Manmohan Sarin, J.— By this judgment, the above writ petitions being WP(C) 11913/2004 filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Rathour and WP(C) 10373/2004 filed by Professor (Dr.) Surendra Prasad are being decided since both relate to a claim for being re-employed by respondent-University of Delhi as distinguished teachers.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved because of rejection of their case for reemployment by the University of Delhi on the basis of resolutions of the Executive Council, Guidelines of the University Grants Commission and the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 26.5.2003 in CWP 1382/2002 and the directions given by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8261-63/2003 titled University of Delhi v. T.P.S Chawla” dated 13th October, 2003.

3. Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Rathore is a doctorate in Hindi. Additionally she holds a law degree. She superannuated on 31st March, 2004 with 33 years of service. She claims excellent academic credentials. She claims to be in good health to discharge her duties upon re-employment. She was awarded U.G.C scholarship for research in Hindi and had completed Post Doctorate Research Work on “Adhunik Natak Kanoon Ke Pariprakshya Mei”. Mr. S.P.S Rathour, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that besides a distinguished educational career, petitioner had participated actively in the activities of the College. She demonstrated her tact in resolving volatile and difficult situations. Mr. Rathour submits that she fully meets the criteria outlined by the Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. T.P.S Chawla wherein it was held that “Re-employment is not to be in a routine manner, of almost all teachers. The mere fact that a teacher has served for a long period does not by itself makes him a distinguished teacher.”

4. Mr. Rathour submits that the petitioner had applied for re-employment completing all the requisite formalities. The Governing Body of the college had unanimously recommended her for re-employment. It is urged that petitioner has suffered hostile discrimination. He claims that many less meritorious candidates, whose particulars are given in para 26, page 11 of the paper book have been granted re-employment. Mr. Rathour submits that Mr. Mehendiratta who was merely a Post-graduate in English and was physically ‘not fit’ has been granted re-employment after superannuation. Mr. Ram Krishan was only an M.A in Commerce but had been re-employed. Dr. S.K Sinha, Sanskrit Department, who was not physically fit to do the job has been re-employed. Again Dr. Gyan Chand Gupta (Hindi Department) who had an average academic record has been granted re-employment. He submits that respondents have not communicated any reasons for non re-employment of the petitioner. He assailed the decision as highly discriminatory and arbitrary.

5. Petitioner (Dr.) Surendra Prasad in WP(C) 10373/2004 superannuated as Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. He had been Professor (In-charge) of Law Centre-I. Petitioner claims impeccable and excellent academic credentials and an enviable service record. Petitioner has several publications to his credit. His bio-data at pages 32 to 36 of the paper book records teaching and research experience, administrative experience and as author of literary works. Petitioner was member of the Selection Committees for selection of number of professionals. He had been paper-setter for LL.B and LL.M examinations.

6. Mr. O.P Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Professor (Dr.) Surendra Prasad completed his doctorate from Delhi University as far back as in 1988. Petitioner superannuated on 30.6.2004 On 7.6.2004, by the impugned order, petitioner was informed that his case for re-employment has been considered in accordance with guidelines prescribed by U.G.C and it has not been possible to grant re-employment to him.

7. Mr. O.P Saxena assails the impugned order as being vitiated by hostile discrimination and arbitrariness. He submits that the person much younger to him and having far less experience namely Professor V.K Gupta has been granted reemployment. He submits that it is ironical that Professor V.K Gupta had submitted his thesis only in March, 2004 and had been petitioner's student. Petitioner holds a doctorate since 1988 and still Professor V.K Gupta has been preferred over him. He submits that there is no rational basis for non-acceptance of the petitioner candidature for re-employment. No reason has been communicated why the petitioner has not been found to be a distinguished teacher for re-employment. In the absence of reasons, petitioner can only say that rejection is arbitrary and discriminatory.

8. Mr. Saxena next submitted that the selection process was vitiated as no expert from the legal field attended the Advisory Committee meeting when the case of the petitioner was considered. Mr. Saxena places reliance on Shivaji Rao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, (1987) 1 SCC 227. He submits that Court had noticed the decline in moral fabric of the country and in petitioner's case also discrimination and arbitrariness was writ large.

