p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.617 of 2025 In the matter an Appeal under Section 10 of the Letter Patent of the Patna High Court, read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 and from judgment dated 11.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.11144 of 2018. …. Dr. (Mrs.) Anita Mohanty … Appellant -Versus- 1. Dr. Biswanath Sahoo, Scientist (Horticulture) at Krushi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Bhadrak. 2. Vice-Chancellor, Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar. 3. Registrar, Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar. 4. The Board of Management, Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar, represented through its Chairman. … Respondents Advocates who Appeared in this case: For Appellant - Mr. Bibhu Prasad Tripathy, Sr.Advocate Along with Mr.S.S. Padhy, P. Mohanty, S. Jena, M.A. Bohidar & B.Pattnaik Advocates For Respondents - Mr.Prafulla Ku. Rath. Sr. Advocate Along with Mr.Sanjay Rath, Gayatri Patra & Swapnil Roy Advocates for R.1 Mr. Saswat Das & Mr.Sidhant Das Advocates for OUAT. …. CORAM HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH p. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing : 06.07.2026 : Date of Judgment : 07.07.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. This Intra Court Appeal is directed against a learned Single Judge‟s order dated 11.03.2025 whereby W.P.(C) No.11144 of 2018 filed by Respondent No.1 herein having been favoured, Appellant‟s selection and appointment to the post of Senior Scientist in the University has been voided coupled with a direction to appoint the said Respondent to the post in question within a period of six weeks. 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tripathy appearing for the Appellant advanced following submissions in support of the Appeal: 2.1. The Appellant does possess the requisite eligibility & educational qualification which aspect having been duly considered by the Selection Committee comprising of experts, her selection was made followed by appointment and therefore, learned Single Judge could not have upset the same. 2.2. It has been a settled position of law that once the experts have accomplished the task of selection after duly considering credential of the candidates in the fray including satisfaction as to they complying with the requisite qualification, ordinarily Writ Courts should not undertake a deeper examination of the same. 2.3. The requisite qualification inter alia is a Ph.D. in the relevant subject, which have been enlisted in the advertisement itself for the post of Sr. Scientist; Appellant, viewed from any angle does possess knowledge of the same subjects that derive from the Ph.D Course, not withstanding the absence of word „Horticulture‟ in the Ph.D. Degree. Page 3 of 10 2.4. The recruitment advertisement dated 26.09.2017 prescribes inter alia a Ph.D Degree in the relevant subject as is dictated by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), which happens to be the fund provider for the project related appointments. For three decades or so, such appointments have been made in the University with the same qualification, which Appellant does possess. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent-University, drawing attention of the Court to the Counter Affidavit & Additional Affidavit, supports the case of Appellant. Both Appellant‟s counsel and the Panel Counsel, press into service certain rulings in support of their submissions. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.P.K.Rath, appearing for the Respondent No.1-candidate resisted the Appeal on the following grounds: 3.1. The Appellant having perpetrated act of fraud & fabrication which are manifest from the record is not entitled to any relief in the Appellate Jurisdiction, the Appeal being continuation of the original proceedings. Fraud vitiates everything and therefore, Appellant‟s appointment procured by fraud is rightly voided by the learned Single Judge. 3.2. The Selection Committee although recommended the case of Appellant for appointment, it has not duly applied its mind to the material on record and blindly proceeded with a wrong premise that her Ph.D Degree satisfies the requirement of the Ph.D. in relevant subject, when he does not. Page 4 of 10 3.3. There is absolutely no material on record as to how the Selection Committee formed an inarticulate opinion as to the satisfaction of the requirement of requisite qualification by the Appellant when apparently he was lacking the same whereas Respondent No.1 satisfied the requirement, his Ph.D Degree being in the domain of Horticulture itself. 3.4. The ICAR as also the Registrar of University has issued certificates to the effect that the Ph.D in Botany cannot be equated the Ph.D. in Horticulture, which is a doctoral degree in the relevant subject. Therefore, the view of the learned Single Judge to the same effect is unassailable. In support of his contention, Mr.Rath relies upon certain rulings. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter by restoring the selection & appointment of the Appellant to the Post of Sr. Scientist (Horticulture) for the following reasons: 4.1. The subject appointments are project oriented and the Project Fund comes from the ICAR as is reflected from the record of the case. Therefore, the University, as of necessity and expediency, has to broadly abide by the instructions of the ICAR, cannot be much disputed. Appellant has produced the list of 38 persons of whom 24 happened to be Ph.D. holders in the domain of Botany. All they have been appointed or promoted as a Sr. Scientist like the Appellant herein or Associate Professor mostly in the Department of Horticulture and such other Departments with which ICAR is associated. Had Ph.D. in Botany was not the requisite qualification, they would not have been selected & appointed to the said positions. In any circumstance, the ICAR would p. 5 have objected to the same. The vehement contention of Mr.Rath to the contrary does not merit countenance when the University counsel also supports the submission of Appellant. The Recruitment Advertisements that related to these persons are not on record does not much factor. 