Mathematics,  having  been  recognized  as  a  relevant  

subject for MCA course not only by the University but  

by  the  Board  of  appointment  consisting  of  eminent  

academicians from various Universities, the Division  

Bench of the High Court ought not to have substituted  

their opinion.  In support of the submission reliance  

has been placed on a decision of this Court in the  

case of  B.C.  Mylarappa  v.  Dr.  R.  Venkatasubbaiah,  

(2008) 14 SCC 306 and our attention has been drawn to  

Paragraph  26  of  the  said  judgment  which  reads  as  

follows:

“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  

8

Page 9

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.”

Yet another decision on which reliance is placed  

is the decision of this Court in the case of Rajbir  

Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University,  

(2008) 9 SCC 284 and our attention has been drawn to  

Paragraph 29 of the judgment which reads as follows:

“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  

9

Page 10

matters, and the Court should not sit  in appeal over this opinion and take  a contrary view.”

Mr. Naveen R. Nath, advocate appearing on behalf  

of  respondent  Shivanand,  however,  contends  that  a  

person  holding  the  post-graduate  degree  in  

Mathematics  is  not  eligible  for  appointment  as  

Lecturer  in  MCA.   It  is  pointed  out  that  the  

advertisement  was  composite  and  related  to  

appointment of various posts in different subjects  

and, hence, the expression ‘relevant subject’ has to  

be understood in that context.  It has been pointed  

out that the applications were invited for filling  

the posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in the  

Department  of  English,  Urdu,  Persian,  Chemistry,  

Bio-Chemistry,  Applied  Electronics,  Geology,  Law  

etc.,  including  MCA.   According  to  the  learned  

counsel, the relevant subject in the advertisement  

here would mean the subjects for which applications  

were  invited.   According  to  him,  the  Board  of  

appointment  misdirected  itself  in  going  into  the  

question  as  to  whether  Mathematics  is  a  relevant  

subject or not in MCA.  Accordingly, he submits that  

10

Page 11

the opinion of the Board of appointment as approved  

by the Syndicate is not that sacrosanct so as to  

deprive High Court the power of judicial review.   

We have bestowed our consideration to the rival  

submissions and we do not find any substance in the  

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant  

and  the  authorities  relied  on  are  clearly  

distinguishable.   

Main thrust in the appellant’s contention is that  

when  an  expert  body  i.e.  Board  of  appointment  

consisting  of  high  academicians,  has  found  Ganpat  

eligible and qualified and which has been approved by  

the Syndicate, another expert body, the High Court  

ought  not  to  have  acted  as  a  Court  of  appeal,  

examined the pros and cons and come to the conclusion  

that  Ganpat  did  not  possess  the  requisite  

qualification.  There is no difficulty in accepting  

the  broad  submission  that  academic  issues  must  be  

left to be decided by the expert body and the court  

cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters.  

It  deserves  great  respect.  When  two  views  are  

11

Page 12

possible and the expert body has taken a view, the  

same deserves acceptance. However, to say that expert  

body’s  opinion  deserves  acceptance  in  all  

circumstances and is not subject to judicial review  

does not appeal to us. In our constitutional scheme  

the decision of the Board of appointment cannot be  

said to be final and absolute.  Any other view will  

have a very dangerous consequence and one must remind  

itself  of  the  famous  words  of  Lord  Acton  “power  

corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Now we revert to the authorities of this Court  

relied on by the appellants.  B.C. Mylarappa (supra)  deals with the appointment to the post of Professor,  

in  which  one  of  the  eligibility  condition  for  

appointment  was  ’10  years’  of  experience  of  post-

graduate  teaching’.   The  Board  of  appointment  

considered the selected candidate eligible by taking  

into  consideration  his  experience  as  Lecturer  and  

Research Assistant and in the absence of any mala  

fide, this Court observed that its opinion is not fit  

to be rejected.  This would be evident from Paragraph  

24 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

12

Page 13

“24. There is another aspect of this  matter  which  is  also  relevant  for  proper  decision  of  this  appeal.  We  have  already  indicated  earlier  that  the  Board  of  Appointment  was  constituted with experts in this line  by  the  University  Authorities.  They  have  considered  not  only  the  candidature of the appellant and his  experience as a Lecturer and Research  Assistant along with others came to  hold that it was the appellant who  was the candidate who could satisfy  the conditions for appointment to the  post  of  Professor.  Such  being  the  selection made by the expert body, it  is  difficult  for  us  to  accept  the  judgments of the High Court when we  have failed to notice any mala fides  attributed  to  the  members  of  the  expert  body  in  selecting  the  appellant to the said post.”

