Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ravikant Prabhunath Sharma, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Economics. He possessed a Bachelor's Degree in Commerce, a Master's Degree in Economics, and an M.Phil. in Economics. The recruitment notification prescribed, as per UGC Regulations 2010, a minimum of 55% in a Master's Degree in the relevant subject. A dispute arose when the Grievance Redressal Committee, comprising Academic Experts, opined that candidates with an undergraduate degree in the relevant subject (Economics) should be preferred, as they would be required to teach at the undergraduate level. The committee viewed that the minimum provisions under UGC Regulations should be applied with greater emphasis on relevance of the subject at both UG and PG levels. Based on this recommendation, the authorities rejected the appellant's candidature because he had a Bachelor's Degree in Commerce, not Economics. The appellant challenged the rejection before a Single Judge of the High Court, who dismissed the writ petition, upholding the authorities' decision. In appeal, it was brought to the court's attention that the appellant had since secured employment in New Delhi, rendering the appeal academic. The Division Bench declined to entertain the matter on merits, noting that the expert committee's view was reasonable and that it is settled law that it is for the employer to decide which candidates are best suited to discharge duties. The court held that the acceptance of certain candidates over others by the employer cannot be faulted, and the expert body's view cannot be doubted by courts. It also rejected the argument of shift in goal posts, stating that the qualifications were not changed after the notification; merely a preference was exercised. Consequently, both appeals and connected civil applications were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Selection Criteria - Employer's Prerogative - The employer has the right to determine which candidates are best suited for a post, and the court will not interfere with the acceptance of certain candidates over others unless the decision is arbitrary or illegal. (Paras 10-12) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Expert Committee's Role - Judicial Deference - The view of an Expert Committee composed of Academic Experts on what qualifications are preferable for a teaching post cannot be doubted by courts, especially when it aligns with the minimum prescribed qualifications under UGC Regulations, 2010. (Paras 4, 12) C) Service Law - Recruitment - Change of Rules - Shift in Goal Posts - When a recruitment notification prescribes minimum qualifications and the employer merely gives preference to candidates possessing an additional relevant qualification at the undergraduate level, it does not constitute a change in the rules after the process began, and thus the shift of goal posts argument is not applicable. (Paras 11) D) Practice and Procedure - Appeals - Mootness - When the appellant has subsequently secured employment elsewhere, the appeal becomes academic and the court may dismiss it without considering the merits in detail. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the appellant's candidature for the post of Assistant Professor in Economics on the ground that he possessed a Bachelor's Degree in Commerce instead of Economics was arbitrary, and whether the Grievance Redressal Committee's preference for candidates with a relevant undergraduate degree was in violation of the UGC regulations.
Final Decision
The appeals were dismissed as the appellant had already secured employment elsewhere, rendering the appeal academic. The court held that the expert committee's view was not arbitrary and that it is for the employer to decide the suitability of candidates, which courts should not interfere with. The connected civil applications were also dismissed.
Law Points
- it is for the employer to decide which persons are best suited to discharge their duties
- courts will not interfere with the acceptance of employer of a certain set of candidates in preference to others
- shift in goal posts argument not applicable when qualifications not changed after notification but preference exercised
- expert body's view cannot be doubted by courts