4.2. The Recruitment Advertisement dated 26.09.2017 prescribes inter alia a „Ph.D. Degree in the relevant subject.‟ The Appellant had produced all her credentials as reflected in the certificates. She does possess Ph.D Degree in Botany. In the considered opinion of the Selection Committee keeping in view the past practice of the University, this satisfies the prescribed requirement, there being nothing contra indicative. It is pertinent to mention that the Standing Selection Committee comprised of three subject experts, two of them being designated and two other experts of whom one was the Vice-Chancellor. All these members having duly deliberated on the matter, have unanimously recommended the candidature of Appellant herein. Added, the term „relevant subject‟ appearing in para 4.4.0. of the subject UGC Regulation has been clarified by the UGC in its 2015 letter as under: “The relevance of subject or inter-disciplinary nature of subject is required to be decided by the concerned University/Appointing Authority with the help of subject experts in the concerned/related field as per its requirement.” The University accomplished this task by employing the services of the Standing Selection Committee. That being the position, the learned Single Judge should have loathed to interfere in the matter, in the absence of demonstrable infirmity in the selection process. 4.3. Our above view gains support from the decision of Apex Court in Maharastra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Sriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362 wherein paragraph-9 reads as under: p. 6 “9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.” Mr.Rath‟s reliance on the decision in Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. UOI, (2022) 11 SCC 392 would not much come to the rescue of his client. The Court at para-20 observed that the settled principle of service jurisprudence is to the effect that in the event of a conflict between what is stated in the Recruitment Advertisement and what is provided in the Rules, the latter would prevail. It also said that an erroneous advertisement would not create right in favour of the candidates, who act on such representation. The fact matrix of the Appeal does not attract these propositions, no such conflict being demonstrated. 4.4. It has long been settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in academic matters like the one in this Appeal, the opinion of academic experts should not be likely interfered with by the Writ Courts, which lack expertise vide Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372. As already observed above, the Standing Selection Committee is apparently a Body of Academic Experts of high standing. One is the Vice-Chancellor, who heads it; three are Heads of Departments of Horticulture and allied subjects. Yet, there is an expert in the related p. 7 field of academics. All they having examined the matter, have formed a unanimous opinion to recommend the candidature of Appellant. It is un- understandable as to how such an expert opinion of high ranking professors could have been faltered by the Writ Court, which inarticulately assumed greater expertise. Learned Single Judge appears to have been swayed away by the term “Ph.D. Degree in relevant subject” as meaning the Ph.D. Degree which specifically mentions Horticulture. It is relevant to advert to what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Towne v. Eisner, 245 US 418 (1918) observed about the meaning of words as under: “…A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought, and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used…” The experts obviously have kept in view as to what the University has done with the candidates having the very same qualification as the Appellant herein for decades. It cannot be lightly assumed that experts did not do their job. An assumption to the contrary would be too much to sustain. It is not that the Expert Committee had not considered the credentials of Respondent No.1 on normative basis. 4.5. The contention of Mr.Rath that his client has secured information from the ICAR on 19.05.2025 that Ph.D. Degree in Botany is not an approved discipline under BSMA, would not much come to the rescue of his client. Nothing is placed on record to prima facie demonstrate that such an opinion is formed by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 on the basis of any authentic material or on the advice of Competent Body of ICAR. It is too general in nature, to be acted upon. Same is the case with regard to the ICAR RTI reply evenly dated wherein the following observation appears: p. 8 “Query 1: Whether Ph.D. in Botany is equivalent to Ph. D. in Horticulture. Response: Ph.D. is a research based doctoral degree given in different disciplines/subjects by universities/institutions/organization etc. There is no guideline /document available at this institute for comparison of doctoral degree of different subjects. Each subject is different from other, just as Botany is different from Horticulture…” Mr.Rath also drew our attention to the RTI reply dated 16.06.2025 issued by Controller of Examination, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar to the effect that the Ph.D. in Botany is not equivalent to Ph.D in Horticulture. Each University being an Autonomous Body functions with the statutory framework. The said University is not an Agricultural University unlike the Respondent herein. What worth this opinion would have in matter like this, is un-understandable, to say the least. Why such information was not sough for from the Respondent-University, which has the decisive say in the matter, is not forthcoming. 