However, this judgment cannot be read to mean  

that  the  courts  are  denuded  of  the  power  to  

scrutinize the experience in a given case and come to  

a contrary conclusion.  As stated earlier, when the  

view taken by the expert body is one of the possible  

views, the same is fit to be accepted.  Further, the  

yardstick  would  be  different  when  it  concerns  

eligibility conditions pertaining to ‘qualification’  

and ‘experience’.  In case of experience it is best  

known to the expert body in the field in regard to  

13

Page 14

the actual work done and, therefore, its opinion is  

of  higher  degree  deserving  acceptance  ordinarily.  

Hence, in our opinion, this judgment did not fetter  

the power of the High Court.

As regards the decision of this Court in the case  

of  Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra), the same is clearly  distinguishable.  In  the  said  case  the  controversy  

which fell for consideration was as to whether public  

administration is one of the branches of Political  

Science and in the face of the opinion of the expert  

body that they are interchangeable, the conclusion of  

the High Court that they are distinct and separate  

was  not  approved.  This  would  be  evident  from  the  

following passage from the said judgment.

“45. As has been pointed out by my  learned Brother, the University has  in  its  counter-affidavit  taken  a  stand that Public Administration is  one  of  the  branches  of  Political  Science   and  the  Selection  Committee  comprised  of  eminent  scholars  had  rightly  chosen   the  appellant  for  the  post  of  Reader  after  considering  his  academic  achievements and also relying upon  the view of the University Grants  Commission in its letter dated 5-3- 1992 stating that the subjects of  

14

Page 15

Political  Science  and  Public  Administration  are  interchangeable  and  interrelated  and  that  a  candidate who possesses a Masters  degree in Public Administration is  eligible  to  be  appointed  as  Lecturer  in  Political  Science.  Similarly, a candidate possessing a  Masters degree in Political Science  is eligible for appointment to the  post  of  Lecturer  in  Public  Administration.

46. Despite  the  aforesaid  views  expressed by the expert bodies such  as  the  University  and  the  University  Grants  Commission,  the  High  Court  has  held  Public  Administration  and  Political  Science to be distinct and separate  disciplines.….”

In the present case, there is no such plea. Here,  

the  plea  is  that  as  Mathematics  is  one  of  the  

subjects  in  MCA  and,  therefore,  Ganpat  possessing  

Masters’ degree in Mathematics is eligible. It is not  

the plea of the University that Masters’ degree in  

Mathematics is interchangeable with MCA.  Not only  

this, in the aforesaid case, this Court came to the  

aforesaid  conclusion  due  to  different  eligibility  

criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of  

Reader and Lecturer. It was pointed out by this Court  

15

Page 16

that  in  the  case  of  Reader  the  requirement  was  

Masters’ degree in an ‘appropriate subject’, whereas  

for  appointment  as  Lecturer  it  was  ‘relevant  

subject’.  Said  case  related  to  the  appointment  of  

Reader.  On  account  of  the  use  of  different  

expressions, this Court came to the conclusion that  

post-graduate degree holder in Political Science is  

eligible to be appointed to the post of Reader in  

Public  Administration.  This  would  be  evident  from  

paragraphs 48 and 49 of the judgment, which read as  

follows:

“48. The  recruitment  rules  followed by the University clearly  indicate  that  in  order  to  be  appointed  as  Lecturer  in  a  particular discipline a candidate  must have a postgraduate degree in  the relevant subject. On the other  hand, for appointment to the post  of Reader such a condition has not  been  specified. In  fact,  in  Regulation 2 it has been generally  indicated that no person shall be  appointed  to  a  teaching  post  in  the  University  or  in  any  institution, including constituent  or affiliated colleges recognized  under the UGC Act, 1956, or any  institution  deemed  to  be  a  university under Section 3 of the  said Act, in a subject, if he/she  does not fulfil the requirement as  

16

Page 17

to  the  qualifications  for  the  appropriate subject.

49.  In my view, the omission in  the Regulations cannot be said to  be  unintentional  or  a  case  of  casus  omissus.  In  my  view,  the  expression  “appropriate  subject”  was intended to cover the post of  Reader and once the expert bodies  had indicated that the appellant  who held a postgraduate degree in  Political Science  was eligible to  be appointed to the post of Reader  in Public Administration and had  been  rightly  appointed  to  such  post, it is normally not for the  courts to question such opinion,  unless  it  has  specialised  knowledge of the subject.”

