Prof. Lalit Kumar Jha vs North Eastern Hill University & Ors

The instant writ appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 1st September, 2015, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.62 of 2013 and WP (C) No.174 of 2014 (Prof. Lalit Kumar Jha v. North Eastern Hill University & Ors).

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions for reasons stated therein.

The appellant before us is the writ petitioner, who at the material point of time, was a professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences, North Eastern Hill University (for short, NEHU).

The issue before the learned Single Judge was in respect of grant of promotion to 6(six) professors from Stage 5 to Stage 6 (Higher Academic Grade), which was approved by the Executive Council Resolutions dated 17th December, 2012 and 28th March, 2013. The matter was considered at length by the learned Single Judge and the operative portion of the impugned judgment and order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"21. For the foregoing reasons and ratio decidendis of the cases discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment and recommendation of the Expert Committee for promotion of the Professor HAG (Stage 5) to (Stage 6), more particularly, in the academic selection in the university made by the Expert Committee is not called for interference inasmuch as this Court has no expertise in such fields and also this Court is of the further view that there is absolutely no materials to show that the procedure prescribed or provision of the University Grants Commission Regulation 2010 had been flouted by the Expert Committee or by the authority in making the assessment of the Professors for promotion, more particularly, in the School of Humanities and Environment Sciences. This Court is of the considered view that the assessment of the Expert Committee should not be interfered with on surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. Further, this Court held that these writ petitions in the present form are not maintainable for assailing the promotion of all the Professors of other Schools to the Professor HAG (Stage 6) for the reasons discussed above.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are devoid of merit. Thus, writ petitions are dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs."

It is evident from the records that the entire selection process adopted by NEHU for granting promotion to 6(six) professors from Stage 5 to Stage 6 (Higher Academic Grade) was based on assessment and recommendation of the Expert Committee. The final report of the Expert Committee, which is annexed to the pleadings before us (at page 291), reveals as follows:-

"REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE

Sl.

Name of the

Department

Date of

Total

API

Score,

Assessment to be made by the

No.

applicant

joining

based

on

Research

Expert Committee

as

and

Academic

Professor

Contribution

verified

Research

Performance

by

the

Internal

(50%)

evaluation and other

Committee

credential

by

As on 31.12.2008

referral

procedure

(50%)

1.

Prof.L.K. Jha

Environmental

8.8.1990

947.00

20

30

Sciences

2.

Prof.A.C.

Geography

12.7.1991

1323.5

40

35

Mohapatra

3.

Prof.T.B.Subba

Anthropology

29.3.1997

504.00

30

35"

It is evident from a plain reading of the report of the Expert Committee that the appellant/writ petitioner, who is in the Department of Environmental Sciences, had a total API score of 947.00 and assessment made by the Expert Committee in respect of research was 20% and in respect of performance evaluation and other credential by referral procedure was 30%; thus, a total of 50%.

The score obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner although made him eligible to be considered for promotion, but was less than the total marks obtained by Professor A.C. Mohapatra and Professor T.B. Subba. Ultimately, the highest scorer, i.e., Professor A.C. Mohapatra was given promotion from Stage 5 to Stage 6 (Higher Academic Grade).

In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in the manner as indicated hereinbefore. It is not the duty of the Court to consider the accuracy of the qualitative assessment made by the Expert Committee since the Court has no expertise in such a specialised field. The Court is only required to find out as to whether the decision making process was arbitrary or smacked of any mala fide motive. We can safely conclude, after going through the pleadings on record, that there is nothing to demonstrate either arbitrariness or any mala fide intention on the part of the NEHU University authorities of not granting a higher academic grade pay from Stage 5 to Stage 6 in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. It is evident that the Expert Committee has considered the merits of the 3(three) professors and granted higher marks in favour of the private respondent No.14.

That apart and in any event, in an Intra-Court Mandamus appeal, interference is usually warranted only if palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. The impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.

For reasons stated above, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly.