The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6476 OF 2014 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Krupasindhu Mohanta … Petitioner -versus- Vice Chancellor, Utkal University of Culture, Bhubaneswar & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.M.K.Mohanty, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.S.K.Pattnaik, Sr. Advocate Mr.P.K.Pattnaik, Advocate For Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. B.P.Tripathy, A.G.A. For Opposite Party No.4 : Mr.Gourisankar Pani, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 14 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 04.4.2023. Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Utkal University of Culture (in short 8the University9) issued an advertisement on 13th February, 2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to several teaching posts including the post of Reader in Drama (Acting). It was stipulated that the qualification of the candidates shall be as per University Grants Commission (UGC) Notification No.F.3-1/HE dated 14th December, 2000. The Petitioner is working as Lecturer in Sambalpur University at Jyoti Bihar, Burla. He is a Ph.D. Degree Holder in Music (Performing Arts), Doctor of Philosophy, Master Degree holder in Drama (Acting) and Master Degree holder in Physical Education having teaching experience. Since he fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement, he applied for the post of Reader in Drama (Acting). After scrutinizing the applications received from the intending candidates, the University short listed 8 W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 2 of 14 candidates including the Petitioner to appear in the interview. The interview was conducted on 7th October, 2013 by a Selection Committee comprising the Vice- Chancellor, four Professors, a nominee of the Government and a member of the Board of Management. Out of the 8 candidates so called, five, including the Petitioner and the present Opposite Party No.4 appeared in the interview. While the Petitioner secured a total of 56 marks, the Opposite Party No.4 secured 74 marks and was thus, placed in
Legal Reasoning
the first position. The names of both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 in order of merit was recommended by the Selection Committee, which was accepted on 10th October, 2013. On the same day, order of appointment as Reader in Drama was issued in favour of Opposite Party No.4. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the selection of Opposite Party No.4 is bad inasmuch as he does not possess the requisite qualification. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.4 has a Master9s Degree from W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 3 of 14 Pondicherry University, which has not been notified as equivalent to any degree of any University of Odisha. Further, he has acquired Master9s Degree in Drama and Theater Arts and not in Drama (Acting), which is the prescribed qualification. It is also stated that he has a Ph.D. in Philosophy, but not in Drama. Finally, it is stated that Opposite Party No.4 being a resident of the State of Andhra Pradesh has no knowledge about the culture of Odisha.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. M.K.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K.Pattnaik, learned Senior counsel with Mr. P.K.Pattnaik appearing for Opposite Party No.1-University,Mr. B.P.Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Gourisankar Pani, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.4. 4. It is forcefully argued by Mr. M.K.Mohanty that the Department of Drama consists of three separate disciplines namely, (i) Drama (Acting), (ii) Drama (Direction) and (iii) Drama (Stage Craft) having W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 4 of 14 difference courses of studies. The post advertised was Reader in the subject of Drama (Acting). Therefore, the candidate was required to possess a Master9s Degree in Drama (Acting). The Petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Vocational Examination in Drama and Bachelor9s Degree and Master9s Degree in Music in Drama. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.4 has no Master9s Degree qualification in Drama (Acting) and has also not secured 55% marks. He has acquired M.A. degree in Drama and Theater Arts from Pondicherry University, which has not been notified to be equivalent to Master9s Degree in Drama (Acting) of Utkal University of Culture. As regards teaching experience also, the Petitioner has direct teaching experience of 2 years 3 months while Opposite Party No.4 has experience as Honorary Research Scholar of 4 years 8 months and Faculty Member of 2 years 10 months. Thus, he had never worked as Lecturer or Senior Lecturer. On the above basis, it is contended by Mr. Mohanty that the selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.4 is entirely illegal being contrary to W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 5 of 14 the UGC Notification. It is also contended by Mr. Mohanty that the Opposite party No.4 belongs to the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, possesses no knowledge of the culture of Odisha and therefore, his appointment would be adverse to the interests of the State. 5. Mr. S.K.Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that as per the UGC guidelines the qualification required is Master9s Degree in the relevant subject. To such extent, therefore, the qualification of Opposite Party No.4 being Post Graduate in Drama and Theater Arts fully satisfies the requirement of UGC Notification. Moreover, there is no specific course like Drama (Acting). In fact, the Petitioner himself does not possess any such qualification, but is a M.A. in Music. The Petitioner was nevertheless called to attend interview. The Selection Committee consists of domain experts from different fields having vast experience in their respective subjects. On an overall comparative assessment, the Selection Committee found that W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 6 of 14 Opposite Party No.4 is more meritorious than the Petitioner. As regards the lack of equivalence of the Master9s Degree of Pondicherry University with the corresponding degree of any University in Odisha, Mr. Patnaik submits that the University recognizes the corresponding degrees from any Indian University and therefore, no equivalence is required. As regards the ground that the Opposite party No.4 does not possess the ground knowledge of the culture of Odisha, Mr. Patnaik, submits that the same is not essentially required for the post as per the UGC Notification. 