Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chander vs Maharishi Dayanand University on 29 November, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
Raj Kumar Arora
CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-7050-2009 (O&M).
Decided on: November 29, 2013.
Ram Chander
..... Petitioner
Versus
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Jai Veer Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms.Supriya Garg, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
The object of any process of selection for entry into public service is to secure the best and most suitable person for the job avoiding favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and prejudicially is essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. Whether the selection of respondent Nos.3 & 4 for the post of Lecturer in the Institute of Management and Research in the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak can be termed as a valid selection in the absence of any criteria laid down and without preparation of any merit list by the selection Committee would be vitiated is to be determined in the light of above said observations of the Supreme Court in Leela Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 1 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SC 777.
Brief facts relevant for the decision of present case are that respondent No.1 advertised 5 posts of Lecturer in the Institute of Management Studies and Research (in short IMSAR), vide advertisement No.1 of 2008. Out of said five posts three posts had been reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes category. These posts were not filled and were readvertised vide advertisement No.3 of 2008. The said advertisement contained a stipulation that candidates who had applied in response of earlier advertisement may not apply again. The petitioner belonging to Scheduled Castes category applied to the advertisement on the basis of his eligibility.
Petitioner has placed on record Graduation Certificate Annexure P2/1, Business Administration Degree Annexure P2/2, LLB Professional Degree Certificate Annexure P2/3, DMC of MA Final (Hindi), Annexure P2/4, Degree of B.Ed., Annexure P2/5. To establish that he had passed University Grants Commission Test for Junior Research Fellowship an eligibility required for Lecturership, he has placed on record Certificate Annexure P3 issued by University Grants Commission. He had also passed Haryana State Eligibility Test for Lecturership in schools from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, in the year 1995 vide Certificate Annexure P4. The petitioner has passed University Grants Commission NET examination which is eligibility for Lecturership in Colleges vide 2 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Certificate Annexure P5. So far as his experience is concerned, he worked as Marketing Manager in BM Tours and Travels Private Limited, New Delhi from 15.7.1995 to 15.11.1997. He was interviewed on 6.10.2009. The respondents neither displayed the selection list nor declared the result of the interview. No merit list was circulated, as such, the petitioner submitted an application under RTI Act and on the basis of the information supplied, the petitioner came to learn that respondent Nos.3 & 4 had been selected against the post of Lecturership in IMSAR against the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes category. As per information supplied by the University (i) no merit list of the candidates who had appeared in the interview for selection was prepared by the Selection Committee and
(ii) the Selection Committee had not prepared the merit list as per the demarcation of marks under different heads like educational qualifications and higher education etc. Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that in the absence of any selection criteria, the entire selection is vitiated and that the Selection Committee has exercised unguided powers to make recommendations without awarding marks as such, entire process adopted is arbitrary and improper.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed written statement claiming that the names of the candidates for selection have been recommended by the Selection Committee on the basis of their performance before the Selection Committee and that the 3 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document recommendations were handed over to the Executive Council whicih vide resolution No.9 in its meeting held on 22.11.2008, recommended the decision of the Selection Committee dated 6.8.2008.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have submitted that the Selection Committee constituted as per the statute of Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak has made selection absolutely on merits and that the selected candidates are much more meritorious and experienced than the petitioner. The comparative merit of the petitioner and the respondents has been depicted in the written statement but it is admitted that no criteria has been laid down allocating marks for different traits. A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner having submitted himself before the duly constituted Selection Committee and participated in the selection process, is estopped from challenging the selection process after having been found not suitable. In this context reliance has been placed on Amalan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam and others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 227, observing that a candidate who has subjected himself to a faulty selection process could not be permitted to question the same later on.
Learned counsel for the University has contended that it is the subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee on the basis of opinions of the experts who were deputed as members as such, it is not open to judicial review unless and until there are allegations of mala fide.
4 Raj Kumar Arora
CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 also claimed that they are more meritorious than the petitioner and that absence of any criteria for selection in interview will not ipso facto affect their selection on merit. In this context Rachna Malik Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others, CWP No.14495-2009 decided on 17.9.2009, was relied upon wherein the judgment in case Amalan Jyoti Borooah (supra) was followed while dismissing petition against the selection of posts of Assistant Teacher of Arts and Drawing in University Campus School, Rohtak.
Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 has also placed reliance on judgment in LPA No.1120 of 2011 (O&M), Dr.Munish Garg Vs. Dr. Suresh Kumar and others, decided o 31.10.2011, wherein a Single Bench of this Court had quashed the selection of the Reader in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences of the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, observing that the 13 indicators which were parameters for judging the calibre of the candidates by Selection Committee had not been adopted by laying down a criteria. The Division Bench had set aside the order passed by the Single Bench observing that the selection committee constituted as per Statute 22 (1) framed under Section 15 of Maharishi Dayanand University, Act, had made the selection on the basis of interview. It was not open to the High Court in the exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit as Court of appeal over the selections made by experts bodies for the posts which require 5 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high expertise and the award of lump sum marks in interview based on selection cannot be faulted when no mala fide is alleged.
I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondents. So far as principle of estoppel as raised by the respondents against the petitioner is concerned, it is relevant to mention that in the present case there was neither any criteria of short-listing adopted nor the petitioners were made aware of any criteria before appearing in the selection process. The petitioners could have questioned the validity of criteria only after participating in the selection process in case there was one. As there was no criteria and it was only the subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee, the principle of estoppel cannot be applied against the petitioner. In this context, reliance can be placed on Anil Kumar Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak and others , 2010 (3) RSJ 279. The petitioner is thus not debarred from challenging the selection on the basis of principle of estoppel. It was by participation in the selection process that the petitioner came to learn that it was not guided by any criteria or guidelines for selection. The list of Selection Committee indicates that the nominee of the Chancellor opted not to participate when 17 persons had been interviewed and Committee recommended the names of respondent Nos.3 & 4 against Scheduled Castes category posts. No doubt, it is the Selection Committee consisting of experts and the authorities of the University who is the best judge but where 6 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the Committee is not guided by any criteria or parameters, the same cannot be tested by any authority and is indicative of arbitrariness which violates the principles of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The admitted absence of a senior member i.e., representative of the Chancellor is also indicative of the fact that the Committee was not constituted as per the statute. The Committee which made selection was not as per the statute 22 (1) framed under Section 15 of Maharishi Dayanand University Act, 1975. In the case of Dr.Munish Garg (supra), no fault was found in the constitution of statutory Selection Committee and the said circumstance weighed with the Division Bench to set aside the order of Single Bench.
In the present case, it is admitted fact that Selection Committee had not prepared any merit-list. This information was supplied to the petitioner. When the Selection Committee had not prepared any merit-list it clearly establishes that the selection had been made without any fair, valid or rational criteria to assess the merit of the candidates who appeared in the interview. The Selection Committee gave lump sum marks to the candidates on the basis of their subjective satisfaction. That would have been good enough to arrive at a conclusion after the comparative merit had been assessed. In the absence of any merit-list or individual scores earned in the interview, it can be inferred that entire selection is a farce and is indicative of the pick and choose method adopted by the members of the Selection Committee. It is not made out from any document as 7 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to what traits of a candidates had been considered to assess the comparative merit to find out best suited candidate for the job. Was it the colour of hair or the complexion or the stature of the candidate which weighed with the Selection Committee to ascertain their merit, is not borne out from the record of the respondents.
In view of above, this petition deserves to be allowed and the selection deserves to be quashed. No doubt, respondent Nos.3 & 4 after having been selected on the basis of a process which has been held to be bad, will suffer for the fault of the Selection Committee but the selection having been held to be vitiated, it cannot be sustained. The selection and appointment of respondent Nos.3 & 4, is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondent University to formulate a fair, valid and rational criteria for the purpose of making selectioin to the posts of Lecturer in the Institute of Management Studies and Research and re-advertise the same and make fresh selection in accordance with the criteria notified within a period of three months. The petitioner and all other candidates who were eligible at the time of advertisement would be given opportunity to participate in the selection process irrespective of the fact that anyone of them has been rendered ineligible on account of over-age. The 'comparative merit' of the candidates will be prepared by application of the criteria and fresh selection will be made. The only concession which can be given to respondent Nos.3 & 4 is that they will be permitted to work for the period of next three 8 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-7050-2009 (O&M) 2013.12.06 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document months or till the final selection is made without conferring any right on them to continue in case they are not able to steal march over the other candidates on application of the criteria. In case any criteria has been proposed by University Grants Commission for recruitment of Lecturers, the same may also be taken into consideration for granting marks under different heads i.e., academic record, research performance, knowledge and teaching skills with respect to subject involved and other personality traits to be judged in interview.
The petition is allowed in above terms.
(M.M.S. BEDI) November 29, 2013. JUDGE rka 9