Pradeep Chaudhary vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification dated 4.4.2000 issued by the U.G.C. vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the Conditions No. 2 and 3 of the advertisement dated 4.8.2003 issued by the Meerut University vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner''s candidature for appointment as a Lecturer in Statistics in the University.

Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the University has produced before us a notification of the U.G.C. dated 31.7.2002 which has superseded the earlier notifications and has fixed the minimum eligibility required for the appointment of Lecturer. These requirements are as follows:

(1) The candidate should have completed his M. Phil. by 31.12.1993, or

(2) He should have submitted his Ph. D. thesis on or before 31.12.2002, or

(3) N.E.T. requirement has been relaxed by the U.G.C. for the subject in which he has applied.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits that the Petitioner does not have any of the aforesaid three eligibility qualifications. Hence, he can obviously not be considered for selection and appointment as Lecturer in the University or institutions affiliated to it.

We may mention that fixing the minimum eligibility requirement for appointment as Lecturer is exclusively in the domain of the expert academic bodies like U.G.C. and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions of such academic bodies. This Court must exercise restraint in these matters, for the Court does not have expertise in such matters. As observed by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11, this Court cannot sit in appeal over administrative decisions as it does not have expertise in such matters. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in such matters.

It must be remembered that certain matters are by their very nature such as had better be left to experts in the field instead of Courts themselves seeking to substitute their views and perceptions in the matter. As held by the Supreme Court in Aruna Rai v. Union of India, 2002 (7) SCC 368 and The Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another, , in such policy matters the courts have only a very limited role to play, and they can intervene only when there is violation of a Constitutional provision or the statute or total arbitrariness. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in XL-IIT Forum v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 34022 of 2002, decided on 27.5.2003.

Following the said decisions this petition is dismissed.