6. Mr. Gourisankar Pani, learned counsel appearing for private Opposite Party No.4 while adopting all the contentions advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Pattnaik as mentioned above, submits that both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 had attended the interview. Basing on their performance and on comparative assessment of their qualification and experience etc. the Selection Committee awarded more marks to Opposite Party No.4. The Petitioner, having W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 7 of 14 attended the interview is therefore estopped to challenge the result thereof only because he was unsuccessful. 7. The facts being undisputed, this Court would, at the outset like to consider the scope of interference in such a matter. Admittedly, the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 were shortlisted for interview basing on the testimonials submitted by them. Statute 58 (1) of the Utkal University of Culture 1st Statute, 2001 reads as under: the qualification <58(1). Subject to the provisions of the and Statutes, experience, if any, prescribed by the University Grants Commission or the State Government or the University as the case may be the appointing authority of the respective posts shall be competent to make recruitment to the various posts and to lay down the methods of recruitment, by way of such tests and examinations as it may deem expedient, so far as teaching posts are concerned.= 8. Accordingly, a selection criteria was formulated in conformity with UGC Regulation, 2010 and the W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 8 of 14 provisions of the First Statute, 2001. The said criteria was prepared by Vice Chancellor of the University and 6 experts namely, (1) Prof. Kirti Jain, (2) Prof. Anuradha Kapoor, (3) Prof. Ananth Krishnan (4) Prof. Duttatreya Datta, (5) Sushil Ku. Das and (6) Satakadi Hota. The candidates were called upon to attend interview held on 7th October, 2013. After assessing the comparative merit of the candidates as per the selection criteria formulated, the Selection Committee recommended two candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of Reader of whom the Opposite Party No.4 was the Ist and the Petitioner was the 2nd. This Court therefore, finds that the experts comprising the Selection Committee have assessed the relative merit of all the candidates and submitted their recommendation accordingly. This Court finds no reason to interfere with such expert9s opinion. In fact, law is well settled that Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts as was held by the Apex Court in the case of the University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 9 of 14 another; reported in AIR 1965 SC 491. When it is not shown that there was violation of any statutory rule or the UGC Notification or the decision of the Selection Committee was actuated with malafides, there is hardly any scope for this Court exercising writ jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of experts of the field and to substitute the same with its own findings. In the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, etc. etc. vs. Dr. B.S.Mahajan Etc. Etc.; reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305, the Apex Court reiterated the above principle. 9. Having held so, this Court would examine whether there was any violation of the UGC Notification regarding qualification. The University Grants Commission (UGC), by Notification dated 30th June, 2010 issued Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010. Clause-4.4.2.2. refers to Drama Discipline. The W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 10 of 14 requirement is 55% marks at the Master9s Degree level in the relevant subject besides teaching and research experience, publication etc. The Petitioner has Master9s Degree in Music. The certificate enclosed to the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner in response to the counter of the Opposite Party No.4 reveals that the degree is for Master of Music and that the Petitioner was placed in the 2nd Class in <Drama= with Special Paper (Acting). The said Certificate was issued by the Utkal University. The Opposite Party No.4 acquired a Post Graduate Degree, i.e. M.A. in Drama and Theater Arts from Pondicherry University. The statement of
Decision
marks (enclosed to the Writ Petition under Annexure-6 series) reveals that Acting was a subject in each of the four semesters. Therefore, the contention that the Opposite Party No.4 did not possess Master9s qualification in Acting seems to be factually incorrect. As regards the contention that M.A. Degree of Pondicherry University has not been notified to be equivalent to corresponding degree of the Utkal University of Culture, this Court is unable to accept W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 11 of 14 the same in view of the fact that there is nothing in the advertisement, which mandates that the P.G. qualification ought to have been obtained from the Utkal University of Culture alone. In any event such a contention would militate against the fundamental principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India. This Court further finds that the Selection Committee compared the relative merit of all the candidates and awarded marks under each of the following heads; (i) General Career – 30 (ii) Research Degree-10 (iii) Teaching Experience – 10 (iv) Research Publication – 10 (v) Domain knowledge – 20 (vi) Interview/viva voce - 20 The Selection Committee awarded 56 marks to the Petitioner and 74 to the Opposite Party No.4. The Petitioner claims that as compared to Opposite Party No.4, he is to be treated as more qualified since he had Diploma qualification in Acting followed by Bachelor9s Degree in Drama. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.4 was a purely Science student in both W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 12 of 14 Intermediate and Graduate levels. This is also not an acceptable argument in view of the UGC requirement that the relevant qualification for consideration is Masters Degree in which the candidates should have secured 55% marks. Thus, this Court finds that even on merits, the Petitioner has not made out any case for interference by this Court. 10. As has already been stated, the Selection Committee was comprised of domain experts having vast experience in their respective disciplines. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the said experts were biased, partial or otherwise actuated with mala fides so as to deliberately downgrade the Petitioner viz-a-vis the Opposite Party No.4. In the absence of any such allegation or semblance of proof of malafides, the recommendation of the Selection Committee must be treated as a product of the sound judgment of the members. There is thus, hardly any scope for this Court to interfere in the matter. W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 13 of 14 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition which is therefore, dismissed. ………..…….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 14 of 14 W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 15 of 14 W.P.(C) No. 6476 of 2014 Page 16 of 14