1. Despite service of notice, second respondent has not appeared and contested the proceedings.
2. The foundational facts which are not in dispute may be stated at the threshold. The petitioner is a member of the Backward Class in Category-I. He is presently employed as a Scientific Officer in Karnataka State Sericulture and Development Institute. He holds post graduate degree of M.Sc (Agriculture) I Class (year 1988) from the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. Respondent-University had published a notification dated 30-6-1994 inviting applications for several posts in its faculties including the post of Assistant Professor, Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. In the said notification details were also furnished regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other priority categories among backwards. That notification is at Annexure-B. As per the notification for the post of Assistant Professor the eligibility criteria was a minimum of second class Masters Degree in the concerned subjects. It was further said that preference will be given to experienced candidates.
3. Since the petitioner held the minimum requisite qualification with nine years experience at that time in the discipline of agricultural science out of which five years service was rendered in the public sector in the field of Sericulture. He also applied for the said post. According to the petitioner he had many research publications/articles/dissertations to his credit, a list whereof has been culled in Annexure-A to the writ petition.
4. The Selection Committee of the University, keeping in view the provisions of the Statute 30 of the University, recommended the names of three applications including the petitioner and the second respondent in order of their merit against Category-I. The petitioner was the first recommended whereas the second respondent was placed at third place in order of merit. Nonetheless the Board of Regents in their meeting held on 24-11-1995 has given appointment to 2nd respondent purporting to be the best among the recommended candidates. It is under the said facts and circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the wisdom of the Board of Regents in declaring the second respondent to be the best candidate and thereby giving appointment to him by discarding the claim of the petitioner. He has alleged mala fide against the members of the Board of Regents and the University authorities.
5. Though the statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the first respondent but they have failed to disclose any reason as to why and on what material the second respondent was considered to be the best amongst the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee though in order of merit he was placed at third by the Selection Committee. Accordingly, I called upon Sri Rudra Gowda, Counsel appearing for first respondent, to secure the records and relevant documents pertaining to the impugned appointment to ascertain if there was any special reason or cogent materials to justify the decision of the Board of Regents. Pursuant to the said direction, the Registrar of the University has produced the agenda of 246th meeting of the Board of Regents which merely shows that for undisclosed reasons the Board had opted to accord appointment to the second respondent, by discarding the recommendations of the Selection Committee which was based on merits.
6. The relevant portion of the “Statutes”, as amended upto 31-12-1988, of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, reads as follows:
“(2)(a) The Selection Committee shall review applications for the posts and consider the qualifications of all applicants including University Officers and other employees who may be qualified for the post. If a qualified candidate(s) is found, the Committee shall recommend in order of merit not more than three qualified persons for appointment.
(b) In case no qualified person is recommended and/or appointed as under (2) above, the Selection Committee shall (a) contact various institutions and agencies (such as ICAR, State Departments, Colleges, etc., for the purpose of obtaining applications from qualified persons and (b) otherwise advertise for qualified applicants in such manner as may be approved by the Vice-Chancellor. On receipt of such further applications the Committee shall prepare a list of all applicants and shall recommend in order of merit, not more than three qualified persons for appointment.
(3) If the Selection Committee fails to nominate an acceptable person for an office, the Board shall take such steps as are necessary to select a suitable person.
(4) Out of the qualified persons recommended by each Selection Committee, the Board shall choose the best individual for appointment in all cases of appointments to be made by the Board”.
7. It is not for the first time that the question regarding the powers of the Board of Regents of the respondent-University has been called in question before this Court. In the case of Dr. Mrs. G. Durga Nageswari v. University Of Agricultural Sciences* . 1990 3 Kar. L.J 142, the same question had been raised before the Division Bench of this Court, which on a detailed examination of the Statute and the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor . 1973 2 SCC 836, had held as hereunder:
“… Therefore, when under clause (2) of Statute 30, a Selection Committee constituted for making selection on the basis of the performance of the candidate at the interview recommends the names in the order of merit, the power of the Board of Regents to choose best among them means normally it should proceed in the order of merit as arranged by the Selection Committee, and if it is of the view that any person placed lower is the best, it can do so, but it has to record reasons. If reasons are recorded then it can be said that the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) are complied with. But if a person placed below is appointed without assigning any reason, there is no other alternative than to hold that such a selection and appointment is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution”.
8. It was expected that after declaration of the law by this Court regarding powers of the Board of Regents vis-a-vis the recommendations of the Selection Committee based on merits, the Board will function in accordance with the Constitutional mandates and the requirements of law, but it seems the members of the Board had hardly any regard for the rule of law and the decisions rendered by this Court. In the case of Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner Of Endowments v. Shri Bhimsen Dixit. . 1973 1 SCC 446, it has been held that such an action can very well be held as coming within the principles underlying the law of contempt. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment it has been held that:
“The conduct of the appellant in not following the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior Court's disobedience to the specific order of a superior Court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the Court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law”.
9. In the above view of the matter, though I am not proposing to direct initiation of contempt proceedings for the present, it is high time that the University authorities be warned that if they, in future, are found to be acting in violation of the law declared by the Courts, then they may be subjected to appropriate contempt proceedings. At the same time it is necessary to direct the Registrar of the University to always acquaint the members of the Board of Regents and other University authorities about the law declared by this Court and the Supreme Court for its strict adherence and compliance. It should be taken to be the duty of the Registrar to place before the members of the Board of Regents all the relevant judgments of the Court as and when meetings are held dealing with the relevant subjects. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above the appointment of the second respondent as Assistant Professor as contained in order dated 18-12-1995 (Annexure-E) is quashed and the Board of Regents is directed to reconsider the question of appointment to the said post out of the three names recommended by the Selection Committee in accordance with the Statute 30 and law declared by this Court. This should be done within six weeks from today. Till that time the second respondent is permitted to continue on the post, which will be subject to the final decision of the Board of Regents.
10. Writ petition is thus allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the University to the petitioner. Costs of Rs. 5,000/- should be sent to the petitioner's address given in the writ petition through a crossed bank draft within two weeks from today.