1. The first respondent had applied for the post of Reader in the Postgraduate Department of Hindi at the Gulbarga Centre of the Karnataka University, Dharwad pursuant to an advertisement dated 9-3-1979/4-4-1979. The name of the first respondent was recommended by the Board of Appointment constituted by the University. The Chancellor, however, rejected the nomination of the first respondent on the following ground:
“The petitioner is a BA with an ordinary pass class and MA in IInd class. He does not possess a Doctorate and his research output is reported to be not of a very high standard. Therefore, he does not fulfil the first two of the qualifications mentioned above. Besides, there were several better qualified candidates than the petitioner and it was therefore that the Chancellor could not persuade himself to approve of the petitioner's appointment.”
2. This rejection was the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court. The High Court has held that the rejection by the Chancellor of the recommendation of the Board of Appointment was not valid since he could not sit in judgment over the merits of the selection made by the Board and take a view contrary to the view taken by the Board regarding the suitability of the candidate. Aggrieved by this decision of the High Court, the present appeal has been filed. At the time when the special leave was granted, the then Advocate General for the State had submitted that since this case involves a question of principle as to the powers of the Chancellor under the Explanation to sub-section (6) of Section 49 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and the question is of frequent occurrence, it requires to be settled by this Court. He had also given an undertaking that the appointments of the respondents concerned, as per the directions of the High Court, would be made irrespective of the result of this appeal. This is recorded in our order of 10-11-1986. In view thereof, the only question which requires consideration is the extent of the powers of the Chancellor under the Explanation to Section 49(6) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.
3. Under Section 49 sub-section (1) there shall be a Board of Appointment for selecting persons for appointment as Professors, Librarians, Readers and Lecturers in the university. Sub-section (2) deals with the composition of the Board. Under sub-section (6) it is provided as follows:
“49. (6) The Board shall interview, adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised and prepare a list of persons selected arranged in the order of merit. It shall forward the list to the Chancellor who shall make appointments in accordance with the same.
Explanation.—Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as requiring the Chancellor to make appointments in accordance with the list where he is of the opinion that it does not satisfy the provisions of this Act or the statutes relating to such appointments.”
4. Under sub-section (6), therefore, it is for the Board to interview and adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised. The Board also has to prepare a list of selected persons in the order of merit. Under sub-section (6) the Chancellor is required to make appointments in accordance with the list so forwarded to him by the Board. Ordinarily, therefore, the recommendations made by the Board would be binding on the Chancellor. The Explanation, however, gives to the Chancellor certain powers in connection with the list so submitted by the Board. It provides that if the Chancellor is of the view that the selection or the recommendation made by the Board does not satisfy any provision of the Act or the statutes relating to such appointment, the Chancellor would not be required to make such an appointment. Therefore, if the candidate does not possess the minimum qualifications as prescribed by the statutes, the Chancellor can reject the name of such a candidate. However, if under the prescribed qualifications, there is a power given to the Board to relax the qualifications or to assess the qualifications, such as research experience, and judge whether it is of the requisite standard, the assessment so made by the Board would have to be accepted by the Chancellor because it is the Board which has the expertise to assess or evaluate such qualifications. In the present case, for example, one of the questions was whether the candidate had a high standard of research work to his credit. It was for the Board to make an evaluation of the research work. The High Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the Chancellor can refuse to act on the recommendation if he finds that in making the recommendation, the Board has violated the provisions of the Act or the statutes or the candidate recommended expressly lacks the prescribed qualifications. In these circumstances the Chancellor would be within his rights in rejecting a nomination. But he cannot re-evaluate the merits of the candidates. With this clarification, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.