Petitioner sought promotion to Professor but was rejected by Experts for ineligibility. Court held it cannot override Expert opinion absent malafide or perversity and dismissed the writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14095 of 2013
=========================================================== Dr. (Smt.) Bina Rani, Wife Of Dr. Radha Kant Prasad Resident Of Flat No. 402, Aangan Apartment, Jagat Narayan Road, Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan, District - Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Patna University , Patna Through Its Registrar 2. Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna 3. Registrar, Patna University, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 15-12-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the
State.
In this case, the petitioner is seeking merit promotion to the rank of Professor but, the same has been rejected as the Expert did not find her to be eligible for promotion on the ground that she does not qualify the condition for promotion.
From the pleadings, it appears that the case of the petitioner for promotion was referred for opinion of Expert, the first Expert has given opinion in favour of the petitioner but, the second Expert has given opinion against her and the third Expert found the petitioner is fit for promotion from a particular date. Ultimately, the petitioner has not been given benefit of promotion as a Professor.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14095 of 2013 dt.15-12-2016
2
During pendency of this case, the claim of petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal has been rejected vide order dated 5.8.2013 on the ground that she does not satisfy the qualification for the said post.
As this Court can give direction for consideration of promotion but, if the Expert has arrived to a conclusion that the petitioner does not satisfy the condition for promotion, the Court cannot sit over the opinion of the Expert as the Court has no expertise specially in the educational field. The Expert knows the subject which this Court does not have expertise, cannot sit over as appellate court, give direction to give recommendation in favour of the petitioner as the Experts are best to give recommendation either in favour of the candidate or against the candidate. The Court can interfere only in two circumstances, firstly, if there is an allegation of malafide and, secondly, if the findings arrived is completely perverse and no reasonable person can arrive to this finding. The present case does not fall in any of the two aforesaid conditions.
In the result, this Court does not find any merit in the present case and the same is dismissed.
However, if the University has any statute granting benefit in the Career Advancement Scheme, the petitioner will be at liberty to file an application and the authority concerned would take a decision
Patna High Court CWJC No.14095 of 2013 dt.15-12-2016
3
in accordance with law.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Rishi/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 20.12.2016 |
| Transmission Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can interfere with the Expert's opinion rejecting the petitioner's eligibility for merit promotion.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for promotion was perverse or mala-fide.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion as Professor in the absence of Expert recommendation.
Dr. (Smt.) Bina Rani
The Patna University, Patna
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