 (underlining ours)

This Court did not say that Political Science is  

the relevant subject for appointment as Lecturer in  

Public Administration.

Having  set  the  legal  position  in  the  right  

perspective, we now proceed to consider the facts of  

the  present  case.  As  is  evident  from  the  

advertisement, applications were invited for filling  

up various posts in different subjects including the  

post of Lecturer in MCA.  The advertisement requires  

17

Page 18

post-graduate degree in the ‘relevant subject’.  The  

relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of  

appointment  to  the  post  of  Lecturer,  mean  post-

graduate  degree  in  MCA.   In  our  opinion,  for  

appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters’ degree  

in the Mathematics is not the relevant subject.  The  

advertisement requires Masters’ degree in ‘relevant  

subject’  and  not  ‘appropriate  subject’.   In  the  

present case, the Board of appointment has not stated  

that  post-graduate  degree  in  Mathematics  is  the  

relevant subject for MCA but in sum and substance it  

is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA for  

the reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects  

taught in MCA.  This, in our opinion, was beyond the  

power of the Board of appointment.  It shall not make  

any difference even if Mathematics is taught in the  

Masters’ of Computer Application course.  The learned  

Single  Judge,  in  our  opinion,  gravely  erred  in  

upholding the contention of Ganpat and the University  

that  ‘relevant  subject’  would  mean  ‘such  of  those  

subjects  as  are  offered  in  the  MCA  course’.   If  

Mathematics is taught in a post-graduate course in  

18

Page 19

Commerce, a Masters’ degree in Commerce would not be  

relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that  

matter in MCA.  There may be a situation in which  

Masters’ degree in MCA is differently christened and  

such a degree may be considered relevant but it would  

be  too  much  to  say  that  a  candidate  having  post-

graduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA  

would make the holders of a Masters’ degree in those  

subjects  as  holder  of  Masters’  degree  in  Computer  

Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment.  

The  language  of  the  advertisement  is  clear  and  

explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and, hence,  

it has to be given effect to.  Since the appellant  

Ganpat did not have a Masters’ degree in Computer  

Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to  

be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA.  We  

are aghast to see that when a candidate possessing  

Masters’ degree in MCA is available, the Board of  

appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible  

person  for  appointment  in  that  subject.   Its  

recommendations are, therefore, illegal and invalid.  

Natural  corollary  thereof  is  that  the  University  

19

Page 20

acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat  

as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the  

Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting  

aside  his  appointment.   In  our  opinion,  an  

unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may  

be the recommendee.  We are of the opinion that the  

Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding  

that  Ganpat  was  not  eligible  for  appointment  of  

Lecturer in Masters’ of Computer Application.

Mr.Bhat and Ms. Suri lastly assail the order of  

the High Court issuing mandamus for appointment of  

Shivanand as Lecturer in MCA. It is contended that  

after setting aside the appointment of Ganpat, the  

High Court should have directed for consideration of  

the case of Shivanand and such other candidates who  

were  found  eligible  for  consideration.  It  is  also  

contended  that  Shivanand  may  have  the  right  of  

consideration  but  certainly  not  the  right  of  

appointment.

We  find  substance  in  this  submission.  

Ordinarily, in a case where the person appointed is  

20

Page 21

found ineligible, this Court after setting aside such  

appointment, directs for consideration of cases of  

such of the candidates, who have been found eligible.  

It  is  only  in  exceptional  cases  that  this  Court  

issues mandamus for appointment. The case in hand is  

not one of those cases where the High Court ought to  

have issued mandamus for appointment of Shivanand as  

Lecturer in MCA. Hence, we are of the opinion that  

the  High  Court  rightly  held  Ganpat  ineligible  and  

quashed his appointment. However, it erred in issuing  

mandamus for appointment of Shivanand. Accordingly,  

we  uphold  the  impugned  order  of  the  High  Court  

whereby  it  had  set  aside  the  appointment  of  the  

appellant herein and direct that the case of the writ  

petitioner  Shivanand  and  all  other  candidates  be  

considered in accordance with law.  However, we make  

it clear that the selection already made shall be  

taken to its logical conclusion.

In the result, we dismiss these appeals with  

modification in the direction as aforesaid with cost,  

which we assess at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)  

21

Page 22

only in both the cases, payable by the appellants in  

both the appeals equally.

………………………………………………………….J                             (CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD)  

………………………………………………………….J                  (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi, November 01, 2013.

22