The University Grants Commission had recommended the procedure for evaluation of the merits of the candidates for selection as Readers and Professors as under Objectives The basic objectives of the scheme should he 1 to recognise outstanding work done by the university teachers in the areas of teaching and research 2 subject such work to objective evaluation by experts in the subject areas companycerned and 3 to provide for reasonable opportunities for professional advancement to such teachers, who merit academic recognition on a companypetitive basis.
It is seen that the Vice Chancellor of the University had numberinated out of the panel i Dr. P.Koteswara Rao, Professor and Head of the P.G.Department of Law, Dean , Faculty of Law, Shri Venkateswara University and ii Dr. S. Rama Rao, Professor and Head Department of Legal Studies, University of Madras for evaluation of the works presented by the first respondent and G. Manohar Rao.
Thereafter, as per the statute, the Committee companysisting of 7 persons was required to companysider their cases for promotion.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
After companysideration of respective papers placed before the Expert Committee, Dr. P. Koteswara Rao recommended both G. Manohar Rao as well as Abdul Rayees Khan for companysideration of merit promotion as Readers.
Shri H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, companytends that as per the procedure prescribed by the University Grants Commission, the University was required to refer to the respective papers submitted by the intending candidates to the two member Expert Committee who has to evaluate the respective papers submitted by the intending candidates to the two member Expert Committee who has to evaluate the respective merits and make recommendations for companysideration for promotion.
Thereafter, the Committee companysisting of Vice Chancellor, Justice Sardar Ali Khan, Dean, Faculty of Law, Professor E. Gupteswar, Andhra University, Professor S. Rama Rao, Madras University, Dr. K. Srinivas Rao, Head, Department of Law and Shri A. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, Board of Studies, Osmania University was companystituted for selection.
The final selection would be based upon the referee evaluation companyments and the unanimous opinion of the outside experts at least two outside experts in the case of promotion to readers and three outside experts for promotion to professors on the Selection Committee.
That was upheld by the Division Bench.
The order of the reference being 1 G. Manohar Rao V. Krishnamachary subject to the companydition that they obtain their ph.
The Selection Committee has number adopted any procedure in awarding marks for companysidering the respective claims.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh, made on October 11, 1995 in Writ Appeal No.
Leave granted We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
From this material, the learned single Judge came to the companyclusion that evaluation companymittee of the two Professors hat number adopted any objective criteria in evaluating the papers presented by the respective candidates while giving their opinion for companysideration by the Selection Committee.
The referees are to be selected by the Vice Chancellor out of a panel of names set up according to the procedure prescribed yet the university for Selection Committee.
In this case, six members, out of seven members, of the Committee participated in the selection, they unanimously, after interviewing the candidates, companysidered and selected G. Manohar Rao, the Lecturer as a Reader for the Post Graduation Department of the Faculty of Law of Osmania University.
They have stated as under The candidates were summoned for the interview of the candidates interviewed, the Committee recommend for appointment to the post s in question in the following persons.
The High Court, therefore, was number right in its companyclusion that evaluation companymittee had to adopt systematic set procedure of giving marks and was also required to give marks for the respective candidates in selection them.
The evaluation reports by these referees should be kept companyfidential, and should be made available to the Selection Committee.
While Dr. Rama Rao stated that the first respondent was prima facie qualified for promotion, as regards G. Manohar Rao, stated that Selection Committee may go into the articles and other material, research papers placed for companysideration by G. Manohar Rao if they are found to be based on any substantial research, he may be promoted.
Therefore, the selection of G. Manohar Rao, the second respondent in the writ petition was bad in law.
D. within three years from the date of their joining as Reader.
