Stipulation Of Higher Merit For Post In Educational Institution Cannot Be Set Aside For Restricting Talent Pool: Delhi HC

A Notification was issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education whereby Rule 7(iii) of the Indian Institute of Management Rules, 2018 dealing with the eligibility criteria of a Director of an Indian Institute of Management (“IIM”) has been amended.

Accordingly, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “By stipulating additional qualification of ‘first class degree in both Bachelor’s and Master’s level and with PhD or equivalent from a reputed institute’, the respondents are only ensuring that the best available talent is considered for the post of Director at IIM. This Court is of the view that stipulation of a higher merit for a post in an educational institution cannot be the basis to set aside the stipulation on the ground that it restricts the talent pool. In fact, the additional stipulation would reduce the possibility of political factors coming into play”.

“Moreover, Section 8(1) of the IIM Act mandates every IIM to be open to all persons irrespective of sex, race, creed, caste or class. The petitioner has failed to justify how the impugned Notification is violative of Section 8 and/or discriminatory on the basis of sex, race, creed, caste or class”, bench further observed.

Advocate Nitin Dayal appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Zubin Singh, CGSC Nidhi Raman, appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the petitioner had contended that Rule 7(iii) of the Rules has been excessively widened from “distinguished academic with PhD or equivalent” to “distinguished academic with first class degree in both Bachelor’s and Master’s level, and with PhD or equivalent from a reputed institute”.

It was further stipulated that it had no nexus with the objective of attracting a visionary leader and institution builder as Director and is detrimental to the interest of both the institution and the prospective students.

It was further argued that such an amendment is contrary to Section 8 of the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017.

The bench further noted that Section 34(2)(b) of the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 (for short ‘IIM Act’) empowers the Central Government to make rules to provide for the terms and conditions of service of the Director under Section 16(2) of the IIM Act.

Cause Title: Firoz Ahmad v. Union Of India And Others