4.6. It is relevant to mention as to what the Respondent-University has stated in its Counter Affidavit: “..Six nos. of candidates had applied to the post of Senior Scientist (Horticulture) including the petitioner, as per the above advertisement. Out of six nos. applicants 05 (five) nos. of eligible candidates including the petitioner were called for to appear the interview which was held on 27.02.2018 at 10.00 A.M. The selection committee comprising of the following members as per the Statute of 3 (1) (ii) of OUAT Statute, 1966 and Notification No.35639 dtd.25.11.2004 conducted the interview of the candidates who were called for the interview on the scheduled date. (a) Vice-Chancellor - Chairman, (b) Two co-opted members nominated by V.C in consultation with State Government from among the experts in the subject concerning the post for which recruitment is to be made (2 subject experts)- Member; (c) Secretary to Govt. Agriculture Deptt. or his nominees who should not be less than that of Additional Secretary rank-Member; (d) an Academician nominated by the Chancellor… The selection committee on examining all the aspects of the candidates for the post of Senior Scientist Horticulture, recommended the p. 9 candidate on the basis of merit and suitability…. As per the recommendation of the selection committee the 1st recommended candidate Dr. Anita Mohanty…has been appointed as Senior Scientist in AICRP on Vegetable Crops...” Further, in its Additional Affidavit 09.04.2020 filed to the Writ Petition, the University has stated as under: “It is mentioned here that though OP No.3 has registered Ph.D under broader subject Botany but her Ph.D. thesis is "Integrated Nutrient Management in African Marigold (Tagetes Erecta) Cv. Sirakole for higher yield and quality flower". Her guides were Dr. P.K. Mohapatra, Professor, Deptt. of Botany, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack and Dr. C.R. Mohanty, Professor and Head, Deptt. of Floriculture and Landscaping, College of Agriculture, OUAT, Bhubaneswar. The members of the selection committee were the subject experts who certified and recommended her selection after evaluating her Ph.D. thesis. So their expertise in treating the Ph.D. thesis may not be questioned. The question of relevant and concerned should not dilute the knowledge of experts treating a Ph.D. thesis and making a selection of Subject Specialist. In a broader sense Horticulture is a part of parent subject Botany. So the averments are not genuine and submitted to be rejected.” 4.7. The last submission of Mr.Rath that there is fraud & fabrication perpetrated by the Appellant herein and therefore, she should be disentitled to the grant of any relief at the hands of this Court, does not merit deeper examination, in the absence of any specific plea in that regard either at the stage of Writ Petition or at the stage of this Appeal. Not even a whisper is made by the said Respondent. “Fraud vitiates everything” is a broad statement of law made by Lord Edward Coke centuries ago as mentioned in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853. It cannot be chanted like mantra, off hand. The material particulars of fraud as to who, when, how & where committed such act have to be pleaded. A reasonable opportunity needs to be afforded to the other side to meet the same. What is stated in “KERR ON FRAUD AND MISTAKE”, Fifth Edition at Page 1 by Sydney Edward Williams, Part I-FRAUD, being relevant is reproduced: p. 10 “…It is not easy to give a definition of what constitutes fraud in the extensive significance in which that term is understood ... Courts have always avoided hampering themselves by defining or laying down as a general proposition what shall be held to constitute fraud. Fraud is infinite in variety… courts have reserved to themselves the liberty to deal with it under whatever form it may present itself. Fraud … may be said to include properly all acts, omissions, and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence, justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue or unconscientious advantage is taken of another. All surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and other unfair way that is used to cheat anyone is considered as fraud. Fraud in all cases implies a willful act on the part of anyone, whereby another is sought to be deprived, by illegal or inequitable means, of what he is entitled to...” Viewed from any angle absolutely no case is made out as to any shades of fraud attributable to the Appellant herein who had scrupulously staked her claim for selection & appointment, with impeccable credentials, including the services she has rendered in the earlier positions. Shunting her out would be highly inequitable and unjust. Writ Courts are duty bound to do justice, of course in accordance with law. 4.8. Several decisions were cited at the Bar, even in respect of propositions that have been well settled since decades. However, we have considered only relevant of those. Otherwise, this judgment arguably would have been longer than is warranted. In the above circumstances, this Appeal succeeds: the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set at naught; the 1st Respondent‟s W.P.(C) No.11144 of 2018 is dismissed, costs having been made easy. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7th July, 2026/Basu Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY