('" ' . ' DR. BASAVAIAH· IJ:. ji~ .:_· & Ors. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27; Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur & Ors.

Judgment

9 S.C.R. ·227 ...... ('" ' . ' DR. BASAVAIAH· IJ:. ji~ .:_·,·i(.i A ····" v."ln1 . · .~ .l.~iiJr,q5 9•1t l" DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal 'No. 605:.f of 2010). '' 01 " ,:;, 'JULY 29, 2010: '<'1~!'.:.... ' . . ..., . , . T 4 . .,, r·· .r .Gi:1r' Jl'J'l ~'·:1·-~ ;t \ ;q': B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND J.S. JHAt<UR? ,~J,.JJn.li; ·' 'SeNite law - Appointment - Appointment of:appellants• as Readers in Sericulture - Challenge· to,• by respondent .on the" ground that app.ellants were not qualified1..:. High .Court, C upholding the appointment - However; Division Benc/J3of, High ·Court set aside the appointment - On appeal,' held: In academic matters, courts have a very limited role ·particularly, when no ma/a fide has been alleged against experts constituting selection c<?.mmUf.e..~ , . ...._,Expert Committe~ 0 carefully examined and s'Crutihized the qualification, experience and published work of appellants before selecting therit'fOr posts of Readers in Ser'icu/ture ::.. High Court not justified in sitting in appeal over the· recomm'endailons'.of expert committee -· Thus,· order of Division Bench;;ofHigh' E Court is set aside' and thaf-of Single Judge of High ·court is '· ' · < 1 'v" · ' · ·: · restored. . ~ ~-;,.,: ·' ,-, _, · ... i'"01.~:.·) Ali advertisement·was·issued .for 0appointment·of Rea.ders 'in ·Sericulture ·in the University. ·The qualifications necessar}' for appointment as Readers.was consistently'- good academic record with ·a Doctorate Degree of'equivalent published work. The appellants were appointed as Readers in Sericulture.in the year 1999 on the basis of their qualifications. The respondent challenged the appointments of the appellants on the ground that the appellants were not qualified to: be appointed· as Readers in Sericulture. The Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, ·the F ,G 227 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A Division Bench of High Court set aside the appointment of the appellants. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In the academic matters, the courts have a B very limited role particularly when no ma/a fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the C courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. [Para 45] [244-E-F] 0 Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha & Others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others (1980) 3 SCC 418; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Others (1984) 4 SCC 27; Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal & Others E (1990) 2 SCC 746; Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. Medical College & Others (1992) 2 SCC 220; Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan & Others (1990) 1 SCC 305; The Chancellor & Another etc. v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Others (1994) 1 SCC 169; Chairman J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others F (2000) 3 SCC 59; Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust & Another (2001) 5 SCC 486; Medical Council of India v. Sarang & Others (2001) 8 SCC 427; B. C. Mylarappa alias Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & Others (2008) 14 SCC 306; Rajbir Singh G Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Another (2008) 9 SCC 284; All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Others (2009) 11 SCC 726 - relied on. H DR. BASAVAIAH v. DR. H.L. RAMESH & ORS. 229

2.1 The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by A respondent no. 1 on the short ground that the appellants did not have Doctorate degree in Sericulture. Therefore, they were not qualified for appointment as Readers in Sericulture. In the impugned judgment, the court did not properly comprehend the advertisement in which it was B clearly mentioned that the prescribed qualification for the appointment as Readers was Doctorate degree or equivalent published work. Admittedly, both these appellants had extensive published work in the national and international journals of repute to their credit. This c is clearly indicated in extenso in the application forms which they had filled for the appointments for the posts of Readers. [Paras 23 and 25] [237-C-G]

2.2 The courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert D Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. [Para 27] [238-G-H]