Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Pursuant to the above advertisement, the appellant applied both for the post of Reader as well as Lecturer. She was interviewed for the same in July, 1989. The Selection Committee constituted for the purpose interviewed nearly 40 candidates for the posts of Readers and Lecturers in Hindi. Having come to know that while preparing the panel for the purpose of appointment to the above posts her name was not included in the panel, she filed YV.P.No. 1/322 of 1989. In the said Writ Petition, she challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee under Section 34-A (1) of the Andhra University Act, 1925. She also claimed that she having married a scheduled caste gentlemen, she should have been selected as a candidate belonging to the Schedule Caste category and a post ought to have been reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. She also contended before the learned single Judge that the selection made by the Selection Committee was arbitrary as the Selection Committee while interviewing her for the post of Reader examined her only for a few minutes and when she appeared for the interview for the post of Lecturer in Hindi and as well as for Correspondence courses, the Committee did not put her any questions and therefore the interview was nothing but a farce. She also alleged that for none of the posts makes were awarded by the members of the Committee either individually or in lumpsum and in such circumstances it gives raise to arbitrariness. She further alleged that the Committee did not award marks separately for qualifications, research experience and other achievements comparatively when they are the prescribed qualifications. Though she was a common candidate for three posts, she alleged that the other candidates were not common and therefore marks have to be awarded for each interview on comparative basis which was not done which rendered the selection a nullity.

9. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under Section 34-A (1) of the Andhra University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Selection Committee for the purpose of appointment of Professors, . Readers and Lecturers shall consist of (1) the Vice-Chancellor; (2) nominee of ":he University Grants Commission; (3) three experts from outside the university to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor of whom atleast two shall be present in the Selection Committee; (4) Chairman of the Board of Studies concerned and (5) Head of the Department concerned. But, under the proviso no person shall participate in the meetings of the Selection Committee for any appointment, if he or his near relative is a candidate for that appointment. Under the second proviso no teacher holding a post lower in rank than the one to which the appointment is to be made, shall be a member of the Selection Committee. In the instant case, according to the respondents, the University addressed a letter to the U.G.C. on 16-6-1989 inviting the nominee of the U.G.C. and reply was received on 11-7-1989; whereas the selections were held in July, 1989. Therefore, from the facts disclosed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is clear that the nominee of the U.G.C. was not present in the Section Committee and therefore the selection made in the absence of the nominee of the U.G.C. is void. Counsel submits that under Section 34-A (1) of the Act, the presence of the nominee of the U.G.C. is mandatory and in the absence of the nominee of the U.G.C. in the selections proceedings, the selections made by the Committee are liable to be set aside. Counsel submits further that the selection process is arbitrary as no marks were allotted to the candidates. Therefore, unreasonableness is a writ large on the face of the selection and hence the selections are liable to be set aside.

21. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, . the Supreme Court observed that-

"It is necessary to point out that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably aritrary or affected by oblique motives. It is only if the assessment is patently arbitrary or the risk of arbitrariness is so high that a reasonable person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable, that the assessment of marks at the viva voce test may be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness............"

33. The Courts will interfere if the assessment is patently arbitrary or risk of arbitrariness is so high, that a reasonable person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable, that the assessment of marks at the viva voce test may be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness.

34. We may now examine whether the test of 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the instant case is satisfied. We have already referred to the proceedings of the Selection Committee. The minutes of the meeting neither refers to the qualifications of the candidates nor the basis of assessment adopted by the Committee. Nothing is discernible from the records. The basis of selection of the candidate is not disclosed. No objective criteria, on the basis of which, the selection was made by the Committee was disclosed from the records. The selection process is writ large with the arbitrariness. Therefore, we have no other alternative except to interfere with the selection of the candidates. It is true that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was made on 8-5-1990. However, in view of our finding that the selection made to the post of Lecturer in University was arbitrary, the selection of 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside.