1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.928/2015

Snehlata Jaswal d/o Late Shri Hansraj Singh, aged

about 48 years, r/o Kendranchal, GPRA, New Pali
Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
. . . . .Appellant
VERSUS

1. Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur Old

Residency Road, Ratananda, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Indian Institute of Technology,
Jodhpur, Old Residency Road, Ratanada, Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
3. Board of Governors of I.I.T., Jodhpur through
Director -cum- Ex-Officio Member.
. . . . . .Respondents

Date of Order : 02/08/2016.

P R E S E N T
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mr.NAVIN SINHA
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Dr.P.S.Bhati with
Mr.Manvendra Singh for the appellant.
Mr.Vikas Balia, Mr.Sanjeet Purohit and Mr.Dinesh
Pal Singh Charan for the respondents.
- -
1. The present appeal arises from order
dated 10.07.2015 dismissing S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.9363/2014 declining to interfere with
the order dated 28.11.2014 terminating the
 2

services of the Appellant as Associate Professor

on probation at the Indian Institute of
Technology, Jodhpur, pursuant to the
recommendation of the Review Committee, approved
by the Board of Governors.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant
submitted that she was appointed as an Associate
Professor in Psychology on 13.03.2013 pursuant to
a regular selection process. The Appellant is
highly qualified and has several academic
qualifications, achievements and expertise both
national and international. She has received
awards both nationally and internationally. The
appointment for a faculty position at the Indian
Institute of Technology was done on the
recommendation of a selection committee. She was
on probation for a period of two years with
provision for yearly review. At no point of time,
she was communicated any adverse performance much
less even any advice for improvement of her
academic duties. This is only evidence that she
was performing her duties as an Associate
Professor with due diligence and excellence
required. Had it been otherwise, the Director of
the Indian Institute of Technology under whom she
was working and who was also the appointing
authority would undoubtedly have at some point of
time told her to improve. Contrary to the terms of
the appointment, instead of annual review, first
review was held approximately after one year three
 3

months from the date of appointment when she was

given a communication dated 08.09.2014 to appear
for review alongwith a hard copy of her
presentation on 14.09.2014.
3. The Review Committee did not consist of
experts from her field. One of the members,
Dr.Lilavati Krishnan was ill disposed towards the
appellant. There were no parameters or guidelines
laid down for review which were necessarily
required to be objective in nature. The Review
Committee allegedly viewed her performance to be
unsatisfactory which necessarily becomes
subjective in nature in absence of any specified
guidelines for the same. The Committee at best
should have formed an opinion about her
performance and left the decision for the Board of
Governors instead of recommending termination
citing unsatisfactory performance. Apparently, the
Board of Governors did not have the freedom to
decide on whether to confirm the probation or to
even extend the probation as the field for its
decision making was restricted by the
recommendation of the Review Committee.
4. It was lastly submitted that the
termination was in haste. If the probation was for
two years till June, 2015, recommendation for
termination for reason of unsatisfactory
performance on 14.09.2014 without an opportunity
for improvement till the period of the probation
came to an end was unjustified.
 4

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents

submitted that the Appellant was appointed on
probation for a period of two years. The letter of
appointment itself mentions that the performance
would be reviewed. If the performance was not
found to be at par termination would have to
follow. Continuance on probation for the period of
two years cannot be claimed as a matter of right
by a probationer as it based on the overall
assessment of performance. The Appellant was
directed to appear for review alongwith her
presentation. The minutes of the meeting of the
Review Committee itself reveals that she submitted
a self appraisal report and was also invited to
interact with the members of the Review Committee
alongwith a presentation of her contributions
during the period of employment at Indian
Institute of Technology, Jodhpur, the Personal
File of the Faculty Member, Teaching Feedback from
students and Faculty Academic Profile were all
assessed by the Review Committee. The performance
was then objectively considered unsatisfactory and
termination was recommended. It is denied that the
Board of Governors was restricted or influenced in
any manner by the recommendation of the Review
Committee which was but only the expression of an
opinion and did not bind the Board of Governors
who took an independent decision by themselves.
Twenty eight persons including the Appellant were
assessed by different Review Committees some of
 5

whom were terminated, or confirmed and in some

cases probation extended.
6. The Review Committee consisted of eminent
academic personalities headed by a Chairman and
three members. There are no allegations of
personal malafides against the Chairman and
members of the Review Committee and none of them
have been made parties. Similarly the Board of
Governors also consists of eminent persons and
there are no allegations against them also.
7. The last submission was that if it is a
matter relating to academic excellence at higher
level and those reviewing are persons of eminence,
the Court in judicial review under Article 226 may
not interfere on issues which may have
implications for academic excellence and
maintenance of standards in such institutions of
excellence.
8. We have considered the submissions on
behalf of the parties.
9. The services of a probationer can
undoubtedly be terminated for unsatisfactory
performance. A probationer cannot claim a right to
continue for the entire duration of probation. It
can be terminated earlier also. Judicial review
will only examine if the decision was based on
relevant criteria and materials or was it vitiated
by malafides, bias or taking into consideration
irrelevant materials.

10. In matters relating to appointment and

 6

removal involving issues of academic excellence

judged by academic experts especially for senior
faculty positions of Associate Professor in an
institution like IIT the writ court under Article
226 should tread cautiously and unless there are
strong and compelling reasons ordinarily it should
refrain from entering into the arena of academic
excellence and step into the shoes of academicians
to judge merit and competence. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v.
Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 it was observed as

follows :-

"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments

to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position
that in the academic matters, the courts have a
very limited role particularly when no mala
fides have been alleged against the experts
constituting the Selection Committee. It would
normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the
courts to leave the decisions to the
academicians and experts. As a matter of
principle, the courts should never make an
endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of
the experts. The courts must realise and
appreciate its constraints and limitations in
academic matters."

The Appellant was appointed on probation subject

to review of her performance. It is not possible
to accept the contention that there were no
parameters for review of performance which was
therefore subjective in nature. The communication
dated 08.09.2014 to the Appellant mentioned that
she was required to make a presentation. The
minutes of the Review Committee reflect that it
considered her self-appraisal report. The members
of the Committee interacted with her, she made a
presentation of her contributions at the IIT, her
 7

Personal File, Teaching Feedback from students and

Faculty Academic Profile were all considered. It
all goes to show that the Review Committee was
acting objectively when it was assessing her
performance. The recommendation of the Review
Committee was only the expression of an opinion
and it was not binding in any manner on the Board
of Governors. The Review Committee consisted of
the Director, IIT, Jodhpur, the appointing
authority of the appellant as the Chairman. The
three members were Professor Girishwar Misra, Vice
Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi
University, Wardha, Professor Ajit Mohanty, ICS-R,
National Fellow, Former Chairman, Jakir Hussain
Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi, Professor Lilavati
Krishnan, Adjunct Professor, Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute
of Science Education and Research, Bhopal.
12. Any allegation of personal malafides must
be pleaded specifically with material facts in
support of it which must clearly give the
impression of a real and imminent bias rather than
a mere apprehension of bias. Furthermore the
person must be impleaded as party respondent by
name to contest the allegations. Professor
Lilavati Krishnan was not impleaded as party
respondent in the writ petition and the
application filed later to implead her was
rejected and which attained finality. Even
 8

otherwise, allegation of malafides is a serious

matter and ought to be made in the writ petition
itself at the very first instance rather than
sweeping generalized statements in a rejoinder to
the counter affidavit reflecting the formation of
an opinion to allege malafides that the Appellant
may have been unsuccessful wherever the Professor
may have been present. It may raise suspicion or
create an apprehension in the mind but will not
tantamount to real bias in absence of any specific
instance quoted as to how the individual was
inimically disposed to the appellant.
13. The Board of Governors similarly
consisted of Shri Goverdhan Mehta, FRS, FNA,
School of Chemistry, University of Hyderabad as
its Chairman, Shri Kiran Karnik, Former President,
NASSCOM, Mumbai as Member, Shri D.R.Mehta, Chief
Patron, Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayata Samiti,
Jaipur as Member, Shri Pankaj Chandra, Former
Director, IIM Bangalore as Member and Shri
C.V.R.Murty, Director, IIT, Jodhpur as Ex-officio
Member. The report of the Review Committee was
part of the agenda with regard to the appellant
and others duly considered at the Twelfth Meeting
of the Board of Governors dated 27.11.2014 which
decided to accept the recommendation of the Review
Committee. Suffice it to observe that the
recommendation of the Review Committee is speaking
in nature which necessarily facilitated the Board
of Governors in forming their own independent
 9

opinion. There are no allegations of any nature

whatsoever against the Board of Governors.
14. A probationer has no right to hold the
post much less to claim even a limited right to
continue till the expiry of the period of
probation. If the employer is in a position to
assess the capabilities and capacities of a
probationer even before expiry of the period of
probation, unless it has acted on any principles
contrary to the law or there is a statutory bar,
nothing prevents the employer from dispensing with
the services even before expiry of the period of
probation. The submission that an opportunity of
improvement should have been given or a
communication made that she was required to
improve her performance does not appeal to us. The
present was not a routine appointment for
discharge of duties but constituted a position of
expertise in a particular subject in an
institution of eminence. Those making the
assessment, were all people of eminence, integrity
and expertise in the field of academics. The order
of termination of the appellant as probationer is
not stigmatic and was in terms of the conditions
of appointment. Merely because it may refer to the
recommendation of the Review Committee, in our
opinion, does not necessarily call for a situation
where the Appellant as a matter of right should
have demanded the opportunity for improving her
performance.
 10

15. We therefore find no reason to interfere

with the order under appeal.
16. The appeal is dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J. (NAVIN SINHA),CJ.

skant/-