Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shashi Manhas [Dr.] vs University Of Jammu And Ors. on 17 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(2)JKJ251
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.
1. The petitioner has called in question the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Home Science, University of Jammu, primarily on the ground that the expert members of the Selection Committee were not eligible and competent to hold the interview and make selection. In addition to this, it is also urged that the members were not expert in the field. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 alongwith some others were the candidates for selection to the aforesaid post as only one post was advertised vide Advertisement Notification dated 13.10.2001. Respondent No. 4 came to be selected and consequently appointed vide appointment letter dated 22.05.2003 and petitioner remained unsuccessful.
2. The Selection Committee that conducted the interviews of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and other candidates, is the statutory Selection Committee constituted in terms of Section 36 of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969. The relevant extract from said section relating to selection of teachers is noticed herein below:
"36(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, there shall be Selection Committees in a University comprising the following members for selection of teachers and officers for appointment in the University concerned:-
(a) Committee for appointment of teachers:
(i) Vice Chancellor (Chairman);
(ii) Pro-Vice-Chancellor, if any;
(iii) Chairman, Public Service Commission or, a member of the Public Service Commission nominated by him;
(iv) the Head of the University Department concerned (in case of selection of Readers and Lecturers only);
(v) one member nominated by the University Council of the University concerned in the case of appointment of Professors and Readers and one member nominated by the Syndicate concerned in the case of appointment of Lecturers, as the case may be;
(vi) two persons not connected with the University having special knowledge of the subject in which the appointment is to be made nominated by the Vice Chancellor from the panel of experts approved by the University Council in the case of Professors and Readers and the Syndicate in the case of Lecturers:
Provided that the panels shall be reviewed after every two years."
3. The original section came to be substituted/amended vide amendment dated 14.11.2000 which reads as under:-
"(a) Committees for appointment of teachers:
(A) for lecturer or equivalent post:-
(i) Vice Chancellor (Chairman);
(ii) Chairman Public Service Commission or a member of the Public Service Commission nominated by him;
(iii) Three experts having special knowledge of the subject concerned in which the appointment is to be made, nominated by the Vice Chancellor from the panel of experts recommended by the Vice Chancellor and approved by the University Council; provided the panel shall be reviewed after every two years;
(iv) Head of the department concerned; provided that he is not lower than the status of a Readers; and
(v) An academician nominated by the Chancellor;"
4. In terms of amended provisions, instead of two experts as provided in the original section, three subject experts were required to be nominated on the panel of experts by the Vice Chancellor from the panel of experts by the Vice Chancellor from the panel approved by the University Council. This section also prescribes that the panel shall be reviewed after every two years.
5. Based upon the aforesaid provisions, it is contented on behalf of the petitioner that panel was not reviewed after two years and same expert members, who were earlier on the panel, were allowed to continue beyond two years and they have interviewed the petitioner. It is further stated that out of three experts on the panel, two experts, namely, Prof. I. Singh and Prof. Sidhu were anthropologists whereas Dr. Mariam was Psychologist. They were not subject experts, namely, subject of Home Science. It is, accordingly, submitted that selection is vitiated on the aforesaid two counts.
6. In reply filed by the University, it is stated that the panel of expert was approved on 27.04.2001. Advertisement Notice came to be issued on 13.10.2001 and interviews were conducted on 15.05.2003. The panel of experts had been in operation when Vice Chancellor invited them for the interview as they are to be informed in advance for interview, therefore, there was no necessity of reviewing the panel at the relevant time as the panel has its life i.e. two years as prescribed under the Statute. In regard to second contention of the petitioner that they were not subject experts, attention of the Court has been drawn to the Advertisement Notice whereby posts were advertised. Notice specifies one post from open Specialization meaning thereby that the post is not for any specific or particular subject of broader discipline of Home Science and person from any of the allied subjects is eligible for selection. Keeping in view the fact that post was open and experts were from the allied subjects. Anthropology and Psychology also being allied subjects of discipline of Home Science, thus, they were competent to make selection of Lecturer in the discipline of Home Science. In addition to the aforesaid reply filed by the University, respondent No. 4 in its reply has stated that right form inception of Department of Home Science in Jammu University in the year 1988, it has been multi disciplinary department with strong linkages with not only Anthropology and Psychology but also the Education and Sociology. From the year 1988 to 1995, the department was headed by Prof. I. J. S. Jaswal, who was Anthropologist and till date all the appointments in Home Science Department in University of Jammu have been made by the experts from the allied fields.
7. In view of the reply filed by the respondents that the experts from broader discipline of Home Science having expertise in the allied subjects were on the Selection Committee and the fact that the writ Court cannot venture into this field, there is no scope for judicial review. It is for the experts to decide expertise of a Selector for a particular post. The Court has neither any expertise/knowledge nor method to determine the same. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is more meritorious having served with the University on ad hoc basis for a period of one year and has vast experience whereas respondent No. 4 was the student of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that inter-se merit of the candidate is again a matter, which is within the exclusively domain of the experts and selectors. It is a settled law that the writ court, cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision of selection body. The power of judicial review is confined only to the manner and method of making selection and/or violation of any statutory provisions.
8. The Apex Court in a case Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan reported in AIR 1990 SC 434 while considering scope of judicial review in regard to selection by selection body/expert observed as under:-
"It is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize 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. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved maladies affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the instant 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 materials before it. Therefore, sitting aside the selection on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates, as assessed by the Court while sitting in appeal over selection so made would not be permissible."
9. Apart form the above, it is admitted case that the petitioner has participated in the selection process. Though it is stated in the writ petition that at the time of participation in the interview the petitioner had no knowledge of the experts and it is only subsequently she came to know about the experts and discipline to which they belong. It is also stated that since she was a Ph. D. student, she waited for some time and then challenged the impugned order. Admittedly, no objection was raised whatsoever by way of representation immediately after selection. In the present days of competition and necessity of job, challenge to the selection, is a common phenomena. The present case is no exception. Unsuccessful candidates make every attempt to assail selection on permissible or even impermissible grounds. The interference in the selection made by the experts should be resorted to only on valid ground and established facts and not at the mere asking of the petitioner.
In the present case, I do not find that there is any valid basis for interference in selection of respondent No. 4. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.