Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Prakruthi N. Rajgangadkar vs The University Of Agricultural ... on 18 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.9340 OF 2013(S-RES)
BETWEEN
MRS. PRAKRUTHI N RAJGANGADKAR
W/O SATISH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.102, 11TH CROSS
ZAINABHI MANSION
LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK
NEXT TO SBI BANK
CBI ROAD, GANGANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTHANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
REGISTRAR OFFICE, GKVK
BENGALURU-560 065.
2. VICE-CHANCELLOR/CHAIRMAN
OF SELECTION COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
GKVK
BENGALURU-560 065.
2
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
GKVK
BENGALURU-560 065.
4. MRS. RAMYA H. N.
W/O SANTHOSH M. P.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
I FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE
HOLENARASIPURA ROAD
HASSAN-573 201.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI C. G. GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.09.2012 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A APPOINTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, RESERVED FOR
WOMEN (GM) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
ENGINEERING AND A CONSEQUENTIAL WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO RECONSIDER
THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES WHO WERE EMPANELLED AND
APPEARED FOR INTERVIEW ON 02.07.2012 AS REFLECTED AND
SCORECARD AT ANNEXURE-D AND MAKE APPOINTMENT
STRICTLY IN TERMS OF THE SCORECARD GUIDELINES
PRESCRIBED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
AT ANNEXURE-C CONSIDERING HER REPRESENTATION AT
ANNEXURE-H.
3
IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging order of appointment dates 28.09.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent, (Annexure-A), appointing the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Professor, reserved for Women (GM) in the Department of Agricultural Engineering, interalia, sought for appointment to the said post strictly in terms of the scorecard guidelines prescribed by the University of Agricultural Science (Annexure-C).
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, the respondent-University has issued notification dated 06.03.2012, to fill up various posts in different departments including four posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Engineering as per notification produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition. The respondent-University has issued guidelines and procedure for selection to the post of Professor/Teacher, dated 03.12.2007 (Annexure-C) to the writ petition. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent had 4 appeared for interview and in terms of the scorecard produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition, the petitioner has secured 41.90 marks and the 4th respondent has scored 43.22 marks.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner has lost out the job to 4th respondent on account of improper and wrong assessment and recording of score by the interview committee. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent-University by way of representation and as the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed challenging selection of the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Professor reserved for Women(GM) in the Department of Agricultural Engineering.
4. I have heard Sri. I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shivaprasad Shanthanagoudar, for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3; Sri. C.G.Gopalaswamy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Bhargav G., for the respondent No.4; Sri M.S. Nagaraja, 5 learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.5- Government.
5. Sri I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the selection committee has not followed the guidelines produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition and marking of marks is contrary to the same, and the selection committee has deliberately failed to consider the experience of the petitioner as Teacher at College of Agriculture, VC Farm, Mandya, and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he referred to the guidelines providing for award of marks, particularly, Sl No.1(e) envisages for additional qualification in the field and Sl No.4 provides for experience in Teaching/Research/Extension and therefore, he contended that, though the petitioner was working with the University of Agricultural Science, Mysore and Mandya, and same was ignored and on the other hand, respondent- University has selected the 4th respondent based on the certificate issued by one of the private firm-Namdhari Agro Fresh Private Limited, which is contrary to guidelines. 6
6. Nextly, I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel argued that, the selection process has to be made in accordance with the rules and terms of the recruitment notification and every candidate participated in the selection process has vested right for consideration and therefore, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.T.Devin Katti and others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 and in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347. He further contended that the requirement of NET certificate as stated by respondent-University is not required in the present situation, where, ICAR is not conducting any NET for certain disciplines and in this regard, he refers to the corrigendum dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure-L). Emphasizing on this aspect, Sri I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel contended that the appointment of the 4th respondent is vitiated by legal malice and malafide on the part of the respondent- University and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
7
7. Per contra, Sri C. R. Gopalaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for 4th respondent sought to justify the selection of the 4th respondent and further contended that, the appointment has been made as per the Rules and Guidelines provided at Annexure-C to the writ petition and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. He further contended that the petitioner having participated in the selection process cannot challenge the methodology adopted by the respondent- University and therefore, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others in Civil Appeal Nos.2164-2172 of 2023 disposed of on 28.03.2023. He further contended that, there is no statutory violation by the respondent-University and the prayer made in the writ petition is vague and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Sri C. R. Gopalswamy, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.4 further contended that 4th respondent has been appointed and thereafter, she has been promoted to the higher post and accordingly, no interference is 8 called for at this stage as more hardship would be caused to 4th respondent.
8. Sri M.S. Nagaraj, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government reiterates the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4.
9. Sri Srinivsas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University contended that the procedure adopted by the respondent-University is as per guidelines produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition and the Expert Committee as per Annexure-R3 after look into the merit of the candidates and selected the 4th respondent and same cannot be interfered with, by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. In reply to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Clause No.11 of Instructions in the 9 notification dated 06.03.2012, and submitted that, the entire selection process for the post notified is as per the score card and therefore, in this regard, as there is violation of statutory obligation by the respondent-University, he contended that, the submission made by the respondents cannot be accepted. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436. He further contended that the respondent-University never denied the allegations made by the petitioner in the Statement of Objections with regard to the mode of selection process and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the respondent-University has issued notification dated 06.03.2012 to recruit various posts in the University of Agricultural Sciences. Insofar as Agricultural Engineering is concerned, there are four posts, out of which, two posts are general merit (One post reserved for Woman), Category IIA-1 (Woman), SC-1(Woman). Petitioner as well as 10 the 4th respondent appeared for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Engineering. Note to qualification reads as under:
Note:
"1. In exceptional cases where ASRB (ICAR) is not conducting the NET in certain disciplines, the candidates should pass NET in the disciplines approved by the Academic Council in the related subjects: As per Notification No.AO/RT/Quali. Asst.Prof./Direct Rectt./2008-09 dated: 18-7-2008 and Notification No.AO/RT/Quali. Asst.Prof./Direct Rectt./2008-09 dated 3-11-2008, and as approved by the Board of Management in its 337th II Adjourned Emergent Meeting held on 6-8- 2010 and confirmed in the Minutes dated: of 25-11-2010.
Corrigendum No.AO/PS/AC-167/21/Item -
9/Corgndm/2010 dated: 5-2-2010 available on UAS-B Website:www.uasbangalore.edu.in"
12. Clause-I (4) of the Guidelines (Annexure-C) reads as under:
4. Experience in Teaching/ Maximum marks Research/Extension: Experience in allotted=15 the cadre of Instructor/Research i) 0.125 marks for Assistant/Extension Guide/Technical each month of Assistant/Scientific Assistant/Farm service in Manager/temporary appointments as teaching/research Research Associate/Extension /extension worker/Full time SRF/Project Note: To be 11 Scientist/Specialist in an University supported by /College /Government Departments/ authorized Research Organizations / Boards / document issued by Corporations /ICAR Institutes/Similar the competent Institute like ICMR, CSIR, NCERT, authorities.
ICRISAT etc./ Krishi Vignana Kendras/ Statutory bodies/International Organization/Nationalized Banks/ Non
-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) working on Government Projects.
13. Additional qualifications in the field as per Clause-I
(e) of the notification reads as under:
e) Additional qualification in Maximum marks allotted=03 the field i) Post-doctoral experience=2 mark for each of 6 months.
ii) PG diploma/M.Phil not less than ten months duration+ 1 mark for each certificate.
iii) Higher Academic Training
in a recognized academic /
scientific/ professional
Institutions in relevant field
(21 days & above
duration)=0.5 mark for each
training
14. On careful examination of the additional
qualification, where the candidate possessing, Post Doctoral experience, two marks for each of six months and 0.5 mark for each trainee, for possessing certificate from Higher Academic Training, in a recognized academic/scientific/ professional 12 Institution in relevant fields (21 days and above duration).
Clause I (4) stipulates that, 0.125 marks for each month of service in teaching/ research/extension in a cadre of Instructor/Research Assistant/Extension Guide/Technical Assistant/Scientific Assistant/Farm Manager/temporary appointments as Research Associate/Extension worker/Full time SRF/ Project Scientist/Specialist in an University/College/Government Departments/Research Organizations/Boards/Corporations /ICAR Institutes/Similar Institute like ICMR, CSIR, NCERT, ICRISAT etc./ Krishi Vignana Kendras/Statutory bodies /International Organization/ Nationalized Banks/Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) working on Government Projects and a candidate must establish their experience through authorized documents issued by the competent authority. In the present case, as per a corrigendum dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure-L), which stipulates that, adoption of ICAR regulations, regarding NET, as essential qualification for recruitment of Assistant Professor in the University. Modification made in the corrigendum dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure- L) makes it clear that, instead of "Exempted from NET" it has to be 13 read as 'Exempted". Clause 11 under the head of Instructions in the notification dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-B), provides that the selection process, is as per the score card, notified by the respondent-University. In that view of the matter, careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that the 4th respondent, had annexed the experience as Manager-Stores at Namdhari Agro Fresh Private Ltd., which cannot be considered for the purpose of experience in terms of the guidelines referred to above as same would not satisfy the requirement therein. I have also noticed that, the petitioner was working as full time contract Teacher at the college of Agricultural, VC Farm, Mandya, and it is particular under University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore. In that view of the matter, ignoring the relevant documents made by the petitioner and accepting the documents which is otherwise contrary to guidelines produced at Annexure-C, filed by the 4th respondent herein is in violation Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the entire selection process is based on legal malice and requires to be set aside in this writ petition. 14 Though the respondent-University has argued that, the petitioner has not possessed NET certificate, however, same is exempted in terms of corrigendum issued on 05.02.2010 (Annexure- L to the writ petition). The guidelines referred to at Annexure-C, shall be equally applicable to the candidates and therefore, I am of the view that, the respondent-University has not followed the norms governing the essential aspects, such as qualification and experience and the entire process has not been made in terms of the notification and guidelines produced Annexures-B and C respectively. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.T.Devin Katti and others (supra), paragraph 11, which reads as under:
"11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selections in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a 15 candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystalises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selec- tion must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant Rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant Rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of Rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature."
15. In the case of Rajkumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 28 to 31 has held as under:
"28. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of 16 trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission which held as follows: (SCC pp.131, 135-36 paras 21& 30) "21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection."
29. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B.S. Mahajan this court held that: (SCC pp.309-10, para 12) 17 "12. ... it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. ... in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selec- tion so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
30. Again, in Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya, it was iterated that: (SCC p.8012, para 17 "17. ... The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee."
18
31. Public service - like any other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides."
16. In the case of Prakash Chand Meena and others vs. State of Rajastan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484 paragraph 8 reads as under:
"8. Having heard the parties, we have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of some of them and have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge [Prakash Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1898] and the impugned judgment [Dinesh Kumar Panwar v. Suresh Chand, Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1181 of 2012, decided on 1-7-2013 (Raj), 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 3770] of the Division Bench. In our considered view, the issue noticed at the outset must be decided on the basis of settled law noticed by the learned Single Bench that recruitment process must be completed as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and as per Rules existing when the 19 recruitment process began. In the present case, the Division Bench has gone to great lengths in examining the issue whether BPEd and DPEd qualifications are equivalent or superior to CPEd qualification but such exercise cannot help the cause of the respondents who had the option either to cancel the recruitment process if there existed good reasons for the same or to complete it as per terms of advertisement and as per Rules. They chose to continue with the recruitment process and hence they cannot be permitted to depart from the qualification laid down in the advertisement as well as in the Rules which were suitably amended only later in 2011. In such a situation, factual justifications cannot change the legal position that the respondents acted against law and against the terms of advertisement in treating such applicants successful for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III who held other qualifications but not the qualification of CPEd. Such candidates had not even submitted separate OMR application form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III which was essential as per the terms of advertisement."
17. In the case of Parvaize Ahammed Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2015) 17 SCC 709 Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 13 and 16 has held as follows:
"13. As would be clear from the undisputed facts mentioned above, the minimum qualification prescribed 20 for applying to the post of Jammu and Kashmir Forest Service Range Officers Grade I was "BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from any university recognised by ICAR". It is not disputed that the appellant had to his credit a qualification of BSc with Forestry as one of the major subjects and Masters in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry), on the date when he applied for the post in question, which satisfied the eligibility criteria so far as the qualification was concerned.
14. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court that in order to be an eligible candidate, the appellant should have done BSc in Forestry and since he had not done so, he was not considered as an eligible candidate. This reasoning, in our view, does not stand to any logic and is, therefore, not acceptable insofar as the facts of this case are concerned.
15. In our considered view, firstly, if there was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the authority concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, then benefit should have been given to the candidate rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we find that the appellant was admittedly having BSc degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his graduation and further he was also having Master's degree in 21 Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry). In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the appellant was possessed of the prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and his application could not have been rejected treating him to be an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed qualification.
16. In our view, if a candidate has done BSc in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact that Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects in graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in Forestry."
18. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that the awarding of marks by the respondent-University at Annexure-D to the writ petition is untenable and do not pass the list of objectivity recruitment for the post of Assistant Professor under notification dated 06.03.2012, appointing the 4th respondent to the post of 22 Assistant Professor is contrary to the notification and guidelines referred to at Annexures-D and E respectively. Therefore, I am of the view that the appointment of the 4th respondent as per order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-A), requires to be set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent-University to re- consider the case of the candidates who had appeared in the interview, in terms of the notification dated 06.03.2012, afresh and take decision in the matter. This Court, by order dated 27.02.2013, passed an interim order that all further proceedings of the respondent will be subject to the further orders and disposal of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, since, the entire selection process and awarding marks insofar as the appointment of the Assistant Professor under notification dated 06.03.2012, appointing the 4th respondent is contrary to law and in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, it is also to be noted that, the judgments referred to by the contesting respondents in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) is not applicable to the facts on record as the petitioner herein has proved that selection process and methodology of the recruitment is violation of statutory rules, moreover, it is 23 relevant to extract paragraph 12.1 (page 50) of the said judgment.
"12.1 Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/ Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. IN light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, where are based on the attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/ interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done 24 their post- graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been grated either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. (ii) that although the writ petitioners has performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water.
19. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case, and as this Court has already arrived at a conclusion that, the writ petitioner has proved that, the entire selection process has been vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the notification dated 06.03.2012, (Annexure-B) and the guidelines (Annexure-C) has not been followed, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as the petitioner has made out case for interference in this petition. It is useful to extract paragraphs 59 to 63 in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"59. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above board but should be without any affection or 25 aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated. The decision-making process remains bad. [Vide Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn , Rash Lal Yadav (Dr.) v. State of Bihar and Tata Cellular v. Union of India .
60. In State of A.P. v. Nalla Raja Reddy [AIR 1967 SC 1458] a Constitution Bench of this Court observed as under : (AIR p. 1468, para 23) "23. ... Official arbitrariness is more subversive of the doctrine of equality than statutory discrimination. In respect of a statutory discrimination one knows where he stands, but the wand of official arbitrariness can be waved in all directions indiscriminately."
61. Similarly, in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427] , a Constitution Bench of this Court observed as under : (AIR p. 1434, para 14) "14. ... absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. ... the rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known 26 principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law." (See also Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] .)
62. It is a matter of common experience that a large number of orders/letters/circulars, issued by the State/statutory authorities, are filed in court for placing reliance and acting upon it. However, some of them are definitely found to be not in conformity with law. There may be certain such orders/circulars which are violative of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of India. While dealing with such a situation, this Court in Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. came across with an illegal order passed by the statutory authority violating the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court simply brushed aside the same without placing any reliance on it observing as under : (SCC p. 625, para 9) "9. ... The said order was not challenged in the writ petition as it had not come to the notice of the appellants. It has been filed in this Court along with the counter- affidavit.... This order [is also deserved] to be quashed as it is not consistent with the statutory rules. It appears to 27 have been passed by the Government to oblige the respondents...."
(emphasis added)
63. The whole exercise done by the State authorities suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and thus is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be given effect to."
Taking into consideration the observations made above that, the respondent-University has appointed the 4th respondent dehorse to the notification and the guidelines (Annexure-B and C respectively) and the selection of the 4th respondent is in contravention of the same, hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) Order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-A) appointing the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant professor reserved for women(GM) in the Department of Agricultural Engineering is quashed.28
iii) The respondent-University is directed to re-
calculate the marks produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition in terms of the notification dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-B) and the guidelines produced at Annexure- C to the writ petition within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to announce the results accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SB