1. In this writ petition, the appointment of 2nd respondent as Registrar of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, is assailed.
2. The facts relevant for the case arc that a notification was issued by the University on 17-4-1997 calling for the applications for appointment to the post of Registrar in the scale of Rs.7070-10100 precribing certain qualifications and other requirements with regard to experience. The petitioner along with others including the 2nd respondent submitted applications and consequently a Selection Committee was constituted and selections were held on 25-6-1997. A panel was prepared. by the Selection Committee wherein the 2nd respondent was placed at Sl.No.1 and the petitioner was placed at Sl.No2. The said panel was placed before the appropriate committee namely the Board of Management and the said Board considered the selections made by the Board and approved the panel without any modification. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent was issued with the appointment order dated: 25-6-1997. The said action of the 1st respondent Universityin appointing the 2nd respondent is assailed in this writ petition.
3. The learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner raised the following principal contention :
The educational qualifications and other requirements have been specified by the University. The said qualifications were fixed by the competent authority under the statute, on the directions of this Court in earlier Writ Appeal. Therefore, the said qualifications are statutory in nature and therefore they have to be observed in letter and spirit and any violation of the said requirement will vitiate the entire process of selection. He also submits that the appointment order issued to the 2nd respondent suffers with inherent bias and therefore it has to be set aside. Thirdly the terms of appointment order are also contrary to the provisions of the Act and the statute framed thereunder. The post of Registrar falling under Category-II is a Non-teaching post and the age of superannuation is 58 years, but, however, in the case of 2nd respondent he was allowed to continue for 60 years or for a period of 5 years whichever is earlier. The said stipulation is contrary to the provisions'. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent fulfils all the conditions laid down under the notifications and the selections are made in accordance with the rules and therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in the process of the selection. They also submits that the order of appointment issued is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the statute and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Let us now consider whether the 2nd respondent fulfils the criteria laid down under the advertisement. There is no dispute that in pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 246/1997, the Board of management fixed the qualifications required for appointment to the post of Registrar. The notification reads as under:
'Applications in the prescribed form from candidates possessing the following qualifications are invited fro the post of REGISTRAR in the scale of pay of Rs. 7070-230-7300-280-10100(Non-UGC Revised Scale in RPS 1993). However, the conditions of service of the person appointed shall not be varied to his disadvantage after appointment.
Qualifications:
(i) Atleast a good Second class Post-Graduate degree from a recognized University.
(ii) Administrative experience of atleast ten years in a University in teaching of Central or State Government administering scientific and technical institutions or in a commercial firm running its, own laboratories and employing a large number of technical and scientific staff.
(iii) Experience in drafting rules and regulations proceedings of Board Meetings, examination schedules and custody of confidential records.
Desirable : Below 50 years of age.
Term of Appointment : 5 years'
The 2nd respondent claimed the experience for more than 10 years as an Administrative experience in respect of the post held by him. The said details are as under:
From To Total
Y M D
(i) Junior Animal 9-2-72 5-9-75 3 06 26
Geneticist, Lam
Farm, Guntur.
(ii) Research Officer, 20-9-82 3-8-83 0 10 13
Incharge, Chintala
Deevi.
(iii)Warden, P.G.Hostel, 7/86 7/88 2 00 00
Rajendranagar.
(iv) Head of the Depart- 2-7-92 21-7-96 4 00 19
ment of Genetics and
Animal Breeding
Collge of Veternary
Sciences, Rajendranagar.
(v) Temporary Registrar, 22-7-96 22-5-97 0 10 04
A.N.G.R.A.U.
----------
11 04 02
----------
The aforesaid details are not disputed by the respondents. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the position held by the 2nd respondent as Junior Animal Geneticist at Lam Farm, Guntur and Research Officer Incharge, Chintaladeevi and Warden of P.G. Hostel, Rajendranagar cannot be said to fall within the category of administrative experience as notified in advertisement and therefore his candidature itself ought to have been rejected by the Selection Committee. It is his case that as Junior Animal Geneticist, he had no administrative functions to perform and it is purely related to a research field. Similarly, as Research Officer, Chintaladeevi, his work was predominantly in the nature of research and cannot be co-related to the administrative experience. Even as a Warden of P.G. Hostel at Rajendranagar, he cannot be said to have acquired administrative experience as during the said period he was a full time Associate Professor, and he was only discharging additional duties of Warden of the Hostel under the control of the University for which purpose he was being paid Rs. 125/- per month as additional remuneration. Inasmuch as, he did not discharge the duties as a Warden on whole time basis, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent was having administrative experience. The learned Counsel also submits that the University has notified certain posts as Officers of the University under Section 9 of A.P. Agricultural University Act, 1963 (Hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Further under first statute framed by the University by virtue of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 39 the following Officers are also declared as Officers of the University:
'(i) Principals of the Colleges;
(ii) The estate Officer,
(iii) The University Librarian; and
(iv) The Manager of the University Press.
(v) The Additional Director of Research (Vety).'
There powers and responsibilities have also been specified in the respective statutes. Further the University has issued statutes relating to the appointment and powers of head of the department in proceedings dated 9-9-1968 wherein certain teaching staff were also declared as heads of the departments. The following is extract of the said statute:
'Proceedings No. 1560/Stat.68
Dated: 9-9-1968
Sub:-- Statutes prescribing the manner of appointment and powers and duties of the Heads of Departments Issued.
In the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 39 read with sub-section (6) of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 (Act.24 of 1963) the Board of Management of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University hereby makes, with the prior approval of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the following statutes relating to the appointment powers and duties of the Heads of Departments.
STATUTES
Appointment of heads of departments:
1(a) Where there is one professor in a department he shall be the head of the department.
(b) Where there are a professor and one or more additional Professor shall be the head of that department.
(c) Where is no professor, but there is an Associate Professor in any department, the Associate Professor shall be the head of the department.
(d) Where there are two or more Associate Professors in any department one of them may be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor as the head of that department.
(e) Where there is neither a Professor nor an Associate Professor in any department, the Vice-Chancellor may nominate any other teacher as the head of the department or make such arrangements as he may consider appropriate.
Powers and duties of the Heads of Department:
2. the head of a department shall have the following powers and duties, namely:-
(a) He shall be responsible for 'the administration of his department in the College in which he is located'. He shall also have State-wide professional responsibility for teaching, research and extension in other constituent Colleges and Research Stations and farms under the University.
(b) He shall provide leadership in programmes of teaching, research and extension relating to the field of subject matter of the Department.
(c) He shall help principal/Dean and Directors in co-ordinating the activities of his department with those of other departments for promotion of sound programmes of teaching, research and extension.
(d) He shall participate with other heads of departments and research specialties in formulating prgrammes of research in fields represented by his department and in preparation of reviews of work done indicating result which are ready for further testing or extension.
(e) He shall prepare and submit progress report required by the Principal/Deal in respect of the teaching programme.
(f) He shall assume responsibility for the quality and quantum of research, teaching and extension activities relating to the Department.
(g) He shall act as adviser to the students in the department and also to teachers and research workers employed therein.
(h) He shall attend to such other duties as may be required by the Principal/Dean and Directors.
Sd/-
Registrar,
G. Venkataratnam.
5. The crucial issue that crops up for consideration is the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'administrative experience'. This expression has not been defined either in the Act or in the Statutes framed by the University. According to dictionary meaning of 'administer' is to control, supervise, manage etc. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.page 44) the meaning of the word 'administration' was explained as management or conduct of an office or employment; the performance of executive duties of an institution, business or the like. In Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon 1997 Edition, the meaning was assigned as 'management; managing or conduct of affairs of the office, employment or institution'. Therefore, it cannot be relegated to mere working in an establishment or institution in wherever capacity one is employed. It has to be interpreted with reference to the post notified and the duties and responsibilities attached to the post. Can it be said that a person who worked as Superintendent or a Senior Assistant in an office of the University can be said to possess administrative experience stipulated for the post of Registrar in the University? The post of Registrar is one of the notified statutory posts in the University administration with defined powers and duties. He is responsible for the proper administration of the University. Mere discharge of few ancillary functions on administrative side being predominantly occupied in the teaching faculties cannot be construed as performing administrative functions. Even in the Act or the Statutes the Head of the departments and other notified authorities only are enjoined upon to discharge administrative functions. In thecounter of the University, it is stated that requisitions were also sent to the other Agricultural Universities in the country and Indian Council of Agricultural Research to nominate suitable candidates for the post. The Government of Andhra Pradesh was also addressed to send a panel of I.A.S./I.P.S. Officers for consideration for the post of Registrar. Thus, it is to be held that the administrative experience has to be construed as not only functioning on whole time basis in the University or establishment, but he should work in a responsible administrative and managerial capacity where he can take independent decisions and exercise certain amount of control and supervision over the personnel employed in the establishment. This view is strengthened by the fact that the University themselves requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh to send a panel of I.A.S./I.P.S. officers.
6. The 2nd respondent worked as Junior Animal Geneticist in the Lam Farm from February, 1972 to September, 1975. Even according to the University he was incharge for a Section in the establishment. The details of the administrative function as head of a Section in the Lam Farm are not forthcoming. More over his basic designation was Assistant Professor and in that capacity was posted as Junior Animal Geneticist. He was never appointed as such under any recruitment. The post of Asst. Professor falls in the category of teaching faculties. Separate service conditions arc stipulated for teaching and non-teaching posts. Hence by working as Junior Animal Geneticist the 2nd respondent cannot be held to possess administrative experience.