9. Records from the University had been called for to satisfy the judicial conscience that there was no procedural irregularity and the cases had been considered applying the U.G.C guidelines, Executive Council resolutions and the directions as given by the High Court in its order dated 26.5.2003 and the Supreme Court in its order dated 13.10.2003

10. Counter-affidavit had been filed by respondents in WP(C) 10373/2004. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that re-employment cannot be claimed by any teacher of the University of Delhi, as a matter of right. However, the Executive Council may re-employ any distinguished teacher after superannuation for a period not exceeding three years on the recommendations of the Vice-Chancellor. The Executive Council of the University of Delhi vide resolution Nos. 221 dated 11th April, 1985 and 159 dated 22.1.1991 had laid down guidelines for grant of reemployment to the university and college teachers after the age of superannuation. These had been duly circulated to Dean of Faculties, Heads of Departments and Principals of Colleges.

11. Reference at this stage may usefully be made to writ petition T.P.S Chawla v. University of Delhi, (CWP 1382/2003) filed by former Chief Justice of this Court. Justice Chawla in the writ petition had questioned the routine manner in which reemployment was being granted ignoring the provisions of the Ordinance. The approval of the Vice-Chancellor and University for re-employment was usually by a cyclostyled form demonstrating non-application of mind and non-observance of guidelines and Ordinance. An interim order was passed on 12.5.2003 restraining the University from re-employing any teacher after attaining the age of superannuation. On 26.5.2003, at the request of respondent-University, the Division Bench modified the interim order of 12.5.2004 and allowed the University to re-employ teachers. The said order reads as under:

“Request is made to modify the order made by the Court on 12.5.2003 Considering the various submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, we permit the University to re-employ the teachers with a condition that they re-employment shall be subject to the order that may be passed by this Court in each and every case and further the application shall be made by the University in this behalf for the approval of this Court. It is further directed that their appointments shall be subject to further condition that they shall not be paid salary by the University till this Court grants approval.”

12. The respondent-University of Delhi filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.10.2003 modified the above order holding that:

“Pending disposal of the writ petition by the High Court, University and Colleges would be entitled to re-employ teachers on the basis of ordinance xii rule 3ra(2). But it is clarified that such re-employment is not to be in a routine manner, of almost all teachers. The mere fact that a teacher has served for a long period does not by itself make him a distinguished teacher. For this Ordinance to apply, there must be outstanding merit in the teacher. The revised guidelines issued by the University of Delhi and the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission must be strictly followed, Reasons must be recorded as to how and why the person being re-employed is a distinguished teacher.(Emphasis supplied)

We further direct that at the time of re-employment it shall be clarified to the teacher that the re-employment is subject to the result of the writ petition. Every teacher who is re-employed must give an undertaking to Court that in the event of the High Court ultimately holding that such person was not entitled to re-employment he/she shall repay all the salary and benefits (including perks) which have been received by him/her in the meantime.

In the event, it is found that the re-employment is not strictly in accordance with the Ordinance, liberty to apply for variation of this order.

The appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs.”

13. Having noticed the basis and criteria on which re-employment of teachers is to be done, let us notice the legal position as regards the functioning of the Selection Committee and requirement to give reasons.

14. Reference may usefully be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. K. Kalyana Raman (Dr.), 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481. The Court while dealing with the nature of functioning of the Selection Committee and the requirement to give reasons observed as under:

“Giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The ‘fairness’ or ‘fair procedure’ in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration.

The function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. Where selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required eligibility and there is no rule or regulation brought to the notice of the Court requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons, the Selection Committee is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision of selecting one candidate in preference to another. Even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement.”

15. Reference is also invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. C.L Toora, (2004) 4 SCC 657. The Supreme Court held that Selection Board was entitled to formulate its own procedure. The Board had been presided over by a Retired Judge of the High Court. The Court found that there was no interpolation in marks given to the candidates as alleged. The Court held that High Court was wrong in reaching the conclusion that the Board had taken into account extraneous factors. It may also be noted that in this case also the Reemployment Advisory Committee comprised reputed academicians and an expert on the subject and recommendation had to be approved by the Vice Chancellor.

16. Let us examine whether procedural fairness has been maintained in the selection process and selection has been made on the basis of settled criteria.

17. The Registrar duly communicated to all Heads and Principals of Colleges, orders dated 26.5.2003 and 13.10.2003 along with guidelines. The Vice-Chancellor as authorised by the Executive Council appointed a Re-employment Advisory Committee comprising Pro Vice-Chancellor, Dean of Colleges, Director, South Campus to consider re-employment cases. One expert in each subject was associated with the Committee to help in evaluation. It is only after the Committee's recommendations were accepted and approved by the Vice-Chancellor that reemployment had been given. Similarly where the Re-employment Advisory Committee did not recommend re-employment and after approval of the same by the Vice-Chancellor, the candidates have been conveyed rejection of their request for re-employment.

18. It is well settled that this Court does not sit in judgment over the recommendations of the Selection Committee and administrative decisions taken pursuant thereto. The Court is concerned to ensure that the decision does not suffer from unfairness in the selection process and is not vitiated by mala fides or arbitrariness.

19. The case for re-employment of Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Rathour, teacher in Department of Hindi, Vivekanand College had been sent to the University of Delhi on 17th November, 2003. It was again forwarded to the University on 22nd March, 2004 as per the prescribed format and giving requisite information in terms of circular of 27th October, 2003. The resolution of the Governing Body of the College recommending the case for re-employment was also sent to the University on 5th April, 2004. The recommendation of the Governing Body for re-employment of Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Rathour was considered by the Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 26th April, 2004. The Advisory Committee did not recommend the case for re-employment. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee was duly approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The Committee in its meeting of 26th and 27th April, 2004 made recommendations for re-employment in respect of 22 teachers while it did not recommend re employment in respect of 30 teachers. The Vice-Chancellor on perusal of the records satisfied himself and noted that criteria derived out of parameters specified in the Executive Council Resolutions which had been applied in respect of the earlier cases and across colleges had been followed. He noted that a great deal of thought and deliberation had gone into this intensive exercise to identify teachers in colleges who are distinguished. He, therefore, accepted the recommendations of Re-employment Advisory Committee.

20. Coming to the submission of the petitioner that candidates with less academic qualifications and merit than the petitioner have been recommended for re-employment, it is trite said that a human being has a manifold assessment of his own intellect and the wealth of others. A person who has attained superannuation and is not selected for re-employment can nurture a grievance based on his own perception of his intellect and achievements of being wronged. Besided it cannot ipso facto follow that a person having a doctorate would essentially be a more distinguished teacher than a person possessing only a post-graduation degree.

21. Though not required, it not being the function of this Court to go into a comparative evaluation of merit, records of the candidates complained against were also seen. Consideration of the bio datas and evaluation by Re-employment Advisory Committee has brought forth features of excellence in the academics field and other activities, which makes the selectees distinguished teachers. There is also no merit in the contention that the said teachers who have been re-employed suffer from physical disability and health conditions, which make them unfit to do their job on re-employment. Medical certificates certifying that they have been found fit on examination for re-employment have been duly furnished.

22. Coming to the case of petitioner Professor (Dr.) Surendra Prasad, his candidature was considered in the meeting of 20th May, 2004. The Committee after careful scrutiny of the information provided by the Head of Department did not recommend his case for re-employment. The Vice-Chancellor had duly approved the recommendations. The record has been perused. The allegations of the petitioner that there was no expert from the legal field associated by the Re-employment Advisory Committee is not correct. An expert from Legal field was involved in the Committee's deliberations. The submission of Mr. O.P Saxena that since Professor (Dr.) Surendra Prasad holds a Doctorate since 1988, he should have been the obvious choice as against Professor V.K Gupta, who was his former student and had completed his thesis only recently is not well founded. It cannot be claimed that “a mere Post-graduate” cannot be a distinguished teacher or that a “Doctorate” of necessity has to be one. The Re-employment Advisory Committee had noted the work of Professor V.K Gupta in the area of Ancient Indian Jurisprudence and Environmental Law which enhanced the understanding of legal aspects of environment protection and Indian Jurisprudence. He has authored a number of reputed books. The Committee had taken into account his academic achievements. Based on the bio-data as submitted, it could not be said that Professor V.K Gupta did not possess outstanding merit. Hence his re-employment and selection cannot be faulted with. The allegation of hostile discrimination and arbitrariness is a bald one. Ultimately for every re-employment, leave of the Court is to be taken. This itself would ensure adherence to fairness in selection process.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and no case is made out for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both the petitions are dismissed.

24. Record is returned.

Writ Petitions dismissed.