Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Learned Counsel Shri Shukla further submits that the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Recruitment & Condition of Service Rules, 1997, Schedule II provides constitution of selection committee for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, under Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5. Constitution of selection committee was not as provided in Schedule II. There was no SC/ST/OBC members in the selection committee. Reservation provision of Ex-military and handicapped person was not followed. Secretary of education committee was himself candidate he got himself selected and various manipulations were found by the Collector. He has relied on decision of this Court in the matter of similar illegalities where the orders passed by the Collector was upheld. In W.P. No. 5469/1998 (Nityanand Sharma v. State of M.P.) decided on 24-2-1999 along with bunch of various other writ petitions and decision of this Court in L.P.A. No. 263/2001 (Smt. Asha Pateria v. State of M.P. and Ors.). He further submits that appeals were not barred by time before the Collector and Collector has considered the question in para 6 of the order about delay in appeal of Smt. Mamta Pateria. The certified copy was, not supplied to her, hence, the Collector has condoned the delay by reasoned order. Learned Counsel further submits that a writ petition PIL was filed challenging selection which was got dismissed by the respondents on the ground that fresh selection procedure is being adopted as the selection was set aside by the Collector and Commissioner. Thus, the Court was misled by the respondents in believing a wrong fact to obtain dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 382/98. The Collector before passing the order setting aside selection got the enquiry conducted. Devilal Ahir was himself the member and got himself selected as Shiksha Karmi. Various other relatives were also selected and the Block Education Officer, a member, got selected three of his daughters. The total control of the selection committee was given to the Chairman of the selection committee. He was given 11 marks out of total 15 and selection committee totally abdicated its function to its sole member which has destroyed the entire fabric of fair selection process and the very purpose of selection by multi member committee, was frustrated. There were so much discrepancies in the marks as noted by the Collector which makes that the entire interview proceeding was a farce. Large number of candidates were not properly interviewed.

39. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454, held that the fair procedure required that a person who is interested should not only withdraw from participation in the interview and must not take part in any discussion and further significantly it was laid down that even the mark or credit given to that candidate should not be disclosed to him. The procedure which has to be adopted must be fair and in the instant case no record has been maintained of the so-called discussion if any made between the members of the Education Committee and Chairman, before award of marks. Such an open discussion would have effect of destroying secrecy and giving wide room for subjectivity in selection. The record does not show that any deliberation was made. The very purpose of the constitution of selection committee stands frustrated if the marks are to be given by only the Chairman of the Committee then it is total abdication of function by the other members. It cannot be said to be a fair selection process and leaves room for allegations of bias. Performance has to be judged independently by each and every member which was not done in the instant case and in what manner it was judged there is no record. Otherwise also, in the absence of record showing any consultation having been done by Chairman with the members, it cannot be believed even if the contention is accepted that any consultation was made openly before marks were awarded then no secrecy was maintained and persons of the subjective choice of the members could always be selected if such a method is allowed to be adopted which by itself render selection bad. It is not the case that Chairman individually consulted the members. No record of such individual consultation and view expressed by the members in what manner consultation was done, how many marks a member proposed to give is available.

44. Learned Counsel for the intervenors has submitted that the candidates are not responsible for wrong conduct of the interview, hence, they should not be made to suffer. But, as already discussed above, innocence of one cannot come to the rescue of all. There has to be fair selection process for all and overall selection process has to be fair. The argument raised by learned Counsel for the intervenors that the members were illiterate, hence, they had authorized the Chairman to given the marks, is not understandable. It is a selection of teachers. Plea of illiteracy has not been taken anywhere and it does not appear that the members of Janpad Panchayat were illiterate. Plea stands to be rejected and is of no useful purpose to the cause espoused, but, is such which may ultimately have the effect of having adverse impact on the selection itself, but, there is no foundation for such an argument. Hence, the argument raised is irrelevant. In Dr. Triloki Nath Singh v. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 2063, Linguistics expert was not included in the Selection Committee, hence, selection was set aside, but, this question has not to be gone into in the instant case as there is no such foundation made to advance argument of literacy of the members selecting the teachers.