7. The 2nd respondent also claimed that he worked as Warden while functioning as Associate Professor. It is to be noted mat the post of Warden is not a statutory post under the University'. It is only additional assignment that is entrusted to the Officers of the University. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was asked to shoulder the additional work of aWarden while functioning as Associate Professor, He was not appointed as Warden on whole time basis. His predominant duties continued to be on teaching side. The work of Warden was only to oversee the arrangements in the hostels. The quantum of remuneration that is being paid for discharging the functioning of Warden being Rs.125/-per month itself indicates the insignificant nature of the duties and it is more in the nature of honorary function. Therefore, if any person claiming any administrative experience should be employed in that capacity on whole time basis. Mere discharging the duties on honorary or out of teaching hours cannot be treated as having acquired administrative experience. May be the 2nd respondent attended to some aucillary functions for the proper upkeep and maintenance of the hostels, but he continued to hold the basic teaching post. Further the post of Warden was not notified as administrative post. In the ultimate analysis the experience fixed for the post should enable the incumbent to discharge his duties effectively and efficiently.
8. It is beyond controversy that when the language of the statute or for that matter even any document is clear and explicit the Court must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences. If we read the advertisement in the manner suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the meaning of expression 'administrative experience' with its contextual application to the post of Registrar is lost. This Court is conscious of the limitations of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters relating to the selection and appointment by the institutions of higher learnings. This Court would be slow to interfere with such matters unless the mala fides are established or action is found to be arbitrary offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this case, we are not concerned with the selection process but with the eligibility criteria. Considering the status of post to which the 2nd respondent was appointed and the functions discharged by himas Warden outside the teaching hours, I am not persuaded to hold that the work of the 2nd respondent as Warden would fall in the category of 'administrative experience' and I hold accordingly. Consequent on deletion of two spells of work as Junior Geneticist and Warden the 2nd respondent falls much below ten years administrative experience. Hence, it is held that he did not possess the required administrative experience.
9. It is also noticed in the advertisement that the three requirements are stipulated. First requirement relates to the academic qualifications. Second requirement is administrative experience for 10 years and third requirement is experience in drafting rules and regulations proceedings of Board meetings, examination schedules and custody of confidential records. Therefore, the candidates are required to have experience in all these fields. Mere experience even assuming the administrative experience of atleast 10 years is fulfilled, yet candidate has to have further experience in the third category. Even though the length of experience is not mentioned yet, it is necessary that he should have experience in that field also to suit the requirement of the post. No material is forthcoming with regard to the experience of 2nd respondent in drafting etc.
10. It is also noticed that theadvertisement is made in a very vague terms giving scope for contending that it was a tailor made arrangement. The words used 'atleast' a good Second class Post-Graduate degree from a recognised University, 'atleast' 10 years administrative experience and with regard to the age 'desirable below 50 years', are ambiguous and don't spell out with precision. There is no reason why the University could not stipulate essential and desirable qualification. The word 'atleast' can only be used when we apprehend that we may not get sufficient candidates in the field and it cannot be said that this country lacks such educated and experienced persons. Even with regard to the age, definite age should have mentioned. Without prescribing minimum the age, thedesirable age is mentioned. In the normal course minimum and maximum age are prescribed. When the University thought to give preference to the persons below 50 years which is the desirable age, it would necessarily follow that it will prefer only the persons below 50 years. Such stipulations in the advertisement are likely to create any amount of vagueness and it is hoped that in future the University will publish the requirements of a particular post in a specified and unambiguous terms.
11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the University ought not to have issued appointment orders to the petitioner protecting his pay and also his age of retirement, when the tenure itself is for 5 years. He also submits that it is purely a tenure post and protecting the salary of the petitioner drawn as Associate Professor does not arise. He also submits that the petitioner is already holding the higher post than the Registrar and it would be inappropriate to go for the lower post carrying lesser emoluments. Thus he submits that it is only to patronise him and select him for the post of Registrar such a preferential treatment was given to the petitioner which is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. What is mentioned in the Act is that the terms and conditions of the Registrar after his appointment cannot be valued to his disadvantage. Thus, he submits that the conditions cannot (sic can) be altered only after the appointment of the Registrar, but in the instant case, the 2nd respondent is not even appointed to the post of Registrar and before appointment protecting his service conditions or salary will be outside the scope of the Act and the statute framed by the University. Though the contentions appear to be appealing, I am not inclined to go into this aspect. Since I found that the 2nd respondent did not possess the requisite administrative experience.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that when once the appointment of the 2nd respondent is set aside, naturallythe petitioner has to be appointed as he is No.2 in the panel of the selected candidates and the panel life is still in operation. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submits that with regard to the experience, the petitioner also does not stand on a better footing. He was basically an Accounts Officer in Telecom Department and subsequently he was appointed as Asst.Registrar in the N.I.R.D. which post does not carry any administrative responsibility. I am not inclined to go into this aspect. It is always open for the authorities either to go for fresh recruitment or to consider the candidate who is No.2 in the panel. It is left open for the authorities to decide this, more especially when it is stated that the criteria which is sought to be applied on 2nd respondent with regard to administrative experience equally applicable to the petitioner.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed- The appointment of 2nd respondent is quashed. However, the 2nd respondent shall continue until substitute Registrar is appointed on regular basis. No costs.