Case Note & Summary
Three writ petitions were filed by candidates who applied for the post of Vice Chancellor of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, in response to an advertisement issued by a Search Committee constituted under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, as amended by Act XIV of 2009. The Search Committee consisted of three eminent members: a retired Supreme Court judge as Chairman, the Principal Secretary of Higher and Technical Education Department, and a director of a national institute. Out of about 100 applications, the Committee shortlisted 34 candidates for presentation/interview, but the petitioners were not among them. The petitioners, Vinayak Bhise, Dr. Gunderao Kulkarni, and Yeshwant Khillare, claimed they met the mandatory qualifications prescribed by the State Government order dated 27 May 2009. Bhise contended he fulfilled all criteria, Khillare argued his additional experience as Director of Students Welfare should count towards the five-year administrative experience requirement, and Kulkarni challenged the five-year requirement as discriminatory because headship rotated in his university. They argued that some shortlisted candidates did not meet the mandatory qualifications and that they were more qualified. They sought a direction from the Bombay High Court under Article 226 to be called for presentation, not challenging the selection of others per se. The petitioners' counsel submitted that shortlisting contravened the government order and the statute, and that the five-year experience condition was discriminatory. The Advocate General, appearing for the Search Committee, submitted that the Committee comprised eminent persons, exercised its discretion based on eligibility and suitability, and shortlisted candidates after scrutinizing material. He contended that no malafides were alleged and that the discretion was within statutory parameters, not open to judicial review, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Basvaiyah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372. The court examined Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, as amended, noting the high-level composition of the Search Committee and its mandate to recommend a panel of suitable persons with factors like eminence, leadership, vision, and qualifications. The court held that the committee's discretion in shortlisting, unless shown to be malafide or arbitrary, is beyond judicial scrutiny under Article 226. It emphasized that no malafides were alleged, and non-shortlisting did not reflect on the petitioners' caliber. The court declined to compare qualifications or substitute its judgment for that of the expert committee. Consequently, all three writ petitions were dismissed, and the Rule was discharged. The court found no illegality in the shortlisting process.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions - Scope of Article 226 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Search Committee, chaired by a retired Supreme Court Judge, shortlisted 34 out of 100 applicants for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The petitioners, not shortlisted, sought a direction to be interviewed. Held that the committee's discretion, exercised within statutory parameters, is not open to judicial review in the absence of malafides or arbitrariness. (Paras 10-12) B) Education Law - Universities - Appointment of Vice-Chancellor - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Section 12(1), (3), (3A), (3B) as amended by Act XIV of 2009 - The amended provision established a three-member Search Committee with specified composition and mandate to recommend a panel of at least five suitable persons. The court found that the committee's shortlisting was based on eligibility and suitability criteria prescribed by the State Government order dated 27 May 2009, and not vitiated by any legal infirmity. (Paras 13-14) C) Service Law - Public Employment - Eligibility Criteria for Vice-Chancellor - State Government Order dated 27 May 2009 - The petitioners contended that certain shortlisted candidates did not meet the mandatory qualifications in Part A of the Schedule. The court declined to examine comparative merit or challenge to the criteria, holding that no material was placed to demonstrate arbitrary exclusion and that the committee had applied the criteria uniformly. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Search Committee’s decision not to call the petitioners for interview/presentation for the post of Vice-Chancellor was arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of the State Government order dated 27 May 2009 prescribing qualifications and the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, as amended.
Final Decision
The writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that the Search Committee's decision to shortlist 34 candidates out of about 100 was within its statutory discretion and not arbitrary or malafide. No interference was warranted under Article 226. Rule discharged, no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- The Search Committee for Vice-Chancellor under Section 12 of Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994
- consists of high-level members
- its discretionary decision to shortlist candidates is not open to judicial review under Article 226 unless malafides or arbitrary
- qualification criteria prescribed by State Government order dated 27 May 2009 must be followed
- shortlisting not reflecting on suitability of non-shortlisted candidates
- mere comparative merit not ground for interference.
