-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Selection Committee Cannot Rewrite Qualification Criteria—Advertisement Mandated Ph.D. in Horticulture, Not in Botany - Orissa High Court quashed the appointment of a Senior Scientist (Horticulture) at OUAT, holding that the appointed candidate, having a Ph.D. in Botany, did not meet the essential eligibility criteria of having a Ph.D. in the “relevant subject” i.e., Horticulture, as expressly stipulated in the recruitment advertisement.
Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, while setting aside the appointment, observed: “Even if the thesis relates to a Horticultural crop, the degree remains in Botany, and the advertisement clearly required Ph.D. in the relevant subject. The selection committee could not have treated a Botany degree as one in Horticulture.”
“Subject Expert Opinion Cannot Override Express Terms of Advertisement”
The Court rejected the university's defence that the selection committee, comprising subject experts, found the thesis topic—“Integrated Nutrient Management in African Marigold”—sufficiently related to Horticulture. The Court held that such subjective interpretations cannot dilute explicit qualification criteria.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University, the Court noted: “Where the post advertised requires a degree in a particular subject, courts must enforce the mandate strictly. Selection committees cannot import flexibility when none exists.”
“Botany and Horticulture Are Distinct Disciplines—No Academic Equivalence Shown”
The petitioner, Dr. Biswanath Sahoo, who held a Ph.D. in Horticulture, had challenged the appointment on the ground that the selected candidate possessed a Ph.D. in Botany. The Court analyzed dictionary definitions, ICAR regulations, and scientific taxonomy, holding:
“While Botany is the mother discipline of plant sciences, Horticulture is a specialised applied science involving cultivation and crop-specific expertise. The two cannot be equated unless equivalence is explicitly stated by a competent body.”
The university failed to produce any rule or statutory equivalence declaration justifying the substitution.
“Court Cannot Remain a Silent Spectator When Eligibility Norms Are Bypassed”
Rejecting the contention that courts should defer to expert selection committees, the High Court relied on a consistent line of Supreme Court decisions, including Ganapath Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University and Valsala Kumari Devi v. Director, Higher Secondary Education, to state: “Judicial review does not end at the boundary of academic discretion when selection rules are flouted. Where a specific qualification is prescribed and candidates with alternate qualifications are allowed, the process becomes ultra vires.”
“Rewriting 'Relevant' as ‘Broadly Related’ Is Impermissible—Selection Process Must Be Transparent and Defined”
The High Court held that the university’s attempt to interpret “relevant subject” as inclusive of broader parent disciplines like Botany violated the object and purpose of the advertisement. It emphasized: “If the University wanted to allow Botany as eligible, it should have clearly notified it in the advertisement. Changing eligibility criteria midstream is impermissible.”
The Court further cautioned that “rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun”, relying on Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. AMU and Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan.
In this strongly worded decision, the Orissa High Court has upheld the integrity of public recruitment processes in academic institutions, warning against the arbitrary exercise of discretion under the garb of expert evaluation. It reaffirms the principle that when a post specifies a qualification in an explicit subject, equivalence must not be presumed but established through proper norms or regulations.
As the Court summed up: “Selection committees may evaluate merit, but they cannot rewrite eligibility. The advertisement is the law of the selection.”
Date of Decision: 11 March 2025
